There is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories

[hazlnut]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

 

[Si modo]

And?

 

[SniperFire]

There is no legitimate reason for OP to be consuming valuable oxygen.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The OP is located in Chigaco and wants to tell gun stores what they may or may not sell based on "legitimate reason".

Well, there is no ligitimate reason for a chicago moran to dictate what is legitimate to others.

Fuck you very much.

 

[hazlnut]

*Crickets* so far from the GOPeanut gallery.

And a few brain farts, but we politely ignore those. (Sniper)

 

[hazlnut]

And?

Read it.

What was your favorite part?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

Intelligent answers only.

This is your homework assignment.

 

[boedicca]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

This is a great example of a Moronic Post. A link and a quote with absolutely no additional commentary as to why anyone should take it seriously.

But I will give H-Nuts 10 points for consistency.

 

[tjvh]

If the majority really agreed with gun control, liberals wouldn't have to politicize tragedies like Sandy Hook to push their gun control agenda. When rationality trumps knee jerk emotions, they lose every time. It really is that simple.

 

[tjvh]

The OP is located in Chigaco and wants to tell gun stores what they may or may not sell based on "legitimate reason".

Well, there is no ligitimate reason for a chicago moran to dictate what is legitimate to others.

Fuck you very much.

Especially now that Chicago has exceeded 500 murders in 2012... A place where guns are supposedly banned. Interesting fact: Chicago police backtrack after confirming 500th homicide - chicagotribune.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

And?

Read it.

What was your favorite part?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

Intelligent answers only.

This is your homework assignment.

How is a semiautomatic rifle no matter how large the magazine militarized?

Since it only takes a couple of seconds to change out a magazine there is really no difference between 10 10 round magazines and 1 100 round magazine other than the 100 round mag is more likely to jam.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And?

Read it.

What was your favorite part?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

Intelligent answers only.

This is your homework assignment.

How is a semiautomatic rifle no matter how large the magazine militarized?

Since it only takes a couple of seconds to change out a magazine there is really no difference between 10 10 round magazines and 1 100 round magazine other than the 100 round mag is more likely to jam.

Not only will it jam but it'll weigh an F'n ton.
100 rounds of .223 or .308 ain't lite!!!
Thirty is a perfect blend of fire power and weight.

 

[Politico]

Of couse there are reasons. I have slots all over my stuff that need things attached to them.

 

[g5000]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

Who made you the arbiter of what is legitimate?

Here in America, we have freedom. "I want one" is legitimate in a free country. We don't have to explain ourselves to creeps like you.


.

 

[The Infidel]

Of couse there are reasons. I have slots all over my stuff that need things attached to them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Editorial as fact.. the libtard way

 

[OKTexas]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

A typical left wing spin piece, wraps itself in the Constitution, while proclaiming there is no reason to follow it. The one thing the left fails to realize is the bill of rights are there to limit government, the rights of the people and the states are placed above that of the federal government. That concept applies particularly to the 2nd Amendment, it exist to provide an avenue of last resort for the people to regain control over a possibly tyrannical government, with out regard for the interest of that government.

Keeping this in mind the author saying " there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.", ignores this very fact. Limiting the ability of the people in any way to have the tools necessary to exercise the stated right of the 2nd Amendment serves the interest of the government, not the people.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Hazelnut dseserve the same star that Lahkota touts. All the Leftist idiots think the same.

 

[Abatis]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

Not a compelling commentary at all.

The "peddling militarized accessories" springs from thin air and the Post's editors fail to explain from where they think the authority to enact such restrictions springs . . . One would expect some development of their proposal especially given the editor's recognition that the 2nd Amendment does bind government action . . .

The Constitution is the law of the land.

Respect it.
​

Mkay . . .

In the end, if I were to modify the editor's words to reflect the reality of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment in 2013, I would say:

There is no legitimate power to be claimed that would allow government to restrict the sale of militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

It is not the citizen's responsibility to explain to you what the right is and how it frustrates your statist, authoritarian desires . . . It is your responsibility to make the argument that your proposal is a legitimate exercise of government power under the Constitution.

SCOTUS has held that the right to arms is a fundamental right; as such, laws challenged on grounds that it violates the right are presumed to be unconstitutional.

The burden is on you.

 

[AmericanFirst]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

Consistently an idiot.

 

[eflatminor]

...there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

Actually, there is.

The shooting sports for one, where speed loaders and 30 round magazines are utilized regularly.

Secondly, a high capacity magazine and speed loader is not a "militarized" accessory.

Third, there's the fact you don't get to decide for other people what's legitimate and what isn't.

Lastly, there's the lingering dilemma with all attempts to ban or restrict access to firearms, ammunition and accessories. We know from history that your bans will have ZERO effect on criminals that really could care less about your regulations. They will get firearms and magazines regardless of what you ban. That means you've only put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed bad guys. You're giving the law breakers who use firearms and edge. Now why would you want to do that?