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.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.
Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.
That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.
On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.
No, it doesn't. Well regulated is a term that at the time it was written meant "in good working order" or do you claim that there was a law governing the usage of clocks that have that engraved upon them?
If you wish to use the meaning like that then you need to use that same for the rest of the 2nd. You are only authorized Muskets. You can't have it one way and then the other way. Either take it one way or the other way. Let's break it down the other way.
The States have the right to project their SDFs without Federal interference. And, unless it affects national security and interstate, the States determine the laws on just about everything including firearms regulation.
You can't gave it both ways and expect cooperation.
I refer you to the aforementioned SCOTUS ruling where it was held that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because "it had no foreseeable military purpose"
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights. It says so in the first clause. The second clause, merely follows the first clause.Our 2nd Amendment's operation is to protect a pre-existing right of the people.
Nothing has substantially changed since the 2nd's ratification that makes it invalid.
.
The Second Amendment is a God-given right to protect ourselves and our loved ones against any form of tyranny, whether it be criminals or an out of control government.
The Bible has alot to say about that right...
What Does the Bible Say About Defending Yourself?
If you have been convicted of a felony involving a firearm, you never, ever, ever get to own a firearm, ever again....If felons have paid their debt to society and have been released they should have all rights restored.
What good is a ban when you have people who can make their own AR's? What good is a ban when there are over 15 million AR's in the public hand? Why ban an AR when it will get struck down in the Supreme Court because AR's are in common use now when they weren't in 94.Very few gun-control advocates favor seizure... some here do it just to get a rise out of gun-rights advocates....Good luck with that I suggest you start in those blue inner leftist run cities those will be easier targets when you get done with them bring plenty of replacements and body bags
For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.
.
Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?
How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?
There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.
Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.
As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.
And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?
Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?
How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?
There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.
Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.
As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.
And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?
all you have to do is look whats happening in hong kong as we speak as to why a person needs such a weapon,,,
and why I want or need it is not subject to your feelings,,,
if you dont like it move to hong kong or some other place that fits your feelings...
I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?
How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?
There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.
Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.
As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.
And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?
There are many reasons why it was successful then and why it would fail today and end up with less than 5 body counts.
I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.
How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?
There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.
Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.
As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.
And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?
all you have to do is look whats happening in hong kong as we speak as to why a person needs such a weapon,,,
and why I want or need it is not subject to your feelings,,,
if you dont like it move to hong kong or some other place that fits your feelings...
That's not how things work. All Americans get a chance to decide how we run this country and what laws we make and enforce. The Non-Gun owning population now stands at 69%. The non-gun owners have the majority and it is increasing. When the non-gun owning majority finally has the votes, they will pass laws and enforce those laws and gun owners will be forced to obey them or face criminal prosecution and potentially jail.
Handguns won't save Hong Kong from the Chinese military either.
I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
I have multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
False.I have multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge it.I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
It does not take three months to learn firearm safety. It takes half a day.01. Attend three month class on firearms
Why do you -assume- this will happen?300 civilians with guns in a Walmart. What could go wrong? They all pull out their weapons when they hear the shots.
It does not take three months to learn firearm safety. It takes half a day.01. Attend three month class on firearms
Not even the military gets a three month class on small arms. Again, half a day. Then some time on the firing range once in a while.It does not take three months to learn firearm safety. It takes half a day.01. Attend three month class on firearms
This class is far more than just firearm safety. If a civilian is to be as knowledgeable and well trained as those in the military and police force on things pertaining to firearms, then the extra time is well deserved. Just as important, it will deter many civilians from getting a gun since many will not want to take a 3 month class on firearms. This serves the objective of reducing the number of firearms among the civilian population.
False.I have multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge it.I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter.
Your "rational reasons" rest on logical and factual fallacies - and as such, are both irrational and unsound.
You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek, and thus, there's no rational reason to implement them.
Show me one country which requires a three month class.False.I have multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge it.I accept your concession, that you cannot provide a rational reason for the restrictions you want.There is no rational reason for a civilian to own a handgun that can kill 36 people and injure another 30, in minutes.For no rational reason whatsoever.
Your "rational reasons" rest on logical and factual fallacies - and as such, are both irrational and unsound.
You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek, and thus, there's no rational reason to implement them.
According to you. Not according to other countries that have already implemented these policies and many in Police and Security services in the United States who state such policies would make their work at protecting the public much easier.
Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.
How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?
There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.
Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.
As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.
And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.
The Virginia TECH mass shooter used a handgun to kill 30 people and injure 26 more in just 11 minutes from 9:40 AM to 9:51 AM back in 2007 in a class room building. He killed two people before he entered the classroom building. 32 dead, THIRD WORST MASS shooting in U.S. history! The weapon of choice was a HANDGUN!
Explain to me why a civilian needs a weapon that can KILL over 3 dozen people within minutes?
There are many reasons why it was successful then and why it would fail today and end up with less than 5 body counts.
Really, what reasons do those happen to be? You can still buy the handguns that the Virginia Tech shooter used. All it takes is the right target after that. A similar mass shooter could repeat the same body count at Virginia Tech at any McDonalds during lunch hour around noon. The list of good targets is massive.
