A better description is that gun buybacks are a way for people to make money off of stealing other people's guns and then selling them to the government.
Exactly. All it does is turn the government into a fence for criminals.
A better description is that gun buybacks are a way for people to make money off of stealing other people's guns and then selling them to the government.
Nowhere. The 2nd amendment is clear. You can own and use a Thompson sub-machine gun. Some people do.Where is it written you can't use a Thompson sub machine gun?
The supreme court has no authority to change the Constitution of the United States nor of any State constitution.The supreme court has already ruled that there are certain firearms that can be deemed illegal. You cannot own them.
The 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, and Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and most State constitutions say otherwise. What do you not understand about the word 'infringe'?That does not mean you do not still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not that particular one.
They have no such authority. They cannot pass such a law or make such a ruling.If a state or the Federal govt were to rule that the AR-15 (or guns like it) were declared illegal it would not mean citizens do not still have the right to keep and bear arms.
YES YOU CAN.50 cal machine guns, mortars, grenades, Abrams tanks, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads are arms too and you can't "keep and bear" one of them either.
And the government, which is the people, have already determined that you can not own certain types of arms and if they decide the assault weapon or AR15 is to be one of them then the ones you own will be illegal. It is that simple and there will be nothing "unconstitutional" about it.
No one said you could not decide to break the law and be a criminal.
Stupid argument, knives are essential and everyone uses one every day, you can't make them illegal, you can outlaw assault weapons.
The stupid "what is an assault weapon" argument. It's real easy, any rifle that can fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger (semi automatic) and hold more that 5 rounds without reloading. I always found it odd that those who profess they know what they are talking about when discussing guns don't know what the fuck someone is talking about when they say "assault weapon".
The assault rifle does not have to be fully automatic or "selective fire". The 30 cal carbine that our forces used in WWII is an assault rifle and they were not selective fire.
Gun owners should have to carry insurance like an automobile.
If you use a weapon and innocent people get hurt, you should pay for the damage you caused. That is how auto insurance work. If you hurt someone by your bad actions, their pain and suffering is compensated. An auto is dangerous. So are guns. Guns are worse because they are designed to hurt or kill people.
How is demanding liability insurance for gun owners “taking away people’s rights?”
Unconstitutional. The government has no authority to require you to buy any product or insurance.
Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns
And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from
Biased Faux News BS.
Why does the gy need an AR-15 to defend his home?
Why can't he use a 12 ga shotgun or a 30.30 or a 30.06?
Why can't he use a Glock or some other hand gun?
Where is it written that an AR-15 is the only weapon that you can use to defend your home against intruders?
There is no analogy there between the two, one is addressing a defined right, the other, debatable, plus, one is specified in law, again the other, not so, no existing law that says you can not regulate firearms
No, although it may make stolen weapons more difficult to obtain, and I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are worried as much about a “gangbanger in Chicago” as they are the guy next door arguing with his significant other and losing it with his guns at the local shopping center
Because there is no intelligence in your bs article .. which is why you made no attempt to defend that ignorance. It’s a weapon of mass murder and NO ONE should have ‘right’ to a weapon of mass murder. It’s just that simple.
You did make the analogy but I wouldn’t agree it is relevant for the reasons I stated above
And what you are missing regarding “rights” is that none are absolute, in any form, and accordingly, all rights are based upon reason, not desire
Actually you can own most of those with the right level FFL. I don't know of a level of FFL that lets you own warheads, but most of those other things can be acquired with the right fees and certifications.
Technically, with the right Court make up, anything can be deemed constitutional. Slavery was considered constitutional originally, but I guess that shows you the worth of government in general.
Well, Biden, Harris, and the Left of the Democrat party are for banning gasoline (end fossil fuel use...)...