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.
So does the .30 caliber carbine round and I don't see you screaming about banning it. Why aren't you screaming about banning the mini-14? It fires both the .223/5.56m round and the more powerful 7.62x39 AK-47 round.
It’s an ARSo does the .30 caliber carbine round and I don't see you screaming about banning it. Why aren't you screaming about banning the mini-14? It fires both the .223/5.56m round and the more powerful 7.62x39 AK-47 round.
Yea… all of three shots a minute … at bestI wonder if he's ever seen the damage a .60 caliber Minie ball does when propelled by black powder?
why??It’s an AR
Should be banned as well
Yea… all of three shots a minute … at best
Your opinion doesn't matter.It’s an AR
Should be banned as well
No it isn’t. Mechanically it’s a cross between a M-1 Garand and a M-14. Both are real military rifles that fire a much more powerful round than the anemic .223/5.56mm the AR-15 fires.It’s an AR
Should be banned as well
Easily three shots a minute.Yea… all of three shots a minute … at best
I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.Wait...
You think 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd does -not- include firearms or the ammunition for them?
Um...
With that in mind, what weapons do you believe will facilitate a well-regulated militia?
what arms do you mean??I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.
Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.
If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.
But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.
Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.
And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.
The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.
As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.
I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.
Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.
If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.
But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.
Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.
And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.
The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.
As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.
Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.
Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.
If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.
But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.
Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.
And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.
The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.
As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.
I believe, anyone with some understanding towards firearms and the 2nd A towards a required Militia - knows this.Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?
Yeah.Armories
I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.
Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.
If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.
But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.
Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.
And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.
The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.
As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.
Nope. In their homes. There were bulk quantities of powder in the armory so that the people could replenish their supply. But EVERYONE was armed back then.Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?
Yeah.Armories
Of course there was cannon you dolt.Nope. In their homes. There were bulk quantities of powder in the armory so that the people could replenish their supply. But EVERYONE was armed back then.
And there were no cannon save for one PRIVATE organization. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.
You too are historically inaccurate.
Your "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.Thus, they ensured that the PEOPLE would be every bit as well equipped as the corrupt government that wished to persecute them.
It DOES however mention the militia and in the body of the Constitution (Article II Section 8) it describes that militia and its uses… one of which is put DOWN insurrectionsYour "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.
No, there weren't you ignorant clod. The cannon belonged to the BRITISH. Not the revolutionaries.Of course there was cannon you dolt.
What do you think Lexington and Concord was about?
What do you think they used to put down Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
Moron
Your "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.
