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.
Shows you know nothing about concealed carryProgressives do not get to say what other people do with their firearm ownershipWe shall see won't we?
What will you do if you are the victim of a home invasion?
Oh wait I know you'll piss you pants and watch your family members be brutalized
I'm not opposed to guns, and certainly not against using them to defend your home. Invade my home, one of us is getting shot. Doesn't mean I'm going to hide behind a gun every minute of every day. Coward.
You're right. You hide behind that gun all you think you need to.------coward.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
Universal Background Checks won't stop criminals and you never can show why you think they would. Criminals who murdered 11,004 people in 2016 had no problem getting guns with current, federally mandated background checks, so universal background checks won't slow them down.
What universal checks do? They allow morons like you to register guns so you can confiscate them later.
Yes, that is your talking point. Stupid, and wrong, but your talking point still.
You haven't been able to show it is wrong but you keep pretending that you have..... you are a moron.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
Shows you know nothing about concealed carryYou're right. You hide behind that gun all you think you need to.------coward.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
You don't know what you are talking about..... gun control laws in those few western towns didn't work....as the fact that one Earp was shot to death and the other Earp was maimed...by criminals using guns in their gun controlled towns....
You don't know what you are talking about....and Doc Holiday completely ignored the gun control laws...
Doc Holiday normally carried a concealed weapon. The Earps overlooked that although it was against the ordinance. Most residents of any given city carried concealed weapons and were overlooked. The Marshals didn't go out of their way to frisk people to look for guns. And it worked well. After that shooting, people stopped at city limits and religiously checked the sidearms. I suggest you watch a parody called "A Million Ways to Die in the West". it's not far off.
You just cancelled out your own post..... gun control only works for law abiding people.....criminals, not so much.
Shows you know nothing about concealed carry
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
You don't know what you are talking about..... gun control laws in those few western towns didn't work....as the fact that one Earp was shot to death and the other Earp was maimed...by criminals using guns in their gun controlled towns....
You don't know what you are talking about....and Doc Holiday completely ignored the gun control laws...
Doc Holiday normally carried a concealed weapon. The Earps overlooked that although it was against the ordinance. Most residents of any given city carried concealed weapons and were overlooked. The Marshals didn't go out of their way to frisk people to look for guns. And it worked well. After that shooting, people stopped at city limits and religiously checked the sidearms. I suggest you watch a parody called "A Million Ways to Die in the West". it's not far off.
You just cancelled out your own post..... gun control only works for law abiding people.....criminals, not so much.
Nope, I just stated history. You deny history. You want everyone to be armed on the street. And that just doesn't work. Drunks are no longer duking it out. They are now shooting it out and I don't know too many drunks that won't kill more innocent bystanders than the person they are angry with. If you deny history you are going to just repeat history over and over.
What about all the other perils you face on a daily basis?
What do you do to guard against them?
Do you look both ways before you cross the street. Do you wear a seat belt? Do you carry a cell phone?
Yes, that is your talking point. Stupid, and wrong, but your talking point still.
You haven't been able to show it is wrong but you keep pretending that you have..... you are a moron.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
You don't know what you are talking about..... gun control laws in those few western towns didn't work....as the fact that one Earp was shot to death and the other Earp was maimed...by criminals using guns in their gun controlled towns....
You don't know what you are talking about....and Doc Holiday completely ignored the gun control laws...
Doc Holiday normally carried a concealed weapon. The Earps overlooked that although it was against the ordinance. Most residents of any given city carried concealed weapons and were overlooked. The Marshals didn't go out of their way to frisk people to look for guns. And it worked well. After that shooting, people stopped at city limits and religiously checked the sidearms. I suggest you watch a parody called "A Million Ways to Die in the West". it's not far off.
You just cancelled out your own post..... gun control only works for law abiding people.....criminals, not so much.
Nope, I just stated history. You deny history. You want everyone to be armed on the street. And that just doesn't work. Drunks are no longer duking it out. They are now shooting it out and I don't know too many drunks that won't kill more innocent bystanders than the person they are angry with. If you deny history you are going to just repeat history over and over.
