- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 8,834
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Well there is that but seriously they were a tough opponent.
There was nothing tough about the VC other than our reluctance to win...
Well there is that but seriously they were a tough opponent.
There was nothing tough about the VC other than our reluctance to win...
that's moronic. Civilian police departments who cannot shoot people under circumstances different than we do have them
This sort of comment is not going to go well for you. He is right, many dems have tried to destroy our second amendment rights.
Read a history book. Then you'll know who in fact is being moronic.
Tip: Washington said of militias, it was leaning on a broken staff (I paraphrase). He urged strongly for a standing military and military academies, but the Continental Congress was having no part of it. They believed solely in citizen militias for national defense. Fact.
Terrific. What's 1/3rd of Congress (lower chamber)? 170 or so? Name 17 (1/10th) who actively seek to eliminate gun ownership. Good luck.
I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.
That is dishonest because the GOP has held congress the last two years and no anti gun laws were able to come up
here are some people who want to ban some guns
Obama
Biden
Schumer
Feinstein
Levin
Brown
Boxer
the Late Loutenberg
Indeed 39 Dem senators supported an AWB
Nope. Also AWB is not eliminating 2A rights any more than a ban on your carrying a nuke is.
that is so moronic you are now on the "cannot ever be taken seriously" list
if cops use them than the rest of us civilians should too
that is as stupid as saying a ban on Jewish synagogues or Catholic churches does not violate the first amendment as long as there are Buddhist Temples and Anglican cathedrals
Then why respond? Taking it seriously would contradict.
Didnt I clarify that name calling and calling out is not needed in this thread.I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.
Nope. Also AWB is not eliminating 2A rights any more than a ban on your carrying a nuke is.
Obama would ban guns if he could He cannot so he incrementally pisses on our rights
How is it not. Nothing different on an "assault rifle" than many semi auto hunting rifles except color, stocks and mags.
You really couldnt be more wrong.The easy answer would be, obviously, that we've had an AW ban in the past and it was not challenged constitutionally. But let's parse ...
The 2A was, clearly, an attempt by the FF to rely on citizen militias for our national defense, in lieu of a standing army, which they unambiguously opposed, fearing a military coup might overthrow the government they were setting up.
But times change, and the world began moving too quickly to allow the many months needed to form and train militias. And thus a standing army was and is needed. So the Supreme Court ruled on the 2A in a modern context, stating, unambiguously that the spirit of the right granted was and is self-defense, and of course hunting, which at the time of the forming of our laws, was vital to feed families, since no Whole Foods were around selling dry-aged prime steaks. And that indeed is the spirit of the 2A, vis a vis rulings by our high court; and it's not even debatable; it's only deniable among those who wish the 2A to be something other than what has been clearly ruled upon.
And thus, overtly offensive weapons can be, have been and are banned, 2A notwithstanding, since we have no right to arms for offensive reasons; our right is to have them to defend our homes and to hunt for food; that's all. For example: I can own a shotgun; but I cannot own one with the barrel cut short -- BECAUSE IT BECOMES WHAT IS PRIMARILY AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON WHICH IS NOT A RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
But that's merely the truth. Deny it if you wish, but it does not change the truth.
Would he? Maybe, maybe not. Can he? No, at least not yet, but the presidency keeps being given more and more power. Even if Obama can't, his successor, or perhaps another one down the road might be able to.
You really couldnt be more wrong.
I have a right to own whatever I need to defend this nation from all comers, foreign or DOMESTIC.
If local law enforcement has AR15s and pump shot guns its my right to be able to match firepower.
Otherwise what are we beyond subjects?
Any time anyone brings in hunting, food gathering, standing armies. I always know they are muddying the waters of the debate to cover their own wrongs.Okay; let's test. Find me a Supreme Court ruling which supports your interpretation of the 2A. Go hog wild. Then see if you can find a ruling which supports what I've stated. (tip: you can with ease)
Ergo, I am right; you are wrong. Clearly.
Any time anyone brings in hunting, food gathering, standing armies. I always know they are muddying the waters of the debate to cover their own wrongs.
My contention is the 2A as written is what I go by. And it has served me well.How's that search going for a ruling by SCOTUS which supports your contention? Got anything?
My contention is the 2A as written is what I go by. And it has served me well.
Its clear as a bell in those 27 words.Yes; that's quite clear. But thanks for clarifying it.
Its clear as a bell in those 27 words.
Well for the most part, there is enough support for the 2A in the Supreme Court.When you ascend to the Supreme Court, and get 4 other Justices on board with you, then how you see it will indeed become the de facto law of our land, since that's how the law will be applied throughout the land.
Good luck. I'm pulling for you.