"Assault" Weapons

[progressive hunter]

No, feds do not have any database and are restricted from doing do.
All background check info comes from state or local.

got a link for that??

 

[Rigby5]

what they say whoever "THEY" are doesnt mean shit,, its whats written that counts,,

so again its just your opinion,,

No, what is written is based on implied interpretations of words, which can and do change meaning over time.
So then you have to look into wider writings where they expand on their intents.
And we know no states at first were willing to sign onto the federal constitution as it was.
They needed more assurances of state sovereignty.
And only then was the Bill of Rights created.
So from wider reading we better understand the intents of the compressed wording of the actual Bill of Rights.

 

[Rigby5]

got any links to back any of that up?? I didnt think so,,

so youre saying a state can change their constitution and execute people without a trial??? cause thats what you said means,,,

and I hate to break it to you but the fed constitution came first and is supreme to the states constitutions,,

Of course.
In fact, often people are executed without trial.
Like the Black girl that appeared as if about to stab another Black girl.
The cop just shot her dead.
There was no trial because it was not possible.
When a person is committed to a mental institution for life, there is no trial.
There is a court proceeding, but no jury.
That is because a jury would not be competent in a competency hearing.
Each state decides what is best.
The feds have no say or jurisdiction, and the federal constitution does not apply.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, what is written is based on implied interpretations of words, which can and do change meaning over time.
So then you have to look into wider writings where they expand on their intents.
And we know no states at first were willing to sign onto the federal constitution as it was.
They needed more assurances of state sovereignty.
And only then was the Bill of Rights created.
So from wider reading we better understand the intents of the compressed wording of the actual Bill of Rights.

can you show me where anything written this may change over time?? no you cant so what is written stands as the law of the landmm

sorry but thats just the facts and you progs will have to live with it,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course.
In fact, often people are executed without trial.
Like the Black girl that appeared as if about to stab another Black girl.
The cop just shot her dead.
There was no trial because it was not possible.
When a person is committed to a mental institution for life, there is no trial.
There is a court proceeding, but no jury.
That is because a jury would not be competent in a competency hearing.
Each state decides what is best.
The feds have no say or jurisdiction, and the federal constitution does not apply.

thats not an execution you stupid fuck,,, and she did intend on stabbing her,,


you progs are some evil fucking pieces of shit,,,

 

[justinacolmena]

Uh....NO....."Your AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, nor is it a “weapon of war.” Even if it was, you can’t find ammo these days. Without ammo, your rifle is just a club."

AR-15 ammunition is easily reloadable.

 

[Canon Shooter]

then you explain what a well regulated militia is??

You said the 2nd Amendment spoke of "weapons of war".

I said I read the 2nd Amendment three times, and did not see the phrase "weapons of war". I asked you to point it out.

You said it's in the first four words.

That is factually incorrect. The phrase "weapons of war" does not exist in the 2nd Amendment.

Now, please, before you continue this fallacy and make yourself look like a fool, simply admit that you were wrong, and admit that "weapons of war" is not contained anywhere in the 2nd Amendment...

a militia is a civilian military and well regulated in this context means sufficiently armed,,

Please don't...

not sure how you can secure a free state without military grade weapons,, ie ,, weapons of war,,

I said please.

They had guns, yes. Men back then were farmers and hunters. I'm willing to bet not too many of them had cannons back behind the barn just in case the well regulated militia was called upon.

Seriously, just admit the phrase isn't there (because it isn't) and we can move on...

 

[Canon Shooter]

AR-15 ammunition is easily reloadable.

Only if you know how to do it. Most people I know who own guns, including AR-15's, don't know how to reload their own ammunition...

 

[progressive hunter]

You said the 2nd Amendment spoke of "weapons of war".

I said I read the 2nd Amendment three times, and did not see the phrase "weapons of war". I asked you to point it out.

You said it's in the first four words.

That is factually incorrect. The phrase "weapons of war" does not exist in the 2nd Amendment.

Now, please, before you continue this fallacy and make yourself look like a fool, simply admit that you were wrong, and admit that "weapons of war" is not contained anywhere in the 2nd Amendment...



Please don't...



I said please.

They had guns, yes. Men back then were farmers and hunters. I'm willing to bet not too many of them had cannons back behind the barn just in case the well regulated militia was called upon.

Seriously, just admit the phrase isn't there (because it isn't) and we can move on...

yeah like a modern military force is going to use hunting rifles,,
back then a sharp stick was still a weapon of war, today is a different game,,
now dont you feel like an idiot,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Only if you know how to do it. Most people I know who own guns, including AR-15's, don't know how to reload their own ammunition...

whats that got to do with his point??

people learn new skills all the time when necessity dictates,,

 

[Leo123]

AR-15 ammunition is easily reloadable.

I understand but, that is not the point, most folks lack the expertise and equipment to reload. We have companies, corporations and businesses that have been doing that for decades, no one should have to make their own bullets.....Anyway that was my point, not that one can't reload.

 

[Leo123]

yeah like a modern military force is going to use hunting rifles,,
back then a sharp stick was still a weapon of war, today is a different game,,
now dont you feel like an idiot,,

Yeah and now apparently, they'll have to reload their own rounds......

 

[Leo123]

whats that got to do with his point??

people learn new skills all the time when necessity dictates,,

It should not be necessary for a gun owner or a soldier to reload their own shells. Government edicts should not be necessities but this current regime wants to micromanage every facet of your life. Maybe instead of using their intellect learning to reload their own shells, they could concentrate in ridding US of these D.C. tyrants.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah and now apparently, they'll have to reload their own rounds......

if thats what we have to do to maintain freedom then so be it,,

 

[progressive hunter]

It should not be necessary for a gun owner or a soldier to reload their own shells.

no it shouldnt,, but if thats what dems and repubes are going to force us to do to maintain freedom then so be it,,

 

[justinacolmena]

I understand but, that is not the point, most folks lack the expertise and equipment to reload. We have companies, corporations and businesses that have been doing that for decades, no one should have to make their own bullets.....Anyway that was my point, not that one can't reload.

Anybody with a hunting rifle in the back woods reloads ammunition. The equipment is for sale at every sports retailer.

 

[justinacolmena]

admit that "weapons of war" is not contained anywhere in the 2nd Amendment...

"Arms" as mentioned in the Second Amendment are in fact weapons of war. Why would anyone doubt or dispute this?

 

[progressive hunter]

"Arms" as mentioned in the Second Amendment are in fact weapons of war. Why would anyone doubt or dispute this?

progressives like him spend their lives doing just that,,

 

[Leo123]

no it shouldnt,, but if thats what dems and repubes are going to force us to do to maintain freedom then so be it,,

I understand your point however,

Anybody with a hunting rifle in the back woods reloads ammunition. The equipment is for sale at every sports retailer.

They’ll ban that too.

 

[justinacolmena]

I understand your point however,

They’ll ban that too.

Reloading equipment isn't subject to the interstate commerce prohibited persons ban under the Gun Control Act of 1968.