Hey Lefties...Let’s boycott the auto industry...Cars kill.

[John Shaw]

This is one of the dumbest and most disingenuous arguments made by gun nuts.Yet I see it all too often ...

 

[miketx]

This is one of the dumbest and most disingenuous arguments made by gun nuts.Yet I see it all too often ...

This is one of the dumbest and most disingenuous arguments made by gun banners.Yet I see it all too often ...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There are a lot of people agreeing with the OP, yet I bet not a single one of them has the basic integrity to follow through and get rid of all their motorized vehicles.

What a bunch of frauds.

 

[miketx]

There are a lot of people agreeing with the OP, yet I bet not a single one of them has the basic integrity to follow through and get rid of all their motorized vehicles.

What a bunch of frauds.

Why would we get rid of out motor vehicles? What kind of an idiot are you anyway? You must want us all to go back to the 18th century where we only had mechanical cars.

 

[Moonglow]

Why no legislative action against auto makers for making these vehicles with 400 horsepower? Do people really need a car that can go 150mph?
These overpowered killing machines are taking innocent lives. Let’s push to ban any car capable of traveling at speeds above 75mph.

Drugs kill even more 50,000 a year.

The response from the left? Legalization.

Incorrect but that's what you want...

 

[Papageorgio]

Why no legislative action against auto makers for making these vehicles with 400 horsepower? Do people really need a car that can go 150mph?
These overpowered killing machines are taking innocent lives. Let’s push to ban any car capable of traveling at speeds above 75mph.

So if cars = guns, we need to register guns, insure them, and license their users.

Actually it should be easier to restrict cars because they are not a right as owning a gun is. I’m all for reducing speed limits and more regulations with those under 25, that is the most dangerous group driving today, according to the insurance industry. Our company’s insurance company will not allow anyone under 25 to drive our vehicles.

 

[2aguy]

There are a lot of people agreeing with the OP, yet I bet not a single one of them has the basic integrity to follow through and get rid of all their motorized vehicles.

What a bunch of frauds.

Why would we get rid of out motor vehicles? What kind of an idiot are you anyway? You must want us all to go back to the 18th century where we only had mechanical cars.

Wrong...we need to go back to just horses and buggies...after all....the Founders could never have expected us to have killing machines like this, if they had, they would have banned them in the Constitution....

Right?

 

[miketx]

There are a lot of people agreeing with the OP, yet I bet not a single one of them has the basic integrity to follow through and get rid of all their motorized vehicles.

What a bunch of frauds.

Why would we get rid of out motor vehicles? What kind of an idiot are you anyway? You must want us all to go back to the 18th century where we only had mechanical cars.

Wrong...we need to go back to just horses and buggies...after all....the Founders could never have expected us to have killing machines like this, if they had, they would have banned them in the Constitution....

Right?

Right, and I say we put all the libstains to working cleaning up the horse shit, since they like creating so much of it.

 

[Camp]

This is one of the dumbest and most disingenuous arguments made by gun nuts.Yet I see it all too often ...

You can call it desperation coupled with panic. They have been duped into believing our guns will be confiscated and guns will be outlawed.

 

[Winston]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

 

[miketx]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Sure it does liar. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[2aguy]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Actually, you didn't check the Constitution or any of the Supreme Court rulings...because all of the Supreme Court rulings support military weapons......

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.

-----

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

------

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

 

[Winston]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Sure it does liar. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Dumbass, we had an assault weapons ban that was challenged in the courts through a plethora of angles and it was ruled constitutional each and every time. Equal protection, second and ninth amendment, bill of attainder, commerce clause. And Heller only makes it easier to ban assault weapons, or damn near any weapon for that matter. Since the second amendment is now based on a right to personal protection one only has the constitutional right to own "arms" that provide "sufficient" protection. That right is not "infringed" if one can purchase a shotgun instead of an assault rifle.

 

[Winston]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Actually, you didn't check the Constitution or any of the Supreme Court rulings...because all of the Supreme Court rulings support military weapons......

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.

-----

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

------

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

How stupid. 157 page ruling that I figure I have forgotten more about than you will ever know. But just for kicks, how about this on page two.

. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

 

[2aguy]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Actually, you didn't check the Constitution or any of the Supreme Court rulings...because all of the Supreme Court rulings support military weapons......

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.

-----

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

------

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

How stupid. 157 page ruling that I figure I have forgotten more about than you will ever know. But just for kicks, how about this on page two.

. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

You morons always leave out the rest of that because he defines what he means........the previous quotes from Heller and Caetano show it too....but you ignored those since they show you don't know what you are talking about...

