Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by blackhawk, Jan 25, 2013.
Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.
Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.
Things like this only make it less likely that there will ever be another 'assault weapon' ban.
Aother spectacular display of mindlessness, ignorance and bigotry!
LOL, I played you dudes on that one. LOL.
It has everything to do with the example.
Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.
The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.
They are both a threat to public welfare when used incorrectly.
And for those of you that brought up the 2nd again, I wouldn't argue except to say the right to bear arms does not mean we cannot regulate them and put limits on their use. We already do.
We aren't talking about bans, but regulations. Two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.
Why not? You're slipping. lol.
So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?
Here is how effective another assault weapons ban will be:
I have made 12 firearms from scratch & made ammo from scratch,all legal.It isn't all that hard really & doesn't require a rocket scientist.Legal or not,it's simple to make.When I was 15 (2004),I could get weed,cocaine,heroine & firearms VERY easily.
The firearms were mostly ak47 types imported from china,glock knockoffs,& revolvers all very cheap.And this was in a lil bitty town with 0-4 murders a year & very low violent crime.Feinstein's bill & NY's bill is useless.If anyone thinks these moronic knee jerk emotionally driven bills will save lives,they are out of touch with reality.
At the range I can shoot 24 quick moving targets dead center neck,head,&/or chest in 2-3mins with a 6 shot .45 revolver.Although its unlikely to be chosen,a revolver can successfully be used in a mass shooting.
Separate names with a comma.