You just say things that have no bearing in truth or reality...... is that because your brain is injured, or are you just trying to act stupid on the internet?
You haven't been able to show it is wrong but you keep pretending that you have..... you are a moron.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
You haven't been able to show it is wrong but you keep pretending that you have..... you are a moron.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
Shows you know nothing about concealed carryProgressives do not get to say what other people do with their firearm ownershipI'm not opposed to guns, and certainly not against using them to defend your home. Invade my home, one of us is getting shot. Doesn't mean I'm going to hide behind a gun every minute of every day. Coward.
You're right. You hide behind that gun all you think you need to.------coward.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
this is how good the Earps gun control laws worked in Tombstone...
Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia
In the next five months, Virgil was ambushed and maimed, and Morgan was assassinated.
Shows you know nothing about concealed carryProgressives do not get to say what other people do with their firearm ownership
You're right. You hide behind that gun all you think you need to.------coward.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
this is how good the Earps gun control laws worked in Tombstone...
Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia
In the next five months, Virgil was ambushed and maimed, and Morgan was assassinated.
So you equate criminal activity to gun control. it was a feud. A Vendetta on both sides. The Earps were trying to uphold the laws in a lawless town. In the end, the Earps did win but the costs were, many would think, too high.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
You are wrong....... Scalia stated as part of the Majority Opinion in D.C. V Heller, making it Constitutional law that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment as long as they are not both dangerous and unusual......and the AR-15 is neither....as confirmed by Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, Alito's opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts...
You don't know what you are talking about.
The lower courts are breaking the law.......
Shows you know nothing about concealed carryYou're right. You hide behind that gun all you think you need to.------coward.
Stay within the law in your responses. Not everyone can get a CCW. Even if it's your right, it might be almost impossible to get it due to many reasons. You are back to saying everyone is safer if they are armed. So let's look at some history of our nation. And we are NOT any more civilized today than before.
Due to the duels and gun fights, Congress barred guns from their buildings and only allowed security people to be armed. They also barred duels involving any member of congress or their staff. This also included the Executive Branch. There were too many arguments being settled with firearms.
In 1871, many western towns and cities barred carrying firearms inside of city limits. This included concealed weapons but they didn't look too closely for those. If you pulled your concealed weapon and used it, you were generally hung for murder. If you think the shootout at the OK Corral was about Ruselers V Law, you would be wrong. The Earps entered what they thought was going to be a civil meeting with their guns pointed down. It was about the Cowboys demanding to wear their guns inside of city limits. The Clantons and McCloweries opened fire first and the smoke flew. In some towns, you got one warning. The next warning, the Marshals didn't wait. They just shot you dead when they saw you with your gun. These others didn't make the penny dreadfulls since neither party was as famous as the Earps. It wasn't too long that the Wild Wild West wasn't wild anymore. The Cowboys no longer shot up the towns and killed innocent people with stray shots and damaged private property with their bullets. But it was pretty wild from 1866 to 1870 though. The Wild Wild West lasted only 4 years. Even the Indian Wars were winding down.
There has been common sense gun controls in the country since almost the day it was created. And not so common sense from the very early days. And some not so common sense ones that were thrown out starting in 1869. What's happened is we have forgotten those common sense gun regulations and have tried to turn it back to the Wild Wild West. And we are still just not any more civilized to do that.
this is how good the Earps gun control laws worked in Tombstone...
Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia
In the next five months, Virgil was ambushed and maimed, and Morgan was assassinated.
So you equate criminal activity to gun control. it was a feud. A Vendetta on both sides. The Earps were trying to uphold the laws in a lawless town. In the end, the Earps did win but the costs were, many would think, too high.
No..... you are saying that gun control in those western towns worked.... I showed you that the criminals routinely ignored those laws and even maimed and murdered the guys who put them in place
You really need to think before you post.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
You are wrong....... Scalia stated as part of the Majority Opinion in D.C. V Heller, making it Constitutional law that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment as long as they are not both dangerous and unusual......and the AR-15 is neither....as confirmed by Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, Alito's opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts...
