Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(1) No one is coming to take away your weapons.Yeah...and the ever so-great US military has been so VERY successful in Afghanistan against "farmers."Only individuals with a "Federal Firearms License" can actually own "military" weapons of war and the last I checked, our average American citizens don't possess such a license, what they do possess are weapons that have the "physical appearance" of military style weapons but lack the fully automatic capabilities. There's also the fact that there are 300 million firearms in the hands of approximately 80 million "legal and law abiding" owners who are no threat to the gun-grabbing far-left (proto-communist) liberals. However, should the gun-grabbing idiots get back into control of the federal government and make a serious attempt to confiscate our weapons, then you will see a civil war. If even 10% of that 80 million fight for the right to maintain their weapons rights, that is 8 million fighters determined to take back their civil right to bear arms and the last I checked, all military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution and elements of the military would break off and side with those fighting to retain their weapons rights. The US has been bogged down fighting illiterate elderly and young fighters armed only with AK-47's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive devices for 15 years and are no closer to winning than when they began and if you think thousands of illiterate elderly and young fighters are stubborn and deadly, think 8,000,000+ educated and stubborn fighters.You have guns.
You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.
What a damn fantasy. Yep, eight million gun-owning rednecks are going to "save" the Republic. Of course, the first thing you need to happen is for part of the military to break off and join the cause. Hopefully it will be the Air Force, right? I mean come on, a bunch of numbnuts toting AR-15's chambered in the .223? Hell even twelve year olds with AK-47's would be more destructive, and probably more disciplined too.
No, I doubt Jesus wants you to have a weapon of war.You have guns.
You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.
My right to Weapons of War comes from a power far higher than the COTUS.
Lol, 60k Taliban have been giving the US military a good run for the money and you dont think 8 million Americans, most with military training, are capable of doing better?What a damn fantasy. Yep, eight million gun-owning rednecks are going to "save" the Republic. Of course, the first thing you need to happen is for part of the military to break off and join the cause. Hopefully it will be the Air Force, right? I mean come on, a bunch of numbnuts toting AR-15's chambered in the .223? Hell even twelve year olds with AK-47's would be more destructive, and probably more disciplined too.
Lol, 60k Taliban have been giving the US military a good run for the money and you dont think 8 million Americans, most with military training, are capable of doing better?What a damn fantasy. Yep, eight million gun-owning rednecks are going to "save" the Republic. Of course, the first thing you need to happen is for part of the military to break off and join the cause. Hopefully it will be the Air Force, right? I mean come on, a bunch of numbnuts toting AR-15's chambered in the .223? Hell even twelve year olds with AK-47's would be more destructive, and probably more disciplined too.
If so, then you are mind bogglingly more stupid than I thought, and I didnt imagine that was possible.
BTW, far more than 8 million Americans own guns, too, dumbass.
Here is a list.
State ..........#Gun Owners......... state pop... percent that own guns
Texas ........"9,623,634.01" "26,956,958" 35.7
California .. "7,799,302.50" "38,802,500" 20.1
Florida ...... "6,465,321.53" "19,893,297" 32.5
Penns....... "3,465,333.64" "12,787,209" 27.1
Illinois ....... "3,374,711.96" "12,880,580" 26.2
Georgia .... "3,190,760.39" "10,097,343" 31.6
Michigan ... "2,854,044.58" "9,909,877" 28.8
N Carolina "2,853,917.67" "9,943,964" 28.7
Tennessee "2,580,444.69" "6,549,352" 39.4
Virginia ..... "2,439,602.68" "8,326,289" 29.3
Alabama ... "2,371,345.35" "4,849,377" 48.9
Ohio ........."2,272,455.95" "11,594,163" 19.6
Indiana ..... "2,229,736.99" "6,596,855" 33.8
Arizona .... "2,174,269.33" "6,731,484" 32.3
S Carolina "2,145,622.01" "4,832,482" 44.4
Louisiana "2,069,105.82" "4,649,676" 44.5
New York "2,033,861.38" "19,746,227" 10.3
Minnesota "2,002,782.49" "5,457,173" 36.7
Wisconsin "1,997,874.71" "5,757,564" 34.7
Wash(st) "1,956,043.81" "7,061,530" 27.7
Kentucky "1,871,305.77" "4,413,457" 42.4
Colorado "1,837,062.04" "5,355,866" 34.3
Arkansas "1,717,527.65" "2,966,369" 57.9
Missouri "1,643,232.62" "6,063,589" 27.1
Mass..... "1,524,462.21" "6,745,408" 22.6
Miss........ "1,281,465.81" "2,994,079" 42.8
Maryland "1,237,116.25" "5,976,407" 20.7
Oklaho.... "1,209,951.91" "3,878,051" 31.2
Nevada ..."1,064,661.75" "2,839,098" 37.5
Oregon ..."1,056,083.57" "3,970,239" 26.6
Iowa ........"1,050,208.59" "3,107,126" 33.8
N Mexico "1,040,700.43" "2,085,572" 49.9
N Jersey "1,010,013.78" "8,938,175" 11.3
W Virginia "1,002,876.69" "1,850,326" 54.2
Utah ........ "938,785.74" "2,942,902" 31.9
Kansas .... "935,094.76" "2,904,021" 32.2
Idaho ......."930,010.02" "1,634,464" 56.9
Hawaii ..... "640,222.01" "1,419,561" 45.1
Connecticut . "597,048.38" "3,596,677" 16.6
Montana ...... "535,331.82" "1,023,579" 52.3
Alaska ..... "454,563.64" "736,732" 61.7
Nebraska .... "372,537.59" "1,881,503" 19.8
N Dakota .... "354,211.88" "739,482" 47.9
Wyoming ..... "314,274.31" "584,153" 53.8
Maine ...... "300,600.11" "1,330,089" 22.6
S Dakota ..... "298,611.25" "853,175" 35
N Hampshire "191,061.07" "1,326,813" 14.4
Vermont ......"180,449.86" "626,562" 28.8
Dist Col....... "170,653.29" "658,893" 25.9
Rhode Isl....... "61,200.03" "1,055,173" 5.8
Delaware ....... "48,651.93" "935,614" 5.2
Total number of armed American civilians "91,770,148.23"
the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupidWhat on Earth are you talking about? I never made the claim that an AR15 was essential for self defense, or even the preferred self defense weapon. I made zero comments about that.
