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.
And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.You are right they aren't calling for a ban on all weapons, Just those weapons that have been ruled Constitutionally protected by the second amendment.
Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
I guess if you haven't heard about Miller vs U.S. you are inadequate to proceed with any discussion on the second amendment.There you go. Justify your paranoid fear. No one is calling for a ban on all weapons. And even if 'some' people say they are, they are not people in power. Even the most liberal Senator like Schumer supports the second amendment. But you can't accept moderation. You just can't fathom that because you believe everyone on the left HAS to be as ultra extreme and absolutist as you are. But you represent a tiny segment of the population. Even a vast majority of NRA members are behind universal background checks.
You are right they aren't calling for a ban on all weapons, Just those weapons that have been ruled Constitutionally protected by the second amendment.
Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.
In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
americans have more ar15's than they do ipads.
what's an ipad? A new ak platform rifle?
In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
How can they be considered a "well regulated militia" when none of the guns are registered?
Not "well regulated" at all in that case.
Except New York Governor Cuomo just said:
See, this is how the chicken little folks hear only what they want to hear. Is Cuomo talking about all guns? Do you even know, or are you too busy hiding under the house?
I notice you skipped over my proof that somebody is openly admitting they want to ban guns. Even the ones that claim they don't want to ban guns, like Obama, are saying that there is no political capital to ban them, not that they do not want to ban them.
See, this is how the chicken little folks hear only what they want to hear. Is Cuomo talking about all guns? Do you even know, or are you too busy hiding under the house?
I notice you skipped over my proof that somebody is openly admitting they want to ban guns. Even the ones that claim they don't want to ban guns, like Obama, are saying that there is no political capital to ban them, not that they do not want to ban them.
Now I understand, you are ADHD. I answered that in the post you originally responded to, and answered it again in my dismissal of your ignorant response. Tell me Einstein, is the blogger Myrddin who you cite as someone calling for a ban on guns someone in power??? I already said you could find ''some people (who) say they are", but are not in a position of power. And, if you read the blog Myrddin posted, he sounds more for moderate gun control, but has seen how the NRA and moron paranoid absolutists like you will not even discuss sensible gun laws, so maybe it's time to really push back, and call for a total ban, so moderate changes can be made.
I support the 2nd amendment. I don't believe we should ever ban all guns, or even most guns. And I honestly believe President Obama supports the 2nd amendment, and would never call for a total ban of guns even if he had the power. But you right wing turds always forget that we are a nation of laws, not edicts. NO president has the power to make any drastic changes without Congress passing laws, and the Courts deeming them Constitutional.
And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
americans have more ar15's than they do ipads.
what's an ipad? A new ak platform rifle?
And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
In Miller vs. U.S. it was ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use at the time, and supplied by the individual citizen. Any restriction such as magazine or ammo would hinder the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
How can they be considered a "well regulated militia" when none of the guns are registered?
Not "well regulated" at all in that case.
And nothing being proposed would ban "dangerous and unusual weapons." They would ban weapons "in common use for defense" which is a criterion the court set.Total made up in your little brain bullshit...
Even the right wing robes Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito held:
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
-finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Look like you fail again, hairboy.
The assault weapons and large clips have deemed THEMSELVES 'dangerous and unusual weapons' by the human carnage they have inflicted on innocent citizens and children.
There is NO need for any law abiding citizen to own that much instant firepower...NONE.
See, this is how the chicken little folks hear only what they want to hear. Is Cuomo talking about all guns? Do you even know, or are you too busy hiding under the house?
I notice you skipped over my proof that somebody is openly admitting they want to ban guns. Even the ones that claim they don't want to ban guns, like Obama, are saying that there is no political capital to ban them, not that they do not want to ban them.
Now I understand, you are ADHD. I answered that in the post you originally responded to, and answered it again in my dismissal of your ignorant response. Tell me Einstein, is the blogger Myrddin who you cite as someone calling for a ban on guns someone in power??? I already said you could find ''some people (who) say they are", but are not in a position of power. And, if you read the blog Myrddin posted, he sounds more for moderate gun control, but has seen how the NRA and moron paranoid absolutists like you will not even discuss sensible gun laws, so maybe it's time to really push back, and call for a total ban, so moderate changes can be made.
I support the 2nd amendment. I don't believe we should ever ban all guns, or even most guns. And I honestly believe President Obama supports the 2nd amendment, and would never call for a total ban of guns even if he had the power. But you right wing turds always forget that we are a nation of laws, not edicts. NO president has the power to make any drastic changes without Congress passing laws, and the Courts deeming them Constitutional.
