Into the Night
Verified User
There certainly is. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.
Irrelevant. Anything the military has, the civilian can have as well.
Blatant lie. You are ignoring the 2nd amendment again.
Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
That near 80 year old loon would die of fright if a weapon was pointed in his direction and he is a disgusting shell of a real American. Real Americans recognize the magnificence of the Constitution, the greatest document ever written, with the Magna Carta running a close second.
The authors of the Constitution realized that there would be loons like the near 80 year old loon and guaranteed the right to bear arms.
Last edited:
Wrong.
...gun control laws do not work.
The 1994 assault weapons ban existed for ten years and was never successfully challenged in court. It was simply allowed to lapse by a Republican congress.
High capacity ammunition mags are battlefield innovations intended to inflict maximum casualties on the enemy.
There is no realistic situation where your life is going to depend on having a loaded 30 round magazine, and if you need 30 rounds to shoot at a deer you shouldn't even be hunting. You should be practicing your aim at the target range.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the Constitution was written by we the people. It is pure idiocy to believe that the framers would give the government the power to define their own limits and restrictions. The courts do not have power to define and redefine those limits.
and a first year law student learns that the 2nd amendment did not apply to the states until incorporation
back to the trailer park with the retard named into the night
blablabla goes the retard
anyone ever wonder what the moron that screams he is an American and he knows his rights looks like
this tard is it
We’ll match the idiocy of your post, it is definitely constitutional to ban or limit any gun
NEXT
QP!
Verified User
I disagree.
The Founding Fathers simply did not contemplate a Captured Supreme Court and Captured GOP by the gun lobby.
There is nothing wrong with a 'Right to Bear Arms' and any reasonable person would say 'that DOES NOT prevent the government restricting what those arms are'.
And in fact we do limit what those arms are in many areas outside guns. The SC basically ruling guns only can have no real restrictions, is simply illogical if they allow (and they do) the restriction of other arms.
“smarts” whole “logic” is derived from the simple phrase of Locke that Jefferson accented, that the people have the right to revolution, or rather, the NRA’s framing of that thought in talking points that they/“smart” regurgitates.
You’d have to be living in a permanent stage of paranoia, which we see he is from his questioning of strangers he sees in church and stores, to fear some tyrannical Government that is all ready and prepared to sweep in and move him to some concentration camp. Most Americans are more fearful of the danger of some random stranger who has easy access to just about any weapon he wants shooting them in a theater, bowling alley, school, mall, little league game, church, spa, restaurant, spa, etc
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is you denying reality. everything you're saying i'm paranoid about has actually happened. we have racists shooting up churches and synagogues. we have government entities kidnapping and imprisoning citizens in secret prisons. The saddest part of it all is that morons like yourself have bought in to the propaganda spewed by those very people and government entities in to believing that your fellow american is the real danger to you.
here is reality for you. Over the last century, government have murdered over 262 MILLION of their own citizens............hows that for tyrannical?????
very well said!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
thank you sir
If one really wants to know the intention of the founders, it’s easy to find. In libraries and on line. Starting with the AofC.
Articles of Confederation in Article 6 Reads:
“Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores … a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”
There was opposition by many of having to store their weapons for use in the militia in a public store instead at their homes. This is the primary reason to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was added in Amendment 2. But they also kept a “well regulated militia” after removing “well disciplined.”
The first draft on June 8, 1789 by James Madison read, “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I highlighted the conscientious objector clause because that puts it all in perspective. The right was intended for MILITARY PURPOSES ONLY.
There were other wording changes, mostly by southern states who were concerned how it would effect blacks having guns as well as the slavery patrols, their version of militias. That’s probably why the conscientious objector clause was removed.
https://www.dailycommercial.com/new...amendment-referred-to-militia?template=ampart
Articles of Confederation in Article 6 Reads:
“Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores … a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”
There was opposition by many of having to store their weapons for use in the militia in a public store instead at their homes. This is the primary reason to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was added in Amendment 2. But they also kept a “well regulated militia” after removing “well disciplined.”
The first draft on June 8, 1789 by James Madison read, “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I highlighted the conscientious objector clause because that puts it all in perspective. The right was intended for MILITARY PURPOSES ONLY.
There were other wording changes, mostly by southern states who were concerned how it would effect blacks having guns as well as the slavery patrols, their version of militias. That’s probably why the conscientious objector clause was removed.
https://www.dailycommercial.com/new...amendment-referred-to-militia?template=ampart
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the AofC has not been viable since they scrapped it. They realized it's ineffectiveness and created a brand new solution in the Constitution. On top of that, you apparently haven't read it, or your comprehension levels rival that of a 1st grader.
QP!
Verified User
Bought what is undeniable fact and clear is that American homes, become FAR LESS safe when a person brings a gun in to the home, thiking they are trying to protect their families.
There are very few families who genuinely need a gun to counter the type of threat you fear, and FAR MORE who, if they actually CARE about their family should recognize the threat they are exposing them to.
But many people are not reality based so they care about their perception, over facts.
It was the time of flintlocks and guns that could not destroy masses of people.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_the_American_Revolution They had no idea that weapons would change so much.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Even before getting to amendments,
their "checks and balances" were a recipe for total gridlock,
that foolishness was probably on purpose,
and I don't regard it as anything to celebrate.
Derp