This is what you left out.....because you are a troll...


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Felons and the mentally ill...you doofus, the exact categories 2nd Amendment supporters support.....and you left wing dumb asses fail to stop from getting guns...

 

[Winston]

The leftists are in luck, I just checked and the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an assault vehicle.

Last I checked, the Constitution also doesn't guarantee the right to an assault weapon.

Actually, you didn't check the Constitution or any of the Supreme Court rulings...because all of the Supreme Court rulings support military weapons......

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.

-----

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

------

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

How stupid. 157 page ruling that I figure I have forgotten more about than you will ever know. But just for kicks, how about this on page two.

. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

You morons always leave out the rest of that because he defines what he means........the previous quotes from Heller and Caetano show it too....but you ignored those since they show you don't know what you are talking about...

This is what you left out.....because you are a troll...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Felons and the mentally ill...you doofus, the exact categories 2nd Amendment supporters support.....and you left wing dumb asses fail to stop from getting guns...

Look, I will go slow here since you seem a little lacking in thinking skills.

From Heller,

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

The bold type is the key. DC's law was ruled unconstitutional because it required trigger guards to be placed on guns held in the home. That trigger guard made the gun inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense, or so the court ruled. It is just too much damn trouble unlocking those trigger guards when facing an intruder. If you read the ruling, the handgun was protected because it is the most common form, and preferred means, of personal defense. An assault rifle, well not so much. In fact, it is a piss poor means of individual personal defense. Hell, look at the name--"ASSAULT".

But the ruling is really comical reading as Scalia twisted himself in knots to interpret the second amendment as based on individual defense, the very definition of judicial activism as it was a completely new interpretation. But, it opens the door. Stun guns can be considered "arms". Stun guns can be used for personal defense. Pretty soon, thanks to Heller, you will only be allowed to own a stun gun. But you are absolutely delusional if you think assault rifles are constitutionally protected.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why no legislative action against auto makers for making these vehicles with 400 horsepower? Do people really need a car that can go 150mph?
These overpowered killing machines are taking innocent lives. Let’s push to ban any car capable of traveling at speeds above 75mph.

So if cars = guns, we need to register guns, insure them, and license their users.

Actually it should be easier to restrict cars because they are not a right as owning a gun is. I’m all for reducing speed limits and more regulations with those under 25, that is the most dangerous group driving today, according to the insurance industry. Our company’s insurance company will not allow anyone under 25 to drive our vehicles.

How do you know owning and operating a car is not a right?

 

[Papageorgio]

There are a lot of people agreeing with the OP, yet I bet not a single one of them has the basic integrity to follow through and get rid of all their motorized vehicles.

What a bunch of frauds.

Just like

Why no legislative action against auto makers for making these vehicles with 400 horsepower? Do people really need a car that can go 150mph?
These overpowered killing machines are taking innocent lives. Let’s push to ban any car capable of traveling at speeds above 75mph.

So if cars = guns, we need to register guns, insure them, and license their users.

Actually it should be easier to restrict cars because they are not a right as owning a gun is. I’m all for reducing speed limits and more regulations with those under 25, that is the most dangerous group driving today, according to the insurance industry. Our company’s insurance company will not allow anyone under 25 to drive our vehicles.

How do you know owning and operating a car is not a right?

Prove that it is.

 

[Reasonable]

idiot! strawman....

No different than Moonbats on the left talking about gun control instead of school safety

Moron.

 

[miketx]

Why no legislative action against auto makers for making these vehicles with 400 horsepower? Do people really need a car that can go 150mph?
These overpowered killing machines are taking innocent lives. Let’s push to ban any car capable of traveling at speeds above 75mph.

No one wants to ban all cars, we just want sensible car laws. For example:

1. No car that holds more than 6 gallons of gas.
2. No car with rapid start and stop features.
3. No car with high capacity hood scoops.
4. No car with rear stabilizing spoilers.
5. Cars that can only be used by the owners.
6. No one under 21 can buy or operate a car.
7. Before buying a car you must undergo a mental health check.
8. No straw man purchase.
9. No individual sales of cars.
10. A comprehensive background check will be required.
11. After approval a waiting period of 15 days will be required.
12. Adding performance enhancing devices that enhance "stock" performance are outlawed, particularly in Maryland.
13. Driver licenses will be issued on a basis of proven need. Politicians are exempt.
14. Cars are prohibited in schools and post offices and court houses.
15. If the sheriff thinks you are mentally unstable he can take all your cars.

I forgot:
16. No silencers.
17. No loudeners.