how do you explain that worlds safest cities ban guns ?

If the Democrats who are truly concerned about firearms crime were smart,
they would offer a comprehensive bill that clearly stated

what firearms don't have to be regulated

as well as what firearms need to be regulated.

Completely eradicate all illusions that Democrats want to abolish the 2nd Amendment which is, after all,

a significant piece of the "Bill of Rights."

The AR15 assault weapon lovers will still scream bloody murder
and so would the flower children demanding a total ban,

but the clueless centrists on the fence would at least have
some insight into what the actual issues are
and perhaps join the people with a reasonable approach toward firearms.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If the Democrats who are truly concerned about firearms crime were smart,
they would offer a comprehensive bill that clearly stated

what firearms don't have to be regulated

as well as what firearms need to be regulated.

Completely eradicate all illusions that Democrats want to abolish the 2nd Amendment which is, after all,

a significant piece of the "Bill of Rights."

The AR15 assault weapon lovers will still scream bloody murder
and so would the flower children demanding a total ban,

but the clueless centrists on the fence would at least have
some insight into what the actual issues are
and perhaps join the people with a reasonable approach toward firearms.
Click to expand...

The Supreme court ruled in 1939 that a sawed off shotgun wasn't needed for a well regulated militia.
 
The "well regulated agenda" phrase was a disaster.

The rest of the amendment by itself would clearly indicate that people are entitled to own arms appropriate for sport and for self defense.

By adding that ridiculous phrase--at a time when people could perhaps face the government's muskets with their own muskets--
they made people in 2018 think they could oppose their government with privately owned AR15s.
Read the posts--we actually have people who believe that. We have Grugore building Y2K shelters for 2020.

All the idiots have to do to overthrow the government is go to the fire station or high school gym
and VOTE---no assault rifle required.

If there is consensus for their views, they'll get what they want that way.

Mother of Christ, we've got some serious idiots among us.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The "well regulated agenda" phrase was a disaster.

The rest of the amendment by itself would clearly indicate that people are entitled to own arms appropriate for sport and for self defense.

By adding that ridiculous phrase--at a time when people could perhaps face the government's muskets with their own muskets--
they made people in 2018 think they could oppose their government with privately owned AR15s.
Read the posts--we actually have people who believe that. We have Grugore building Y2K shelters for 2020.

All the idiots have to do to overthrow the government is go to the fire station or high school gym
and VOTE---no assault rifle required.

If there is consensus for their views, they'll get what they want that way.

Mother of Christ, we've got some serious idiots among us.
Click to expand...

What a great post!
 
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
 
United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If the Democrats who are truly concerned about firearms crime were smart,
they would offer a comprehensive bill that clearly stated

what firearms don't have to be regulated

as well as what firearms need to be regulated.

Completely eradicate all illusions that Democrats want to abolish the 2nd Amendment which is, after all,

a significant piece of the "Bill of Rights."

The AR15 assault weapon lovers will still scream bloody murder
and so would the flower children demanding a total ban,

but the clueless centrists on the fence would at least have
some insight into what the actual issues are
and perhaps join the people with a reasonable approach toward firearms.
Click to expand...

and still you believe 'shall not be infinged' is defined as reasonable regulations. what a joke
 
kudzu said:
The Supreme court ruled in 1939 that a sawed off shotgun wasn't needed for a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

they did not rule that. they said they had no evidence of it (which is fucking idiocy given that they were a primary weapon in trench warfare during WW1), therefore they COULD NOT SAY if it was needed or not.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The "well regulated agenda" phrase was a disaster.

The rest of the amendment by itself would clearly indicate that people are entitled to own arms appropriate for sport and for self defense.

By adding that ridiculous phrase--at a time when people could perhaps face the government's muskets with their own muskets--
they made people in 2018 think they could oppose their government with privately owned AR15s.
Read the posts--we actually have people who believe that. We have Grugore building Y2K shelters for 2020.

All the idiots have to do to overthrow the government is go to the fire station or high school gym
and VOTE---no assault rifle required.

If there is consensus for their views, they'll get what they want that way.

Mother of Christ, we've got some serious idiots among us.
Click to expand...

any idiot who thinks that they could simply hold an election and vote out a tyrannical and oppressive government is too stupid to vote.
 
kudzu said:
United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Click to expand...

explain how your idiocy believes that every single one of the founding fathers comments, opinions, and debates concerning NO POWER WHATSOEVER given to congress to regulate our arms equates to an ability to regulate arms?
 
Dark Soul said:
No, this is the point: The Japanese have a culture where personal responsibility and respect toward others is highly valued. This is 100% opposite of followers of the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

It's also 100% opposite of the drones in the Republican party. Oh, they pay lip service to personal responsibility and individualism, but stray one iota from the party line....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top