You don't know what you are talking about.
The lower courts are breaking the law.......
Scalia was part of the minority. Had he been part of the majority, his signature would have been on the final ruling itself. Instead, it's on the dissenting views which is done by the Minority. it's become a laughing stock. In the Ruling for Massachusetts, Federal Court Judge Young poked fun at Scalia in her ruling. For Her to rule any other way would have been breaking the law. She could have left off the dig at Scalia but even a Judge can have a sense of humor.
Scalia can dissent until the cows come home. But a dissent is the losing side of the ruling. it's there for other judges to read and maybe sway them in the future. Or, like Scalias dissent, it could end up being a joke and only taken seriously by people like yourself.
Yes, we are coming for your guns. All of your guns. We are coming in black choppers in the dead of the night, all dressed in black with our faces painted black. We have already put in the cameras in your house, in your bedroom and even your bathroom. We know when you are sleeping and hacked the codes of your security system. When you weren't there, we replaced your dogs with our own highly trained dogs who act exactly like yours. We may wait until you are in deep sleep or taking a good healthy crap when we come in. So sleep tight, have a loose sphincter.
Of course, we are only coming for your guns but I get to keep mine and so do the majority of the rest of America.
At the 1:58 mark on the video, your buddies finally can't keep the lie going anymore and admit they want to ban all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...and in truth, all guns....
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
The Caetano v massachusttes opinion defines "dangerous and unusual" reinforcing the D.C v Heller decision .......
And that has already been covered. You can't use a generic wording. You have to use specific wording. If you word it so that it can apply to every other semi auto weapon then that hasn't held up in the courts. But if you specifically say, "The AR-15 and it's clones" then that does stand up in court. What the boy senator is doing is using his boyish charms to present the NRA talking points. it sounds real good to someone like you. But when the rest of us remember that the law for regulating a specific firearm has to be specific then we see he's just trying cloud the issue with NRA Talking Points that really don't mean a thing other than he's bought and paid for by Special Interest Groups.
No... it doesn't stand up in court because the D.C. v Heller, the Cateano v Massachusetts and Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, as well as Miller v. United States specifically say that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and there are no exceptions made against the AR-15...
The lower courts are breaking the law.
Here we go again. You just won't learn from having your ass handed to you. You figure this new bunch will allow you to get away with this. You already know I won't So here we go again.
Heller V DC only dealt with Heller's problems. He was denied having an operational Handgun in his Home. He was denied a valid Permit to own a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court ruled that DC (therefore the State) cannot required handguns to be either disassemble or have a locking trigger lock in the home. They also ruled that if Heller qualified for the permit then he should be issued the permit. Heller V DC only addressed handguns in the home.
I'll say it again, Scalia's dissent means nothing for a law. A Dissent is the opinion of the losing side in the Supreme Court. It's just a personal opinion, nothing more. It has no legal bearing whatsoever. It doesn't matter that the dissent was friggin longer than the actual ruling, and it was. It still accounts for nothing.
Cateano v Massachusetts place the Stun Gun on the same footing as the Handgun. Although it's not a firearm, it does the same job as the handgun. Simple as that. But I think it goes one step further. I think an argument can be made that, unlike a handgun, you can carry it without a CCW which makes it it's own class. The last part has not been challenged.
Friedman v Highland Park does say Assault Rifle. That alone would be enough to overturn it. But inside the law it defines it with 5 points and then specifically uses the names AR-15 and AK47 making it specific. The Higher Courts decided not to hear it due to this reason. Again, the dissenting views mean nothing.
The AR-15, AK47 and their clones are only protected if the State deems them so. By the State, I mean the State and Local Governments as long as they both do not have conflicting laws. LIke Judge Young said, "If you don't like it in the State you are in, Move".
Here, take you ass back. I don't want it.
