Biden admits truth Finally amazing

Where is it written you can't use a Thompson sub machine gun?
Nowhere. The 2nd amendment is clear. You can own and use a Thompson sub-machine gun. Some people do.
The supreme court has already ruled that there are certain firearms that can be deemed illegal. You cannot own them.
The supreme court has no authority to change the Constitution of the United States nor of any State constitution.
That does not mean you do not still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not that particular one.
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'?
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.
They have no such authority. They cannot pass such a law or make such a ruling.
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.
YES YOU CAN.
 
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.

See the 2nd and 10th amendments an Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and most State constitutions. We are a federated republic, not a democracy or an oligarchy.
 
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".

So...all semiautomatic rifles.
Fuck you.

I'll uphold the Constitution of the United States, even though you won't. I'll uphold the constitution of the State of Washington, even though you won't.
 
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.

Artillery is used to shoot down avalanche chutes to protect people. Police wear guns to protect people. I will protect the people of the State of Washington and of the United States. I will protect my family. I will protect my home. I will protect myself. You don't get to require insurance. Neither does the government.
 
Unconstitutional. The government has no authority to require you to buy any product or insurance.

Interesting, someone is requiring everyone today to buy auto insurance, seat belts, and a special chair for your vehicle if you have a child, no who do you suppose that is?
 
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

You cannot punish people for what they might do. You can only punish them for what they have done.

Thought police are illegal in the United States.
 
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?

Come get mine ya cock sucker.
 
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

The 2nd amendment of the United States. The 10th amendment of the United States. Article 1.
 
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

It does not make stolen weapons harder to obtain.
 
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

WRONG. The right to self defense is inherent. No government can take that away. The right to defend your interests is inherent. No government can take that away. Even animals have this right and will defend themselves and their interests with every available means.
The Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits federal and State governments from messing with this inherent right.
 
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.

You have the right to own and use a nuclear warhead. You of course have to deal with storing that thing, and are responsible for it's use and storage.
Yes...the 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, and Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution says the federal government cannot touch this right.
 
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.

Slavery was constitutional until the 13th amendment was ratified by the States. The interesting thing about this was that the 'ratification' was under duress, by States that were not part of the United States at the time.

Since then, of course, ratification would be legit.
 
Back
Top