Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

[Ringel05]

You -obviously- don't understand the issue presented in the OP.

That's OK - neither does Jillian.

Obviously? How about simply don't give a shit. Works for me.

Either way - you're talking out your backside.

Hey, simply responding in kind......... It seems to be the only language you understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously? How about simply don't give a shit. Works for me.

Either way - you're talking out your backside.

Hey, simply responding in kind......... It seems to be the only language you understand.

Look.. it's clear you aren't able to address the questions in the OP.
That's fine - no need to be all embarassed and stuff.

 

[Ringel05]

Either way - you're talking out your backside.

Hey, simply responding in kind......... It seems to be the only language you understand.

Look.. it's clear you aren't able to address the questions in the OP.
That's fine - no need to be all embarassed and stuff.

Embarrassed? By pointing out the fact you're being a dick?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, simply responding in kind......... It seems to be the only language you understand.

Look.. it's clear you aren't able to address the questions in the OP.
That's fine - no need to be all embarassed and stuff.

Embarrassed? By pointing out the fact you're being a dick?

Ah... Like Jillian, you believe that infantile behavior makes up for your lack of ability to speak intelligently on an issue.
Well, good luke with that.

 

[Ringel05]

Look.. it's clear you aren't able to address the questions in the OP.
That's fine - no need to be all embarassed and stuff.

Embarrassed? By pointing out the fact you're being a dick?

Ah... Like Jillian, you believe that infantile behavior makes up for your lack of ability to speak intelligently on an issue.
Well, good luke with that.

Yeah, whatever floats your boat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The AWB was always stupidly written

It was stupidly written because it was written.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I still feel the same. Citizens don't need these for protection, or for Game.

A rifle grenade is a grenade that uses a rifle-based launcher to permit a longer effective range than would be possible if the grenade was thrown by hand. The practice of projecting grenades with rifle-mounted launchers was first widely used during World War I and continues to the present, with the term "rifle grenade" now encompassing many different types of payloads including high explosive, fragmentation, and anti-tank warheads as well as concussion, smoke, incendiary, and flare missiles. Many armies have replaced rifle grenades with dedicated grenade launchers - often attached as an auxiliary weapon on a rifle.

Due to the fact the superme court has ruled that the only firearms protected by the second amendment are military grade firearms So hunting doesn't matter. Enough said onthat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is false.
The power of judicual review was not given to the court by the Constitution; prior to Marbury, the court heard exactly -0- cases that dealt with interpreting the Constitution.
In fact, most cases it has heard since Marbury have nothing to do with such things.

Are you sure you want to stick to this story?

Marbury acknowledged the judicial principle of the rule of law, which pre-dates the Constitution and government – to 1215, in fact. Per Marbury, therefore, the Supreme Court says what the Constitution means: judicial review examines the laws of the Legislative Branch and actions of the Executive Branch to determine constitutionality. Phrases such as ‘legislating from the bench’ or ‘judicial activism’ are used by those who don’t understand this doctrine.

As to the question in the OP, after Heller/McDonald it will take decades to sort those issues out, there are many of these issues pending in lower courts today.

Otherwise I submit your thread is baiting – you know very well there was no logical, factual justification for the AWB; indeed, a deranged criminal could be just as deadly with an M1, Mini-30 or SKS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is false.
The power of judicual review was not given to the court by the Constitution; prior to Marbury, the court heard exactly -0- cases that dealt with interpreting the Constitution.
In fact, most cases it has heard since Marbury have nothing to do with such things.

Are you sure you want to stick to this story?

Yes.

Otherwise I submit your thread is baiting – you know very well there was no logical, factual justification for the AWB; indeed, a deranged criminal could be just as deadly with an M1, Mini-30 or SKS.

The questions are legitimate - if the the supporters of the ban cannot answer the questions, they must, if they are honest, question their support of the ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]