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.
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
State legislators are not doing their job.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
As always the ATF will make a few examples so mind shatteringly fascist that the bulk of gun owners will fall into line, at least on the surface. Tens of millions of us have already bowed down to registration—in some states registration with multiple agencies at both state and federal levels.
Lol ... The ATF did over 3 million Federal Background Checks for new firearms purchases in the month of March this year alone.
The silly gun-grabbers, never understand that gun control measures just sell more guns.
The Federal Government knows the Americans are arming themselves to the teeth.
Joe Biden is just looking for a way he can get his cut of the action ... As usual.
.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay upwww.theblaze.com
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Well Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
And in Article 1 Section 8 it spells out almost exactly what a "well regulated militia" looks like...and it is an organized militia...with roll calls, training, rank, and disciplineThe Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense
OK, so according to you, the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas
Irrelevant. And if you think hunting has died off, you're just a blue city elitist leftist living in a loft sipping white whine spritzers, huh?
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
I did not miss the pointAgain you miss the point. DACA was put in place when the Dream Act didn’t move through Congress.
obama created de facto law by executive action
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
What the fuck is a "collective right?" The Bill of Rights are individual rights. The term collective right means nothing.
And OK, so I got it. Government can tax you for free speech, free press, freedom from illegal search an siezure, they just need to inform you that you "overplayed" your right and it's null and void. That is in the Constitution of course. That our rights are only protected as long as we don't "overplay" them, huh?
I don't remember that part, quote it
Well Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense
OK, so according to you, the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
That is so comical. It is Freedom "of" religion. Not freedom to have religion. It is freedom "of" the press. Which means the press has freedom, not that you have the freedom to the press. So, the New York Times is free to operate as they see fit, but if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. I mean do you really think a free press means all press is free? Seriously? Of course not, you are just so knee jerk reactive to anyone even thinking about your guns that you get just plum damn stupid.
OK, so according to you [Winston], the government can outlaw Islam then because they still have the choice of another religion.
According to you, government can shut down the NY Times because you still have other news sources you can listen to.
Thing is it's not up to you why I want to own guns. And the Constitution says it's not up to the government
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas
Irrelevant. And if you think hunting has died off, you're just a blue city elitist leftist living in a loft sipping white whine spritzers, huh?
I live a mile down a dirt road on some of the most closely owned private land in the United States. Look it up, South Mountain, North Carolina. I love watching the Florida yankees driving through here thinking they are going to buy themselves some land, LOL. Not a snowball's chance in hell. I could mow my yard naked and nobody would give a shit. Mostly because nobody could see me. And hunting, please. The local boy scout troop goes coon hunting every year so that the scouts can make coonskin caps. And I got the sweetest coon gun you can imagine. There are few places in America where the population does not need a grocery store. This is one of those places, I have friends and neighbors that have no use for a grocery store except to buy sugar and yeast. Maybe you can figure that one out. The reality is there is no difference in this area now, and two hundred years ago, maybe three hundred years ago. I have muscadine vines in the top of the trees, just like they were in the 1500's. Some of them at least a 100 years old. My cats drag in more rabbits than I could ever hunt. Racoons are every damn where. Deer waltz in to my back yard all the time. And the funniest thing, I had a big black tomcat that, after seeing a wild turkey strutting across the backyard, refused to go outside for days.
So no, hunting is quite prevalent around here, but I am know for a fact, that this place is a rare place. And I know this, there is nobody going to be successful coming down this dirt road conducting a revolution. You guys can feel big with your little ass "modern sporting rifles", you won't last two minutes in this neck of the woods.
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
What the fuck is a "collective right?" The Bill of Rights are individual rights. The term collective right means nothing.
And OK, so I got it. Government can tax you for free speech, free press, freedom from illegal search an siezure, they just need to inform you that you "overplayed" your right and it's null and void. That is in the Constitution of course. That our rights are only protected as long as we don't "overplay" them, huh?
I don't remember that part, quote it
Well Regulated militia are the organized militia.The Second does not call for an organized Militia. The second calls for a Well Regulated Militia.
I explained what Well Regulated meant in context of the era. Your decision to ignore these truths shows that like most frothing at the mouth types you detest any information that does not agree 100% with your views.
