Yes, there are assault weapons. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/ They are carefully defined in law. They should not be allowed for the people.
Guns, Guns and more guns.
- Thread starter Lionfish
- Start date
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
There's a guy who probably touches his kids.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
At least he's not teaching her how to use an assault rifle, though.
But, he's keeping the noise protectors on himself, so you make a good point.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
How, then, is anarchy different from liberty?
Libertarianism = anarchy.
And further, capitalism is completely about wolves eating lambs.
That's why democratic socialism is best.
It covers all of the bases.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.
That made sense to you? WOW
Yes, there is. I proved it . You parrot your memes over and over.
The 2nd amendment. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...d Militia, being,Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Is the first part of the amendment. The part that follows is subordinate. When a well-regulated militia is not necessary, then the guns are not. We now have a huge standing army. A militia is not needed and neither are guns in the people's hands.
When it was written, we had no standing army. We had citizen soldiers. Washington disbanded his well-trained army. That made us vulnerable to European nations who had a history of taking over other nations for resources. It is on purpose that the gun lovers repeat the 2nd part because when seen as a whole, their argument fails.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Is the first part of the amendment. The part that follows is subordinate. When a well-regulated militia is not necessary, then the guns are not. We now have a huge standing army. A militia is not needed and neither are guns in the people's hands.
When it was written, we had no standing army. We had citizen soldiers. Washington disbanded his well-trained army. That made us vulnerable to European nations who had a history of taking over other nations for resources. It is on purpose that the gun lovers repeat the 2nd part because when seen as a whole, their argument fails.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Not hyperbole, that's the end game.