"I own an AR-15. If there's a natural disaster in South Carolina where cops can't protect me, i'll protect myself against gangs" - Lindsey Graham

[basquebromance]

Lindsey Graham is fucking nuts

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Typical fantasy of AR-15 owners

More likely to use it to chase kids off their lawn

...which would also be a good reason...

 

[basquebromance]

when his lover Trump lost to Biden, Lissy The Sissy Graham cried like a little boy and couldn't stop!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Suppose someone is faced with a home invasion like Keanu Reeves was a few years back? Should Mr. Reeves have just called 911, or use what's needed to meet the threat
.

Peppermint makes John Wick look like a pussy

 

[rightwinger]

Lindsey Graham is fucking nuts

I think it’s funny when Lindsey tries to play the badass

 

[basquebromance]

Lindsey Graham is fucking nuts

I think it’s funny when Lindsey tries to play the badass

There is only one badass in the US Senate and that is Andrew Dice Hawley

 

[basquebromance]

watching a Lindsey Graham interview on Hannity or wherever is absolute torture. i feel like i'm getting tortured at Guantanamo!

 

[FA_Q2]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

 

[basquebromance]

Senator Graham: Biden should apologize to border patrol officers

i agree there

 

[danielpalos]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.

 

[rightwinger]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

In that case...
Evidently not

 

[basquebromance]

 

[FA_Q2]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

In that case...
Evidently not

...

Evidently so as it applies to a category of weapon that you stated directly it did not apply to. Ergo, cluless.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Typical fantasy of AR-15 owners

More likely to use it to chase kids off their lawn

Know a lot of AR owners, do you, Art? Sounds more like you have some sort of grizzled old redneck meme as a reference. It also sounds like you'd be one who'd be cheering on -from a safe distance - if Slow Joe and his HO were to send in America's new Schutzstaffel (FBI) to kick doors and grab guns.
I can promise all who believe that fantasy, one thing... it may not lead to violence but it WILL begin the process of actually tearing this nation apart. You people pulled off a coup with the media's help but when you take a step against 2A, you'll find you don't have any clue who OR how many, you're dealing with.

Nothing kills a school full of six year olds like an AR-15

Or a school bus.

Dozens dead after school bus plunges into ravine in Indonesia

The accident occurred on the island of Java on Wednesday and there were 39 survivors, the country's transportation ministry said.

news.sky.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

If I want one just to hang in my rec room and admire, that's my damn business.

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

How many times in the last 40 years has an AR 15 been used in a mass shooting?

How many AR 15s are in private hands

Too many times

The carnage inflicted by an AR-15 with a large capacity magazine is horrific.
The rest of the world looks at us in shock and asks.....WTF aims the matter with the US?

Republicans offer up thoughts and prayers.

Still didn't answer the question....., you at least didn't try to pull a bogus number out of your ass.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How many are gang related, or criminals killing innocents or suicides?

Your chart is misleading.

 

[rightwinger]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

In that case...
Evidently not

...

Evidently so as it applies to a category of weapon that you stated directly it did not apply to. Ergo, cluless.

Government can ban categories of weapons
Sorry, you can’t buy a Stinger missile

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

In that case...
Evidently not

...

Evidently so as it applies to a category of weapon that you stated directly it did not apply to. Ergo, cluless.

Government can ban categories of weapons
Sorry, you can’t buy a Stinger missile

If a soldier carries/uses it, I get it. PERIOD. NO QUALIFICATIONS OR IFs, ANDs, BUTs. I will NEVER compromise and will die to make it a reality.

You will never win. Give up now.

I am willing to die for this cause. You are not.

Machine guns or Valhalla!!!

 

[Shawnee_b]

Another wet dream of AR and AK owners
Fighting off the Zombie Apocolypse

Lindsey will be there to help you

It was your messiah ovomits plan too. He had plans to fight off 8 different types of zombies. Note the date on the link.

 

[FA_Q2]

And if someone wants one to shoot up a school or supermarket, that’s his damned business

Actually, not. The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms ... it does not give you the right to commit crimes with it.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that right is not unlimited and does not apply to military style weapons

LOL.

Clearly you are cluless.

Show me where I am wrong.
Start with Heller

Why would I start where you want me to considering you do not seem to understand the amendment. Miller has a pretty straight forward statement that addresses this:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


The second amendment applies directly to 'military style' weapons.

Heller affirms the right of the Government to restrict access to certain weapons

Never said the government cannot restrict certain firearms. I said that your statement was clueless.

In that case...
Evidently not

...

Evidently so as it applies to a category of weapon that you stated directly it did not apply to. Ergo, cluless.

Government can ban categories of weapons
Sorry, you can’t buy a Stinger missile

So, running to hyperbolic nonsense now.

What do stinger missiles have to do with the fact the second amendment directly applies to weapons that are ordinary military equipment or do you not understand what that term means?