Literally the only thing I said is that an AR15 is not an ideal military weapon.
Then what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.
how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?
It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupidThen what is your argument? Why do you believe the right to own an AR-15 is constitutionally protected? I am talking about the standard. I am talking about the Appeals court ruling. I am telling you WHY the AR-15 is not constitutionally protected. It is not ESSENTIAL for self-defense and therefore IS NOT protected by the second amendment.
how about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?
It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupidhow about you average everyday .223 semiautomatic ranch rifle?
and where does it mention on the second that only arms essential for defense are protected?
It does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupidIt does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are
I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous
the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government
the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupid
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are
I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous
the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government
Outstanding. Then go buy a Mini 14. Obviously, since the Mini 14 is damn near the same as an AR-15, banning the AR 15 presents absolutely no burden on the second amendment and the ability to defend one's self.
It is case law, on a case by case basis.the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupidIt does not say it within the second amendment. But it IS the standard under the Heller decision. Rather or not a particular firearm is protected by the second amendment, which is now an individual right based in self-defense, is rather or not the inability of having access to that particular firearm significantly hampers one's ability to defend themselves. Rather or not that review is done under "strict scrutiny", or "intermediate scrutiny" was the question before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it should be done under intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the ban on the AR-15 and other assault rifles. That ruling was not the first, it was the THIRD ruling confirming the intermediate scrutiny test by a Federal Appeals Court. One, out of the three, out of the Second Court of Appeals, was CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS. This is old news.
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are
I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous
the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government
No, I doubt Jesus wants you to have a weapon of war.
Anathema, are you the instructor on Natural Law?No, I doubt Jesus wants you to have a weapon of war.
Jesup has nothing to do with the higher power I talk about. Religion, of all types, is surpassed by Universal Morality
a ban on a gun is not a case by case basis you idiotIt is case law, on a case by case basis.the second amendment does not mention defensedoesn't make it any less stupid
and civilians cannot buy "assault" rifles. Civilians able to buy semiautomatic riflles which btw have been around since the 1860's
it seems like most of the problem is die to the ignorance of judges and most of the population when it comes to guns
I agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are
I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous
the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government
Not until a widely acceptable agreement is reached on just what the term, "weapons of war," actually refers to -- starting with the atomic bomb and considering that the very ordinary pump action 12 gauge shotgun was effectively (and preferably) used in the jungles of Vietnam.(1) No one is coming to take away your weapons.
(2) No one in the future is going to take your weapons.
(3) Citizens have no constitutional right to "weapons of war," a finding which Roberts' court will uphold particularly with Gorsuch coming on board.
Anathema, are you the instructor on Natural Law?
yes, it is, if it happens by case law and not code law.a ban on a gun is not a case by case basis you idiotIt is case law, on a case by case basis.the second amendment does not mention defenseI agree when it comes to ignorance. Not really sure we agree on which side. Like in this case. It is not about semi-automatic. And yes, you are right, they have been around awhile. It is about high capacity detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding-stocks. Things that make the weapon inherently OFFENSIVE. Remember, the second amendment is about self DEFENSE.
Look, this is really pretty simple. Thing of a AR-15 in a .223. Sure it is great fun at the range. But self-defense, not so good. And with a high capacity magazine, why about the only thing it is really good at is bouncing bullets off walls and inside of first graders or theater goers. So, we ban them. And like I said, it is simple. That banishment does not make anyone less safer in the area of self-defense. Shit, someone replaces their glorified bb gun AR-15 with a real gun, like a semi-automatic shotgun, they have probably improved their self defense. But it does protect us from rampaging idiots letting loose on unarmed children and innocent civilians.
and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?
I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon
If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want
Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.
But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.
And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.
and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are
I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous
the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government
Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.You have guns.
You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.
You have guns.
You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.
Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.You have guns.
You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.
