For once, I agree with you.What I posted was acts of terrorism
But they were acts of terrorism FOR different reasons.
There is no comparison.
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.
For once, I agree with you.What I posted was acts of terrorism
yes this is what I posted acts of terrorism glad you agreeFor once, I agree with you.
But they were acts of terrorism FOR different reasons.
There is no comparison.
You don't have to. The point is to make occupation or tyranny too costly to be worth the effort. That's how the Afgans drove out the Russians. Not by facing the full force of their military on the battlefield, but by making the troops aware that behind every rock, around every corner, there could be a bullet heading their way. Military forces today do not pick an open field, agree to meet at a stated time, and slug it out while civilians watch from the sidelines.So you think you can withstand a frontal assault by infantry?
It's irrelevant if I need one. The Constitution says nothing about need. However, I feel like I need one to help me obtain firepower superiority and that's a good enough reason for anyone asking. Not that yours, or anyone else's opinion means fuck all.It’s as true now as it was over a year ago – as true now as always:
There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR pattern rifle/carbine; it’s a want, not a need.
And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to possess an AR 15 for whatever personal, subjective reason – target shooting or personal defense.
But one shouldn’t try to advance the ridiculous lie that one ‘needs’ an AR 15 to defend against ‘government tyranny,’ it’s factually untrue.
Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that recognizes insurrectionist dogma; nothing that recognizes the wrongheaded notion that armed citizens alone, absent government authorization, not members of a government authorized and regulated militia, are sanctioned to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
What Second Amendment case law does say is that private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – only state governments and the Federal government have that authority (Presser v. Illinois (1886)).
With private citizens alone lacking the authority to form a militia and ‘take up arms’ against ‘the government,’ they also lack the ‘need’ to possess particular firearms, such as AR 15s.
Consequently, the ‘need’ argument in opposition to AWBs is devoid of merit.
The argument of merit against AWBs is that they constitute government excess and overreach, that they fail even a rational basis justification, and that they would not have the desired outcome of reducing gun crime and violence.
No, it certainly doesn't.It says the government cannot infringe on our right to own and use an AR15.
I think you're misinterpreting the actual words, but I'll have to wait for an American to spell it out correctly.The 2nd amendment does say the federal government shall make no laws regarding firearms at all.
That could be another misinterpretation?It gave total jurisdiction to the states and municipalities.
That sounds more like a lie, rather than a misinterpretation.All federal gun laws are totally illegal.
Is an Atomic Bomb a Tool (or a Weapon)
When used in the proper way, the technology is used to produce energy, so yes. Similarly, a gun can be used to take a human life or to provide food for human consumption. A rock can be looked at the same way. I can use it to bash someone's head in or I can use it to drive a nail or open a mussel to feed myself. Your argument is short sighted and fallacious.Is an Atomic Bomb a Tool (or a Weapon)
Why do you lie to yourself like this?No, it certainly doesn't.
Yeah, it does.No, it certainly doesn't.
A nuke is a bomb, not a gun. It isn't bearable and using one as a self-defense weapon would be stupid. No one is arguing that the 2nd Amendment is protecting the ownership of nuclear weapons.Is an Atomic Bomb a Tool (or a Weapon)
A nuke is a bomb, not a gun. It isn't bearable and using one as a self-defense weapon would be stupid. No one is arguing that the 2nd Amendment is protecting the ownership of nuclear weapons.
That weapon weighs 316 pounds. Nobody is going to tote that around...lol
That weapon weighs 316 pounds. Nobody is going to tote that around...lol
That weapon weighs 316 pounds. Nobody is going to tote that around...lol
Not to mention the blast radius is larger than the range of the weapon.
Its yield is only 20 tons of TNT. The range is over a mile.
Which makes it a crew served weapon.You could easily break that down into several packs.
It's an infantry weapon.
.02kt. Pretty small.Not to mention the blast radius is larger than the range of the weapon.