Who here would defend Ramos's right to buy AR's

A 9mm pistol is already illegal for an 18-year-old to purchase. Lawmakers believe they’re too dangerous in the hands of 18-year-olds.

Yet we won’t make it illegal for them to purchase an AR-15.

I disagree. I see nothing that makes it illegal for an 18 year old to buy a pistol?
{...
An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law.
...}
 
I disagree. I see nothing that makes it illegal for an 18 year old to buy a pistol?
{...
An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same state, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law.
...}
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
It’s simple. No one has an unqualified right to purchase any firearm. You start with that, and solutions come quickerly.m

Don't see your point.
No right is unqualified.
For example, your right to life is forfeit if the police decide to shoot and kill you.

But under what legal pretense can one deny the right to purchase a firearm for defense?
 
Only one set of law makers refuse to address the issue…..the US senate.

All federal firearm laws are inherently illegal and wrong.
If you want to regulate firearms, that has to be done at the state or municipal levels.
 
All federal firearm laws are inherently illegal and wrong.
If you want to regulate firearms, that has to be done at the state or municipal levels.
Every court ruling of the last half century and the 14th Amendment all say otherwise.
 
They have something in common: young and all legally allowed to purchase a long gun, which they then used to murder a bunch of people.

There’s a pattern with all of them and there’s something we can do to address the issue.

Yes, they were all mentally unstable, but could not afford health care access.
 
There was bipartisan support for Slavery, Jim Crow, and Japanese Internment during WWII as well.

You won't like living in a world governed by what is popular at the moment.
Not sure what any of those have to do with raising the age for long guns.

Looks like you’re just being dramatic.
 
Yes, they were all mentally unstable, but could not afford health care access.
A complete fabrication on your part.

There's no evidence either ever sought psychiatric or psychological care and were rejected because they couldn't afford it.

Anyone who is dangerous to themselves or others can get free psychological/psychiatric care by simply going to an ER.
 
Every court ruling of the last half century and the 14th Amendment all say otherwise.

There have been very few SCOTUS rulings in federal firearm legislation, and the latest ones, like Heller and McDonald, are getting around to interpreting the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as it was until 1927.
There was not a single federal firearm law until 1927.
And the trend is now going back to the idea the feds really have no jurisdiction again.
 
Even if the Nazicrats banned ar-15 style guns there are still over 16 million of them in circulation.
Maybe they could have better background checks.
Maybe have some mental stability question such as:
Did you vote for Obama twice?
Does AOC seem reasonable?
Does Chuck Schumer seem like an honest man?
Would you trust Joe Biden to be alone with young girls?
Does Hillary Clinton seem like a pleasant person?
5CB45454-6641-428A-A3CD-40D71CA1C1BF.jpeg
 
There have been very few SCOTUS rulings in federal firearm legislation, and the latest ones, like Heller and McDonald, are getting around to interpreting the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as it was until 1927.
There was not a single federal firearm law until 1927.
And the trend is now going back to the idea the feds really have no jurisdiction again.
No, that was not the logic in either Heller or McDonald.
 

Forum List

Back
Top