AR15: In common use?

Attachments

  • 510B0EF5-C924-454A-8217-FE612747C48C.jpeg
    510B0EF5-C924-454A-8217-FE612747C48C.jpeg
    50.1 KB · Views: 20
You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.

You claimed that dangerous weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, remember Gun Controller?

Here's the whole conversation. Explain to me about content or comprehension. You jumped from guns to nukes. Otherwise, explain which arms, in between guns and nukes, that you suggest are not protected by "shall not be infringed".

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.
And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.
A firearm is deadly. Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly. Perhaps something that steals the soul? Or perhaps idiocy?
It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons. You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists.
You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.
 
You claimed that dangerous weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, remember Gun Controller?
Read carefully.
I said "dangerous and unusual"

You agree that all firearms, as they are not "dangerous and unusual", are protected by the 2nd.
You agree that nuclear weapons, being ":dangerous and unusual" are not.

Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
Just like I said.
How am I wrong?
 
Read carefully.
I said "dangerous and unusual"

You agree that all firearms, as they are not "dangerous and unusual", are protected by the 2nd.
You agree that nuclear weapons, being ":dangerous and unusual" are not.

Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
Just like I said.
How am I wrong?
What's between firearms and nuclear weapons? What is it that you and Scalia want to restrict? You still won't answer. But you already admitted to being a gun controller because you stated that arms not in common use are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

That means that if a new style handgun is invented tomorrow, it can be banned before the end of the day because it's not yet in common use. No need to ban dangerous because it's already unusual.

Can you share a link to where you got your revised edition of the Bill of Rights with the "shall not be infringed unless unusual or dangerous" version of the 2nd Amendment? I only have the 1791 edition that doesn't have those modern revisions.
 
Allow me to quote myself:
"Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons."
How am I wrong?
So you won't say what it is that you want to ban. Got it, gun controller.

What about those weapons not in common use? You also said, directly, that they're not protected and you and Scalia say it with "dangerous and unusual".
 
Perhaps something like a Nambu pistol that was as dangerous to the user as it was to the target?

Interesting thought.

Reminds me of a certain moderator here who said guns that are too safe should be regulated. Or guns with ammunition that is too light including 5.56 mm which would include all all hand guns.

M14 Shooter wants to ban dangerous weapons and others want to ban all the safe ones... And these people pretend to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment. We're pretty much screwed.
 
Last edited:
Let me know when you can tell me how I am wrong.
Thanks.
I asked you first what weapons you would ban. But I can tell you where you're wrong. I asked you for your revised edition of the Bill of Rights. The one used by the Courts says shall not be infringed and doesn't have the "except for dangerous and unusual weapons". That's where you're wrong. You're not using the legal edition of the Bill of Rights.
 
... you to address, rather that childishly avoid, his question.
The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?
Well?

Where the line is drawn is not the question, is it? So you aren't even willing to stand up for your gun control; you're just willing to do it.
 
The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?
Well?
Well, I'm not going to play this game that no matter how I tell you you're wrong all you do is respond with asking how you're wrong. This is diversion from the fact that you are a gun controller and that you like gun control that you like, even if there's some gun control that you don't like. It's diversion that you do not support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution and believe that the 2nd Amendment only covers commonly used guns and that you believe that any new model gun type can be banned.

You're a gun-controller.
 
Because you know you'll have to agree with me.
Because you know I'm right.
Have I mentioned lately that you're a fucking idiot?

Agree with you on what? You haven't offered any evidence of anything at all. You just keep posting stupid one-liners that don't say a thing.
 
The problem I have with the phrase, "in common use," is the way the left will work to take guns out of "common use," so they can ban them.......they think long term...
Considering I have my Great Grandad's Winchester 1894 from 1935... they'll have to be thinking long, long, loooooong term if that's their plan.
 

Forum List

Back
Top