We do listen. You're just not really saying anything. Your overall point is "only bad things should be against the law," except this is how everyone already thinks. There's just different ideas of what "bad" is.
Is this a joke if its not a crime to own a nuke but detonate a nuke how do you go to jail if everyones dead?
good question
The only valid interpretations of Heller and Bruen are interpretations that directly comply with Heller and Bruen.
In other words, it is important to always vote for conservatives. Progressives hate America and will appoint judges who will allow our civil liberties to be wantonly violated.
"Directly violating court rulings" is not a work around when those courts prevent you from violating people's civil liberties.
That is incorrect. Ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 are not particularly dangerous. Fentanyl is far more deadly.
Maybe under the direct supervision of a doctor. Taken recreationally it is extremely dangerous and deadly.
The brand of a hunting rifle has no bearing on how dangerous it is. People shot by a different brand of hunting rifle would suffer identical wounds.
Why would the brand of the gun matter?
I am willing to trade universal background checks for concealed carry reciprocity.
Violation of due process.
People who support waiting periods should be sentenced to at least 30 years in prison.
Because there is no justification for outlawing the style of a weapon.
That is incorrect. His post is factually accurate.
Now you are not being honest.
That is incorrect. Ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 are not overkill.
Being street legal means that it is not a weapon of war.
I am willing to trade restrictions on bump stocks for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.
Bring them here and I will.
The wounds would be deadlier if they were "civilian hunting rifle" like.The wounds they produce are certainly war-like, especially on children.
An inaccurate phrase that makes the description inaccurate.
Not like a war weapon. Those limitations make it quite different from a war weapon.
I'm not sure what this means, but it is almost certainly incorrect.
So if you blow your foot off with your AR15, you shouldn't receive any government aid to help with your disability? If you wreck your car, break your neck and end up a paraplegic, same way?
This should be fine too, right? As long as no one is getting hurt?
That is incorrect. Some leftist states unconstitutionally ban them because they hate Americans. Washington state for example.
Knowledge of the things that the left does to maliciously violate people's civil liberties.
Not in some leftist states.
Maryland maliciously outlaws flash suppressors and adjustable stocks for no reason.
Because that coward Walz pretended that he had gone to war. Stolen valor.
The Second Amendment does say that people have the right to have military weapons. Nothing wrong with upholding our Bill of Rights.
That is incorrect. The fact that the gun control movement maliciously pushes for laws that have no effect other than to violate people's civil liberties for no reason has nothing to do with gun manufacturers.
In the second half, where it mentions the people's right to keep and bear arms.
It would not be. The right to have the arm includes the right to have ammunition for the arm.
The people's right to keep and bear arms has always been about the sorts of weapons commonly referred to as small arms.
Those are not small arms.
Setting aside the fact that the people's right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to bombs, there is the fact that bombs are actually dangerous.
In addition to the fact that they are not even covered by the people's right to keep and bear arms, nuclear weapons and biological weapons are an actual danger to society.
I think it was just sarcasm and the poster didn't understand that the people's right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to nukes and bioweapons, and didn't understand that there is no justification for outlawing the brand and/or style of a gun.
