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.
Police powers are Mafia powers, a.k.a. Mob rule, in Chicago. There's a mobster in the back room who "has it made" (as a "made man") and calls all the shots in that shithole town, and they wonder why it's all on fire and burning down.Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
NO.Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
They don't have business "regulating" away our rights they are not supposed to be infringing in the first place.
Police powers are Mafia powers, a.k.a. Mob rule, in Chicago. There's a mobster in the back room who "has it made" (as a "made man") and calls all the shots in that shithole town, and they wonder why it's all on fire and burning down.Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
That "would" be true if city cops stayed within their city limits. But that's too much wood to cut.I am not to worried about cities doing gun control laws I do not like.
One reason is they tend not to, and another is that I can avoid a city if I want.
This is true. Federal ATF cops are gay male heavy smokers who breathe heavy down your neck with fingerprints, extended anal probe background checks, etc., and they work up a domestic violence rape kit for every gun purchase just because they can.My main concern if federal gun control, because they are the ones that can prevent the guns I want from even being made or imported.
If my finger wasn't on the trigger when they were shot and killed, then my gun rights should not be revoked.... conflict between the rights of multiple different individuals.
For example, just like we don't want someone to drive drunk, they likely should not be getting drunk and be armed at the same time.
Gun rights are not unlimited ...
Assault is an act therefore bats are assault weapons, fists are assault weapons, Cars are assault weapons, rocks are assault weapons any objected can be called an assault weaponEVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.semiautomatics are not assault weapons
they all use the same method to fireEVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
Dr. Phil had an anti trumper on his show today that girl had mental issues.,But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.
They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned. Due process.
Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothingthey all use the same method to fireEVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
As per the 2A...the people who are in a Well Regulated MilitiaWhich means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Yes, it does. Otherwise it is merely the Second Article of Amendment.An amendment in the Bill of Rights does not have to be a constitution unto itself in order to define jurisdiction.
Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia. It's a moot point anyway, because Dan keeps insisting that the militia is the entire people, which comes right back around to it being an individual right. When the Amendment was written, the writers knew that the militia wasn't always in use and that the people had to be armed so they could be called into it when needed. IOW, they had to have weapons in their homes.As per the 2A...the people who are in a Well Regulated MilitiaWhich means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Not all of them had arms.The end the founders contemplated when drafting the 2A was the security of a free state. States protected themselves with a militia made up of ordinary citizens who were armed and ready to respond do the call to arms.
Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The State not Individuals of the People.Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
That's not what it says. You're just making that up.The State not Individuals of the People.Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view. If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary". Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
= Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
= The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.
Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.
Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.
Yes, it is. You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.That's not what it says. You're just making that up.The State not Individuals of the People.Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
