30 Cities with highest murder rates

And all of them got a gun. Explain that, or do you agree with Trump and the NRA that no solution exists, so let's keep doing what we've been doing and pray for the dead and their family, friends and colleagues.


A solution exists but your terrified of him.


View attachment 279297
what about allah and muhammad?--Indonesia murder rate 5 times lower than Christian USA
.......Honduras, Venezuela and El Salvador all catholic countries but have some of the highest murder rates
Countries ranked by Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

LOL, So now Catholicism is to blame for Honduras, Venezeula, and El Salvador?

What about White countries like Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, Spain who have some of the lowest murder rates going?
point is he said if you follow jesus, there wouldn't be that many murders/etc
....I pointed out how some catholic countries have high murder rates and some muslim countries have low murder rates


They aren't acting like Catholics if they are committing murder dumb ass.....most of those countries suffered under communist thugs for decades, and now the drug cartels control them.....dumb ass.
hahahahhahaha
that was way over your head--like everything else
..and catholics commit murder, also.....
so---murder is NOT a sin in the catholic church????..I thought that was # 5--thou shall not kill...........?
..ok, that's over your head also, so I will explain it:
.....why have a commandment against murder, if it doesn't even mean anything if you commit the murder!!!???
.....you dumbass--you don't become UNcatholic if you commit murder
hahahahahhahaha
 
A solution exists but your terrified of him.


View attachment 279297
what about allah and muhammad?--Indonesia murder rate 5 times lower than Christian USA
.......Honduras, Venezuela and El Salvador all catholic countries but have some of the highest murder rates
Countries ranked by Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

LOL, So now Catholicism is to blame for Honduras, Venezeula, and El Salvador?

What about White countries like Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, Spain who have some of the lowest murder rates going?
point is he said if you follow jesus, there wouldn't be that many murders/etc
....I pointed out how some catholic countries have high murder rates and some muslim countries have low murder rates


They aren't acting like Catholics if they are committing murder dumb ass.....most of those countries suffered under communist thugs for decades, and now the drug cartels control them.....dumb ass.
hahahahhahaha
that was way over your head--like everything else
..and catholics commit murder, also.....
so---murder is NOT a sin in the catholic church????..I thought that was # 5--thou shall not kill...........?
..ok, that's over your head also, so I will explain it:
.....why have a commandment against murder, if it doesn't even mean anything if you commit the murder!!!???
.....you dumbass--you don't become UNcatholic if you commit murder
hahahahahhahaha


Moron...what are you talking about, you dumb ass..... are you drinking and taking meds again?
 
what about allah and muhammad?--Indonesia murder rate 5 times lower than Christian USA
.......Honduras, Venezuela and El Salvador all catholic countries but have some of the highest murder rates
Countries ranked by Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

LOL, So now Catholicism is to blame for Honduras, Venezeula, and El Salvador?

What about White countries like Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, Spain who have some of the lowest murder rates going?
point is he said if you follow jesus, there wouldn't be that many murders/etc
....I pointed out how some catholic countries have high murder rates and some muslim countries have low murder rates


They aren't acting like Catholics if they are committing murder dumb ass.....most of those countries suffered under communist thugs for decades, and now the drug cartels control them.....dumb ass.
hahahahhahaha
that was way over your head--like everything else
..and catholics commit murder, also.....
so---murder is NOT a sin in the catholic church????..I thought that was # 5--thou shall not kill...........?
..ok, that's over your head also, so I will explain it:
.....why have a commandment against murder, if it doesn't even mean anything if you commit the murder!!!???
.....you dumbass--you don't become UNcatholic if you commit murder
hahahahahhahaha


Moron...what are you talking about, you dumb ass..... are you drinking and taking meds again?
for 2AGuy a weapon of war =
metalframed4.png
 
The only fool is the one that brings up guns in every single thread. Not once did I mention anything about guns here. Not once have I EVER mentioned anything about confiscating everyone's guns, and have said the opposite. Do I have to cut and paste it 2,000 times for you to understand it? Seems like the only thing you understand is cut and pasted posts.


Too bad.....you support a political party that is going to confiscate guns when they have the power to do it.....and when you say you want to ban "military" style guns...you essentially give up the game.

