SniperFire
Senior Member
Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare
For the greater good, of course~
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare
Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
As usual, you're wrong.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
As usual, you're wrong.
i know exactly what heller says. and the issue of reasonable regulation was not disposed of. in fact, it was specifically left open by the court... you know... if you actually read it and all that.
as usual... YOU are the one who is wrong.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
I hear you...all of you on the gun rights side. I do. So, if banning guns or limiting them in some way is not the answer, what is? Or...do we simply accept these tragedies as the norm?
Anyone who would do such a thing is clearly mentally unstable. Start there......
Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference
And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'
I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference
And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'
I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi
I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...
Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare
Apples and oranges. You are better than this.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.
No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference
And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'
I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi
I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...
Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
Neither are M-16s or AR-15s. What is your point?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference
And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'
I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi
I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...
Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality
Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare
Apples and oranges. You are better than this.
The only idea I would have is one I've seen in the movies. Put a triggering mechanism on guns that only allow their owners to fire them. But even that idea causes issues
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference
And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'
I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi
I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...
Yes you can. The AR15 can only fire one round at a time. The same as a 9mm. Your wife understand what "semi"automatic means?
Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.
Neither are M-16s or AR-15s. What is your point?
Actually, they are... The right to bear ARMS (that is ALL weapons, including assault weapons - too bad if you don't like it)
Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare
Apples and oranges. You are better than this.
Apples and oranges? You're comparing second hand smoke and guns dummy.