Our well regulated militia are the guard units.
Actually no. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army. That makes them the exact opposite of a militia.
An actual well regulated militia would only serve inside US territory. Militiamen would also have the right to take their military weapons home with them.
Universal background checks don’t take my gun rights away.
Don't be so sure. All the government needs to do is say that everyone with a certain eye color or hair color (or skin color) fails the background check. Then, if you have the wrong pigmentation, that means you start failing background checks.
In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.
Mexico has tried almost everything to stop US-made guns from fueling cartel violence. So now it’s doing what any litigious American would do: suing
www.theguardian.com
Actually it is Robert Reich who is throwing BS out there.
America is the cartels' main source of FN-57 handguns. But the cartels get plenty of full-auto rifles from Venezuela and from the Mexican Army.
There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS maintained the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.
Regulation of fundamental rights is allowed only if the regulation can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
There is no compelling government interest in outlawing harmless features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.
There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture.
When states concoct fraudulent definitions for the term "assault weapon" that doesn't mean that the true definition has changed. It merely means that those states have concocted fraudulent definitions.
Humpers are all in a tizzy cause their desire to play toy soldier is threatened. You guys are hilarious.
Not at all. People just don't want the Freedom Haters to steal their guns.
This whole militia nonsense started because the Freedom Haters were falsely saying that people only have the right to have guns if they are members of a militia.
Without that initial falsehood there would never have been a militia movement in the US.
You’re rational as with all gunaholics, revolves around what happened 200 years ago. When the biggest “ claim to fame “ for use of a weapon, is the efficiency it can be used to mow elementary children down; that’s enough reason to question the gunaholic motivation. There is no reason for a non military people to have one, other then to commit crimes and kill numbers of people more efficiently.
Its the reason we already have federal laws that try to regulate these weapons and the gunaholics who support the easy access to all firearms to anyone.
It's hard to tell what type of guns you are talking about here??
But regardless, people don't need to have a reason in order to have a given kind of gun. If there is no compelling government interest in restricting a given type of weapon, then people have the right to have it.