I DON'T support ANY political party currently, and only look to cast my vote for a candidate. There has already been a ban on assault rifles and no one showed up to take your guns did they? You keep going on and on with that crap argument.


It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:
 
Too bad.....you support a political party that is going to confiscate guns when they have the power to do it.....and when you say you want to ban "military" style guns...you essentially give up the game.

I DON'T support ANY political party currently, and only look to cast my vote for a candidate. There has already been a ban on assault rifles and no one showed up to take your guns did they? You keep going on and on with that crap argument.


It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
 
I DON'T support ANY political party currently, and only look to cast my vote for a candidate. There has already been a ban on assault rifles and no one showed up to take your guns did they? You keep going on and on with that crap argument.


It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
I'm sure they extend the 1st to not include radio, television and the internet. They dont even believe in a street preacher's 1st Amendment's rights.
 
I DON'T support ANY political party currently, and only look to cast my vote for a candidate. There has already been a ban on assault rifles and no one showed up to take your guns did they? You keep going on and on with that crap argument.


It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.
 
The murder rate can be predicted based on one thing, and one thing only, the number of black people who live in the city. Call me a racist, but you know it's true.[/QUOTE

Per capita rate is junk science Detroit has over 300 murders already this year, New York City even more, Look at total number of murders in a city to see how violent they are and who is killing who! That would show the truth about what's going on.
 
It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.





They're not extended. They are standard issue.
 
It lasted 10 years and after they banned the guns democrats lost congress for the first time in 30 years...they didn't have the power then to do it.......they are already planning on using "Lawfare" against the gun companies when they get power next time.....and they are packing the federal bench with anti-gun judges...then using local and state governments to pass unConstitutional gun and magazine bans....

You are an idiot.

So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
 
So? It lasted 10 years.... during those 10 years did they take away all your guns? No. So give up that stupid ass argument. You are as bad as MindWars with those doomsday fantasies. You either believe them and are delusional and should be medicated, or you don't believe them and only keep repeating them as a political tool, in which you are wasting your time because only mindless idiots believe that dumb shit. This country has been around 243 years and at no point has their EVER been a serious push to take away everyone's guns with a super majority of the House and Senate or a call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendment. So quit gas lighting. Magazine bans are NOT unconstitutional, the Second Amendment does NOT cover gun accessories, like extended magazines, or shit like the 100 round drum used in Dayton. Feel free to quote in there where it does.

Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.
 
Heller stated gun accessories are covered....all Bearable arms you dumb shit......if a gun doesn't have a magazine it won't work...you twit....

They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.
 
They aren't covered, otherwise the new bumpstock law would be unconstitutional.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no such fucking thing as a magazine. You fucking idiot. :rolleyes:


Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.
 
Wrong, moron, a bump stock is not a core part of the weapon....a magazine is...you dumb ass.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...
 
Extended magazines are not a core component either. Just because you wouldn't be allowed to own a 20 round magazine doesn't mean you can't own two 10 round magazines. Nothing about that is violating your rights. Idiot. I love these little lovey dovey nickname games you've started. I'm not into guys, but I'll keep it up so I don't hurt your itty bitty feelings.


Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...

And idiot, during the 10 year ban on assault rifle ban how many of your guns were taken away? How many new laws were proposed to ban all guns?

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

There you go with that slippery slope argument... Please see the beginning of my post. When the Democrats had the Presidency, and Congress, NO new laws to ban all guns was proposed when it could have been pushed through like Obamacare was. There wasn't even laws that were even much much less than that pushed through. So quit with that failed logic, it makes you look like a even bigger idiot than you already are.
 
Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...

And idiot, during the 10 year ban on assault rifle ban how many of your guns were taken away? How many new laws were proposed to ban all guns?

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

There you go with that slippery slope argument... Please see the beginning of my post. When the Democrats had the Presidency, and Congress, NO new laws to ban all guns was proposed when it could have been pushed through like Obamacare was. There wasn't even laws that were even much much less than that pushed through. So quit with that failed logic, it makes you look like a even bigger idiot than you already are.

Moron...obama wanted to protect obamacare and he didn't want to lose congress to an anti-gun push. He settled on appointing anti-gun judges, and let the local and state democrats and courts take on banning guns.
 
