- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,904
- Reaction score
- 12,689
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You clearly are as unknowledgeable about the term INFRINGE as you are of the laws. what do you think the second amendment is about?
for those who have no clue what the hughes amendment is (including MSgt) it was a poison pill added improperly to a firearms owner protection act by a congressman who wanted to derail a law that was going to pass. Even though there was basically ZERO cases of legally owned machine guns being used in crime, the amendment banned registration of any machine gun made after May 19, 1986 meaning only law enforcement agencies and the military, along with some Title II makers and class III dealers could own any such weapon made after May 19, 1986-such firearms could not be "registered" for the purpose of civilian ownersihp.
Well, the big difference between the military and law enforcement from the average civilian is training. You see, you have already scoffed at the idea of responsibility. You do it again here by insisting to own certain weapons without any sense of proper ownership. You relate yourself, who does not conduct annual training for any weapon, to the military, which requires annual training and qualifications. But, like the typical civilian, you breathe, therefore you rate.
Again, anybody that needs an automatic weapon to hit a target doesn't need to own a wepon at all. But tell you what...go to a gun store and purchase a handgun. When you have in your house without a safe think about how you have lost your rights. Find something to actually complain about.
Instead of playing your child's game.....
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The simlpe fact is that denying you access to automatic weapons does deny your ability to purchase and own guns. Your extremism is as tired as Pelosi's.
Instead of playing your child's game.....
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The simlpe [sic] fact is that denying you access to automatic weapons does deny your ability to purchase and own guns. Your extremism is as tired as Pelosi's.
A law prohibiting you from being a Methodist would similarly not infringe, then, on your freedom of religion, as there are plenty of other religions you can choose from if you're not allowed the one you'd most prefer.
Well, the big difference between the military and law enforcement from the average civilian is training. You see, you have already scoffed at the idea of responsibility. You do it again here by insisting to own certain weapons without any sense of proper ownership. You relate yourself, who does not conduct annual training for any weapon, to the military, which requires annual training and qualifications. But, like the typical civilian, you breathe, therefore you rate.
Again, anybody that needs an automatic weapon to hit a target doesn't need to own a wepon at all. But tell you what...go to a gun store and purchase a handgun. When you have in your house without a safe think about how you have lost your rights. Find something to actually complain about.
The fact that people have proven that they don't respect their weapons or their rights to own one is exactly government is stepping in to force it. You can't drive away from a hospital with a newborn without showing a car seat. You can't get a dirver's license without taking a test. You can't drive away with a new car without proof of insurance. buy guns? An 18th birthday is all that is needed. Blame people, not the government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?