You are wrong....... Scalia stated as part of the Majority Opinion in D.C. V Heller, making it Constitutional law that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment as long as they are not both dangerous and unusual......and the AR-15 is neither....as confirmed by Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, Alito's opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts...
You don't know what you are talking about.
The lower courts are breaking the law.......
Scalia was part of the minority. Had he been part of the majority, his signature would have been on the final ruling itself. Instead, it's on the dissenting views which is done by the Minority. it's become a laughing stock. In the Ruling for Massachusetts, Federal Court Judge Young poked fun at Scalia in her ruling. For Her to rule any other way would have been breaking the law. She could have left off the dig at Scalia but even a Judge can have a sense of humor.
Scalia can dissent until the cows come home. But a dissent is the losing side of the ruling. it's there for other judges to read and maybe sway them in the future. Or, like Scalias dissent, it could end up being a joke and only taken seriously by people like yourself.
Young broke the law..... the dissent was against the judges for not taking the case, you moron....it wasn't from an actual decision so there is no Constitutional weight to youngs decision..... you don't know what you are talking about..
Then why does the UK have twice as many rape and assault victims per capita than the US?When you discuss gun self defense here on U.S.messageboard, the anti gunners call anyone who carries a gun for self defense cowards, and various other names...."What, you can't go outside without a gun, what kind of wimp, coward, are you." And then you get the " no one in my family has ever, ever been a victim of crime so no one should ever be allowed to carry or own a gun for self defense since because no one in my family has ever, ever been a victim of any crime, it is obvious that no one ever, anywhere in this country needs a gun for self defense...."
And then something like this happens.....
Video: Armed citizen effectively defends family in Houston
Investigators said it all started when the man’s wife pulled into their driveway Tuesday night. Then the two armed suspects jumped out and tried to rob her.
First, they took her purse, and then they tried to force her into the house. However, that is when her husband showed up.
He heard the commotion from inside, grabbed his gun and ended up exchanging gunfire with the intruders. Fortunately, the couple weren’t hit, but one of the suspects was hit in the head, police said. The other suspect took off running.
“One can only imagine what was going through their mind,” Choi added. I’d guess it was something along the lines of thank goodness we could effectively defend ourselves. The victims should be thankful to live in a state that doesn’t go out of its way to interfere with that right, too.
A good guy with a gun not only stopped a bad guy with a gun, but he almost certainly saved lives, starting with his own. Opponents of the individual right to bear arms usually dismiss these scenarios as improbable, if not entirely theoretical. That’s why it’s well worth highlighting such incidents when they occur, even if they largely speak for themselves.
And with guns, the US is a more violent place.
Great.
According to Politifact:
Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.
It's pretty well known in the US that less than half of all rapes are not reported. I won't go as far as one report that claimed it was as low as one in 4 but it's pretty low. There is no way of us knowing how many rapes in Britain go unreported. But if it follows the assault reports, it's going to be a much higher percentage than the US. Reason comes into play here. I doubt if there really is much difference in the rate between the two countries and there is no real way to prove one way or the other.
Too bad for you I also use that politifact article on Britain vs the U.S. crime rates and you failed to actually post the relevant part....here, I will do it for you...
For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
-----
This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.
Your claim that criminals only get guns by criminal means is pretty stupid.
No, it isn't, they can't legally buy, own or carry guns because they are criminals. That means, doofus.... if they buy any gun, from anyone, they are doing so illegally, you moron.
Such a dumb statement. You think the only thugs are the ones who have lost their right to own guns. Without universal background checks, anybody can buy all the guns they want with no problem.
Universal Background Checks won't stop criminals and you never can show why you think they would. Criminals who murdered 11,004 people in 2016 had no problem getting guns with current, federally mandated background checks, so universal background checks won't slow them down.
What universal checks do? They allow morons like you to register guns so you can confiscate them later.
Yes, that is your talking point. Stupid, and wrong, but your talking point still.
You haven't been able to show it is wrong but you keep pretending that you have..... you are a moron.