Again, you need to understand what Scalia stated....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.


Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...

And idiot, during the 10 year ban on assault rifle ban how many of your guns were taken away? How many new laws were proposed to ban all guns?

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

There you go with that slippery slope argument... Please see the beginning of my post. When the Democrats had the Presidency, and Congress, NO new laws to ban all guns was proposed when it could have been pushed through like Obamacare was. There wasn't even laws that were even much much less than that pushed through. So quit with that failed logic, it makes you look like a even bigger idiot than you already are.

You are a moron...

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

They want to ban 15-19 round magazines for pistols...over 10 rounds you doofus...

And 30 round magazines for rifles....you moron...

The ban on 15-19 round magazines is a back door gun ban since anyone with a pistol that takes those magazines will have a gun they can't use..... you twit.
 
And you need to understand that, that article is about something that has nothing to do with magazines. You've cut and pasted so much you've lost track of what you are cut and pasting.


You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...

And idiot, during the 10 year ban on assault rifle ban how many of your guns were taken away? How many new laws were proposed to ban all guns?

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

There you go with that slippery slope argument... Please see the beginning of my post. When the Democrats had the Presidency, and Congress, NO new laws to ban all guns was proposed when it could have been pushed through like Obamacare was. There wasn't even laws that were even much much less than that pushed through. So quit with that failed logic, it makes you look like a even bigger idiot than you already are.

Moron...obama wanted to protect obamacare and he didn't want to lose congress to an anti-gun push. He settled on appointing anti-gun judges, and let the local and state democrats and courts take on banning guns.


For TEN YEARS!?!?! You full of so many excuses idiot.
 
You said the guns at the time of the founding didn't have magazines so you implied they weren't protected......I just pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, you dope. And magazines are part of the gun......you don't get to ban them....just like a moron, such as yourself, would say.....you can have pens....you just can't have the ink for them......you dope.

You can have magazines without having extended magazines, or drum magazines that hold 100 bullets. So providing to me that court case doesn't have shit to do with this conversation. The extended magazine ban has not been finalized in the courts.

This argument is just like your argument that if assault style rifles are banned they are going to ban ALL GUNS, and they are going to come door-to-door and take your guns. Then I pointed out they already had an assault gun ban and no one passed any gun ban laws and no one came to your door to take your guns... to which you said, the law was only in effect for 10 years. :abgg2q.jpg:

You proved my point that it is all over-reacting. I know you have all these pages of NRA gun info bookmarked on your computer and all you will do is cut and paste over and over. I'm not playing that dumb as game.

You can't even cut and paste the right stuff lots of the time.


No, dipshit...I am the guy who posted they won't go door to door, they will simply put the law on the books so that any interaction with the police by an owner of these guns becomes a felony interaction.....
And they aren't arguing about 100 round drums you shitstain....they want anything over 10 bullets......and then they will be back for those........and revolvers too...

And idiot, during the 10 year ban on assault rifle ban how many of your guns were taken away? How many new laws were proposed to ban all guns?

Second, last time I checked, a 100 round drum is over a 10 round magazine.

There you go with that slippery slope argument... Please see the beginning of my post. When the Democrats had the Presidency, and Congress, NO new laws to ban all guns was proposed when it could have been pushed through like Obamacare was. There wasn't even laws that were even much much less than that pushed through. So quit with that failed logic, it makes you look like a even bigger idiot than you already are.

Moron...obama wanted to protect obamacare and he didn't want to lose congress to an anti-gun push. He settled on appointing anti-gun judges, and let the local and state democrats and courts take on banning guns.


For TEN YEARS!?!?! You full of so many excuses idiot.


Moron......we have protections they have to overcome, they can't just do it the way Germany, France, Britain, Canada did it. This is why they lie about what they want and are now using local and state democrats to push gun control instead of doing it at the federal level. They pass a stupid gun ban in a state, and use judges to make it stick....... if they tried to do it all at once there would be massive push back...so they are doing it one baby step at a time, you moron. That is why they won't stop at "Assault rifles," or 10 round magazines...each step leads to the next....you moron. They went from an "Assault rifle" ban to now demanding "weapons of war," each step leads to the next one...you doofus.
 

Forum List

Back
Top