Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
no average citizen needs an assault rifle
Yes we do.a bazooka
Gotta disagree with you, Redfish.or a tank
Try to tell the commies that. They want us shooting muzzle-load muskets, if that.As long as you have to pull the trigger on each round, it should be permitted.
no average citizen needs an assault rifle
Yes we do.a bazooka
Gotta disagree with you, Redfish.or a tank
no average citizen needs an assault rifle
Yes we do.a bazooka
Gotta disagree with you, Redfish.or a tank
that's fine, we can disagree. I don't think you need a bazooka or a tank, or should be allowed to buy either. I don't know why any non police or non military citizen needs a machine gun either. But I understand your slippery slope argument.
no average citizen needs an assault rifle
Yes we do.a bazooka
Gotta disagree with you, Redfish.or a tank
that's fine, we can disagree. I don't think you need a bazooka or a tank, or should be allowed to buy either. I don't know why any non police or non military citizen needs a machine gun either. But I understand your slippery slope argument.
Heller, as written by Scalia has a pretty good breakdown......,all bearable arms are allowed with the caveat that unusual, and dangerous are able to be limited....a bazooka, though bearable is unusual....and dangerous in that it is an area effect weapon......tanks are not bearable......
Civilian self defense rifles, like the AR-15, the civilian model of the AK-47 and other semi auto rifles are covered by the 2nd Amendment in that they are bearable and in common use.......
The problem? The anti gunners will not stop until all access to guns is banned or so limited to normal people that they are essentially banned....
no average citizen needs an assault rifle
Yes we do.a bazooka
Gotta disagree with you, Redfish.or a tank
that's fine, we can disagree. I don't think you need a bazooka or a tank, or should be allowed to buy either. I don't know why any non police or non military citizen needs a machine gun either. But I understand your slippery slope argument.
Heller, as written by Scalia has a pretty good breakdown......,all bearable arms are allowed with the caveat that unusual, and dangerous are able to be limited....a bazooka, though bearable is unusual....and dangerous in that it is an area effect weapon......tanks are not bearable......
Civilian self defense rifles, like the AR-15, the civilian model of the AK-47 and other semi auto rifles are covered by the 2nd Amendment in that they are bearable and in common use.......
The problem? The anti gunners will not stop until all access to guns is banned or so limited to normal people that they are essentially banned....
I am on your side, believe me. But I must take issue with your description of AR-15 and AK-47 as self defense weapons. A shotgun is a self defense weapon, A 38 special is a self defense weapon, a hammer is a self defense weapon. Those guns are assault weapons, designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.
You hurt our argument when you mischaracterize certain guns.
An AR-15 is a lot easier for my 110 lb wife to use that a blow-your-fucking-shoulder-off 12 gauge. It's also better than a handgun because a shouldered weapon is more accurate. The only weapon better than an AR-15 for home defense is an AR-15 pistol with subsonic rounds.I am on your side, believe me. But I must take issue with your description of AR-15 and AK-47 as self defense weapons. A shotgun is a self defense weapon, A 38 special is a self defense weapon, a hammer is a self defense weapon. Those guns are assault weapons, designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.
You hurt our argument when you mischaracterize certain guns.
I don't have any semi-auto handguns in the house with self defence in mind.An AR-15 is a lot easier for my 110 lb wife to use that a blow-your-fucking-shoulder-off 12 gauge. It's also better than a handgun because a shouldered weapon is more accurate. The only weapon better than an AR-15 for home defense is an AR-15 pistol with subsonic rounds.I am on your side, believe me. But I must take issue with your description of AR-15 and AK-47 as self defense weapons. A shotgun is a self defense weapon, A 38 special is a self defense weapon, a hammer is a self defense weapon. Those guns are assault weapons, designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.
You hurt our argument when you mischaracterize certain guns.
Most wheel guns are double-action = semi-auto.I don't have any semi-auto handguns in the house with self defence in mind.An AR-15 is a lot easier for my 110 lb wife to use that a blow-your-fucking-shoulder-off 12 gauge. It's also better than a handgun because a shouldered weapon is more accurate. The only weapon better than an AR-15 for home defense is an AR-15 pistol with subsonic rounds.I am on your side, believe me. But I must take issue with your description of AR-15 and AK-47 as self defense weapons. A shotgun is a self defense weapon, A 38 special is a self defense weapon, a hammer is a self defense weapon. Those guns are assault weapons, designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.
You hurt our argument when you mischaracterize certain guns.
I only have 'wheel guns'.
Even an eight year old can be trained to use them.
Jam a semi in a panic situation and you're dead.
Yes, I do. It is why I personally, never take You seriously about this specific topic.Do you even know what you just typed?dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or politics. appeals to ignorance is all y'all seem to be good for.Who said?natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions
You don't even know what the fuck you are saying.
Do you even know what natural rights are?
I have NEVER seen, read, or heard anyone opine that natural rights are protected by the states v. Fed Gov. Either you are making shit up or you are talking to, and believing) ignoramuses.
natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions
Nobody takes you seriously.
Show me the authority on which you are relying in claiming that State Constitutions (rather than the US constitution) secure natural rights.
Or, you're just making shit up. (More likely)
Why don't you prove it?natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions
You clearly do not know what argumentum ad ignorantiam means. You're just using it because some idiot you listen to uses it.stop appealing to ignorance.
Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.Why don't you prove it?natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions
I have provided tons of proof backing my positions. Where is your?
Who gives a fuck what you thing?
NOBODY takes your insignificant ass seriously. You're a nobody.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Appeals to ignorance is All the right wing has; slackers claiming a hard work ethic from the Age of Iron, is important in modern times.You clearly do not know what argumentum ad ignorantiam means. You're just using it because some idiot you listen to uses it.stop appealing to ignorance.
By the way, demanding evidence to support your position is not argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have the burden to prove your idiotic position.
So, prove it or fuck off.
Appeals to ignorance is All the right wing has; slackers claiming a hard work ethic from the Age of Iron, is important in modern times.
Nothing but appeal to Ignorance is all You have, right winger.Appeals to ignorance is All the right wing has; slackers claiming a hard work ethic from the Age of Iron, is important in modern times.
You don't even know what the fuck that means, and you expect us to take you seriously?
I bet you take my guns seriously, don't you?
No one should take conservatives seriously because they’re consistently wrong on the issues – or they’re lying about the issues.Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.Why don't you prove it?natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions
I have provided tons of proof backing my positions. Where is your?
Who gives a fuck what you thing?
NOBODY takes your insignificant ass seriously. You're a nobody.
It is why nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about anything, much less morals, economics, the law, politics, or even being legal to the law instead of merely practicing the abomination of hypocrisy, and blaming less fortunate illegals.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
The burden of proof is on you, commie.Nothing but appeal to Ignorance is all You have, right winger.
