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.
I cannot see how that is going to work. 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed upon. I read a report once that America had approx 100 million registered guns - that is not even half of the guns in America which means the bulk are not registered and more than likely hidden. How can they confiscate what isn't registered and cannot be found? They can't.Washington State Dem Introduces Bill to Ban Possession of 'Assault Weapons' - Breitbart
Nope no gun grabbing at all going on...as part of the left coast wouldn't surprise me if this shit passes.
No they won't. The definition is highly arbitrary and there's no basis to prohibit them. Fear and ignorance is not a good reason.'Washington State anti gun politician introduces bill banning possession of "assault" weapons'
However unwise or unwarranted, a measure that is nonetheless perfectly Constitutional.
And such a measure is not 'anti-gun,' as it concerns only specific types of firearms, where other classifications of weapons remain unaffected.
“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[.]”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not prohibiting the possession of AR pattern and similar firearms constitutes a reasonable restriction consistent with the Second Amendment.
Much like most conservatives, oblivious to their inconsistency and hypocrisy.Wouldn't surprise me. The anti gun crowd has to be led around by the nose. They can't think for themselves.
.....The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not prohibiting the possession of AR pattern and similar firearms constitutes a reasonable restriction consistent with the Second Amendment.
Much like most conservatives, oblivious to their inconsistency and hypocrisy.Wouldn't surprise me. The anti gun crowd has to be led around by the nose. They can't think for themselves.
If, as most conservatives maintain, the states have the 'right' to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law, then the states likewise have the 'right' to regulate firearms as they see fit, where you and other conservatives should respect the 'will of the people' of Washington State to prohibit the possession of AR pattern and other similar rifles, whether you agree with the merits of the law or not.
Of course, 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibits the states from compelling women to give birth against their will or denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law; Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, however, still evolving – in time such measures will make their way to the Supreme Court for a final determination as to their Constitutionality, and until that time these prohibitions do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor manifest as 'anti-gun.'
Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.No, and you should know that any ruling that limits the right to acquire arms, through the quise that one might be too dangerous, is subjective and should be thrown out immediately. Unfortunately, liberals have been trying to destroy the second for years.
Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.No, and you should know that any ruling that limits the right to acquire arms, through the quise that one might be too dangerous, is subjective and should be thrown out immediately. Unfortunately, liberals have been trying to destroy the second for years.
Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.No, and you should know that any ruling that limits the right to acquire arms, through the quise that one might be too dangerous, is subjective and should be thrown out immediately. Unfortunately, liberals have been trying to destroy the second for years.
Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.No, and you should know that any ruling that limits the right to acquire arms, through the quise that one might be too dangerous, is subjective and should be thrown out immediately. Unfortunately, liberals have been trying to destroy the second for years.
Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.
The Founders expected us to throw it out every generation. Now what?Well, we write it, and now it needs a rewrite. That sometimes happens, after 230 years.
Interesting. If it needs a rewrite after only 230 years, it had no value to begin with. Proper Morality has existed, unaltered since the beginning of time.
The Founders expected us to throw it out every generation. Now what?
And it's not a "moral" document, in any way, shape, or form.
They "threw" it out when they wrote an entirely new document called, The Constitution. That is not what they were sent to do...The Founders expected us to throw it out every generation. Now what?
And it's not a "moral" document, in any way, shape, or form.
Yet they never "threw it out" themselves, even after decades. Lincoln pissed on it pretty strongly but required the death of 600,000 Americans to do so. It'll take more deaths to get rid of the rest of it.
Well if you had bothered to read the article, you'd have read the description right there.Good, but I hope it is very specific, very.
