Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto M4 carbine?

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a hellvea time not understanding what the words "shall not infringe" means, don't you?

Machines guns are legal in the US. I know because I have one.

All machine guns would be more available if it wasn't for that goddamn NFA law.

There has only been one case where the NFA has been challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. In that case (Miller) the Court said that firearms in general use by the military are protected under the Second Amendment.
M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.

BTW, for training purposes I have 4 bushmaster M4s with the happy fun switch. They stay down at the sheriff's lockup and they let us use their range. Plus they think it's great fun because we let them play too.

We cannot carry them domestically but the guys need to be exposed to them for when we escort someone outside the US. Mostly south America.

But I am intimately familiar with the amount of damage you can do with select fire weapon, even if you don't go to full rock and roll.

And yes, I have both an FFL and an SOT.
 
We just lost a 20-year war to fucking Afghanistan.

It proves the time-tested truth about war. You can dominate the air but you can never control the ground without boots on it. They will never have even close to the numbers we have.

I like my chances.
We had no clear goals in Afghanistan. Mission creep killed any victory we might have had.
 
You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a hellvea time not understanding what the words "shall not infringe" means, don't you?

Machines guns are legal in the US. I know because I have one.

All machine guns would be more available if it wasn't for that goddamn NFA law.

There has only been one case where the NFA has been challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. In that case (Miller) the Court said that firearms in general use by the military are protected under the Second Amendment.
In fact, they said that the Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. The Court made it even further clear by holding that the Court cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument in absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The Court further held that it is not within judicial notice that such a weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

But, what is ordinary military equipment? What weapons could contribute to the common defense?

M4, M249s, M203 grenade launchers, etc.

Any weapon a soldier uses, we get, so that we can provide for the common defense.
 
M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.

BTW, for training purposes I have 4 bushmaster M4s with the happy fun switch. They stay down at the sheriff's lockup and they let us use their range. Plus they think it's great fun because we let them play too.

We cannot carry them domestically but the guys need to be exposed to them for when we escort someone outside the US. Mostly south America.

But I am intimately familiar with the amount of damage you can do with select fire weapon, even if you don't go to full rock and roll.

And yes, I have both an FFL and an SOT.




The 2nd Amendment stipulates that the PEOPLE be armed with the most current weapons available. It doesn't stop with the technology that was in effect when it was written.

We Know this because cannons, real big guns were owned by citizens from the very beginning. But, fascists, like you, try and bury the real history, and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which was, and is, and will soon be again....

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
 
Can you show me that text?





Yes, it is in the quotes I presented. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow an illegitimate government. Thus the Founders rightfully stated "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

So simple a moron can understand.

And there is no way you are a Class III.
 
Those are not part of the text of the amendment.




"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."
 
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify. Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?




Were you born this stupid or did you have to work on it?
 
"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."
On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?
 
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify. Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?
Ah, the nuclear bomb red herring.

WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES cannot get nukes. Not even a problem.

Besides, given the Miller case, a nuke is not a weapon with any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of service in a well-regulated militia, so your strawman can go fuck itself.
 
Ah, the nuclear bomb red herring.

WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES cannot get nukes. Not even a problem.

Besides, given the Miller case, a nuke is not a weapon with any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of service in a well-regulated militia, so your strawman can go fuck itself.
On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?
 

Forum List

Back
Top