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.
The constitution doesn't specify "Firearms". It just says "arms".
And since treaties like SALT and START referred to nukes as "Arms", it would imply that we have a right to keep and bear arms.
Just taking your crazy to it's logical conclusion.
Arms using 18th century would be talking about firearms such as muskets.
Example Sack arms.
Doesn't that kind of show the fallacy of using something written in the 18th century as a guidepost for self governance, then?
if you take the silly notion that "arms" only meant small arms, that they weren't thinking of bigger weapons, but they really, really wanted us to keep "arms" in case we had to throw out any wanna-be Kings, then the notion is outdated... Mostly because today, the government has...
and
and this...
So, yeah, your chances of overthrowing the government is probably unlikely, but you are keeping us safe from those vicious preschoolers...
Give us case law that has shown your right to own a mortar subject to Miller.
Give us case law that supports your right to a mortar under Heller.
The United States has always had some form of restrictions on firearms. To this day, one can see the Colt sidearm Republican Marshall Wyatt Earp surrendered, and forgot to pick up, in Anchorage, Alaska over a hundred years ago.
I am one life-long Republican that no longer gives license to interpretations of the 2nd Admendment that the party has tolerated for so long.
In light of the latest massacre, which makes Boston look like a "Bad Day," licensing of all firearms ownership. A test for safety. A background check that also requires a declaration of no history of mental illness and the taking of drugs to regulate depression, anxiety and other serious disorders. Also, restriction of ownership of weapons that fire more than 5 rounds in a rifle, and 10 for a handgun.
There should be no mall cops in our elementary schools as the NRA suggests. Its time they get on board and start seriously helping to prevent gun violence in this nation.
Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.
Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.
But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.
This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).
Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.
Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.
But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.
This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).
Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.
Do you know anyone that can carry one of those?
Stop with the straw man.
But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.
This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).
Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.
The right to keep and bear............ So stop with the straw man.
You see every day our inalienable rights are taken away--the constitution does not give rights
it only says that your government or any other nation shall not take rights away this means us veterans have fought to preserve the constitution and will fight enemy's both foreign and domestic.
If you think there is a need for more gun laws then it is only because you are afraid of life and scared to death to live it and probably go to bed every night with the lights on.
Do not be afraid we combat veterans will protect you even if it is from yourself and a tyrannic government just like always, so be a good little wimp and just watch.
I carried a m16 in Vietnam in 1967/68 also a 45 used a 30 cal and you wish to now tell me I have to be subject to your foolish rules because you might get hurt, you chicken shit asshole go on let your wife or girl friend or any other pussy man tell you what to do.
You see every day our inalienable rights are taken away--the constitution does not give rights
it only says that your government or any other nation shall not take rights away this means us veterans have fought to preserve the constitution and will fight enemy's both foreign and domestic.
If you think there is a need for more gun laws then it is only because you are afraid of life and scared to death to live it and probably go to bed every night with the lights on.
Do not be afraid we combat veterans will protect you even if it is from yourself and a tyrannic government just like always, so be a good little wimp and just watch.
I carried a m16 in Vietnam in 1967/68 also a 45 used a 30 cal and you wish to now tell me I have to be subject to your foolish rules because you might get hurt, you chicken shit asshole go on let your wife or girl friend or any other pussy man tell you what to do.
Guy, I carried an M16 for a bunch of years, too. I never thought of it as a substitute for my penis like you obviously do.
I'm just curious where you guys were when those kids at Sandy Hook needed protecting. It wasn't the government who killed those kids, it was one crazy person who had a gun he never should have been able to get.
Incidently, there are no "rights". There are only privilages society lets you have.
Any dipshit who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese Americans 1942" to see how fast "rights" vanish
Any who argue that civilians should have access to the same weapons as the military fail.
That simply is not contemporary America law or interpretation of the Constitution.
But the reason you guys give as to why YOU need an assault rifle with a high-capicity clip, and teflon coated bullets that can penetrate police body armor, is because, gosh darn, you might need to fight the government some day.
This is your whole rational. Otherwise, we could just limit private ownership to revolvers (for home protection) and bolt-action long guns (for hunting) and shotguns (good for either).
Letting civilians own war weapons, that only makes sense if you are actually planning to go to war, and you'd still be outclassed.
The right to keep and bear............ So stop with the straw man.
Well-regulated Militia... so stop with that straw man.
[
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
[
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)
The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)
Everyone just kind of goes along with it.
Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.
[
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Government passes a law saying only members of the Militia have guns. Membership in the militia is restricted to non-crazy people. (Well, you're out.)
The people support it. A few scary assholes have fights with the ATF and wind up in body bags. That just encourages people that we need more laws. (Keep in mind, after Waco and Ruby Ridge, we got more laws, not less.)
Everyone just kind of goes along with it.
Sorry, man. It's only a "right" if everyone goes along with it. People aren't going along with it anymore.
No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.
Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar
That is exactly what miller was.No civilivan has a right to mortars, and no one can ban all guns.
Miller ruling says you can't ban the weapons obama is wanting banned.
Sinp.....
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar
You are one stupid turd ball, if that's what you got out of Miller.
