- Thread starter
- #41
You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.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.
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.
You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.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 -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.
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.
Read carefully.You claimed that dangerous weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, remember Gun Controller?
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.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?
Allow me to quote myself:What's between firearms and nuclear weapons?
Perhaps something like a Nambu pistol that was as dangerous to the user as it was to the target?A firearm is deadly. Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly. Perhaps something that steals the soul? Or perhaps idiocy?
So you won't say what it is that you want to ban. Got it, gun controller.Allow me to quote myself:
"Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons."
How am I wrong?
Let me know when you can tell me how I am wrong.So you won't say what it is that you want to ban. Got it, gun controller.
Perhaps something like a Nambu pistol that was as dangerous to the user as it was to the target?
... you to address, rather that childishly avoid, his question.M14 Shooter wants...
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.Let me know when you can tell me how I am wrong.
Thanks.
Very 2nd grade of you.I asked you first....
... 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?
The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.Where the line is drawn is not the question, is it?
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.The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?
Well?
Because you know you'll have to agree with me.Well, I'm not going to play this game...
Have I mentioned lately that you're a fucking idiot?Because you know you'll have to agree with me.
Because you know I'm right.
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.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...