Many hunters use AR15s...

[Rustic]

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

The NRA told you that, Right?

Na, the NRA is not pro gun enough, American needs to be better armed

 

[Lewdog]

You don't need an AR-15 to protect your home, and the right to bear arms doesn't say an AR-15 is covered.

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

who are you to judge how many bullets a person might need to protect themselves family and property

besides that what is to stop a shooter from having them anyway

or what is to stop them from carrying more mags

these shooters have plenty of to time to swap mags as it is

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.


that was not all law the executive order was too vague

no one ones truly mentally ill people to have access to firearms

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

based on what their looks

my semi auto is far more deadly then an ar-15

the ar you see down town is not a military rifle

They need to close the gun show loophole.


that is fair

however has anyone ever seen the stats on how many shooters

has got their firearm through the "gunshow loophole"

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

what does that have to do with anything


The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

that is far out and would never pass

that being said you can buy such insurance already

 

[Lewdog]

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

who are you to judge how many bullets a person might need to protect themselves family and property

besides that what is to stop a shooter from having them anyway

or what is to stop them from carrying more mags

these shooters have plenty of to time to swap mags as it is

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.


that was not all law the executive order was too vague

no one ones truly mentally ill people to have access to firearms

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

based on what their looks

my semi auto is far more deadly then an ar-15

the ar you see down town is not a military rifle

They need to close the gun show loophole.


that is fair

however has anyone ever seen the stats on how many shooters

has got their firearm through the "gunshow loophole"

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

what does that have to do with anything


The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

that is far out and would never pass

that being said you can buy such insurance already

I quit reading after the very first thing you said. Who am I to judge how many bullets a person can have in a magazine? Oh I don't know... ask the families of the victims from these mass shootings.

 

[Rustic]

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

 

[miketx]

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

 

[August West]

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

 

[BULLDOG]

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

 

[Rustic]

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

Anyone’s firearm ownership is none of your ******* business none of my ******* business and certainly none of the ******* federal governments business

 

[Lewdog]

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

That doesn't matter. The principal is still the same. If a person has served in the military they have not only a better knowledge of how that weapon works, but they also have a far better understanding of the damage it can do, and can respect it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

You need to address your whining to the court instead of here. They said the AR15 is not constitutionally protected.
Appeals Court Says AR-15s Are Not Constitutionally Protected

 

[miketx]

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

That doesn't matter. The principal is still the same. If a person has served in the military they have not only a better knowledge of how that weapon works, but they also have a far better understanding of the damage it can do, and can respect it.

Another nebulous response with no basis in reality. No one in the military uses an AR-15. lol

 

[miketx]

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

You need to address your whining to the court instead of here. They said the AR15 is not constitutionally protected.
Appeals Court Says AR-15s Are Not Constitutionally Protected
View attachment 179660

Stating a fact to you liars that an AR-15 is not used by the military is not whining. IT's calling you out on yet another of your moment by moment lies. Along with the fact that most any article from the rolling stone is questionable at best, and then the pesky little fact that if those rifles are illegal, how can I if I wanted to, go right this minute and buy one legally? lol, liar.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

Anyone’s firearm ownership is none of your ******* business none of my ******* business and certainly none of the ******* federal governments business

Great. Now, all you have to do is convince the courts.

 

[Rustic]

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

That doesn't matter. The principal is still the same. If a person has served in the military they have not only a better knowledge of how that weapon works, but they also have a far better understanding of the damage it can do, and can respect it.

It doesn’t take that type of training to understand and use firearms of any sort. Simple hunting classes for juveniles would do the same. Millions upon millions of people have had the classes and they work just fine.
I was in the National Guard for eight years, I did my basic training at Fort Jackson South Carolina. I already knew what was being taught when it came to firearm marksmanship

 

[miketx]

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

Anyone’s firearm ownership is none of your ******* business none of my ******* business and certainly none of the ******* federal governments business

Great. Now, all you have to do is convince the courts.

The only court that matters is the Supreme Court. The little fascist courts created by Obama are not worthy.

 

[Rustic]

Yup. And the constitution renders the power unto the people; to dispatch threats both foreign, and domestic. It really is an incredible document...

Yeah and it is a great thing that the majority of the people want more gun control than less.

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

Firearm registration is unconstitutional

 

[Lewdog]

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

That doesn't matter. The principal is still the same. If a person has served in the military they have not only a better knowledge of how that weapon works, but they also have a far better understanding of the damage it can do, and can respect it.

Another nebulous response with no basis in reality. No one in the military uses an AR-15. lol

IT DOESN'T MATTER... they are the same type of weapon. Go back to the flamezone where you have a much better knowledge of dicks to talk about.

 

[Rustic]

It’s obvious people like yourself want no one to own any firearms. LOL

It is? Because I've said exactly the opposite.

I think there should be a magazine size limit.

I think they need to re-instate the law that says those on SSI for a mental illness can't buy a gun.

I think guns like the AR-15 should be limited to only certain people can buy them... say like in Switzerland where only people who served in the military.

They need to close the gun show loophole.

They need to limit the number of guns a person can own, and no not to a number like 2 or 3, but something reasonable, unless a firearm is considered a collectible.

I think EVERY person that owns a firearm should have to take a safety training course before they can buy one, just like how people have to do it to get a driver's license to drive a car.

The most far out idea I have is, a person who owns a gun should have to pay for a sort of gun insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone, or someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, the insurance will cover the damages.

So other words firearm registration leading to confiscation

Only the paranoid jump to the conclusion that registration leads to confiscation. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease so maybe YOU shouldn`t be allowed to play with guns.

Anyone’s firearm ownership is none of your ******* business none of my ******* business and certainly none of the ******* federal governments business

Great. Now, all you have to do is convince the courts.

The courts have determined firearm ownership is none of the ******* federal governments business. That is why there is no firearm registration....

 

[Lewdog]

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

No American military uses the AR-15. Stop lying. Why would they when they have all manner of other select fire weapons? Why do you post simple minded lies like this?

That doesn't matter. The principal is still the same. If a person has served in the military they have not only a better knowledge of how that weapon works, but they also have a far better understanding of the damage it can do, and can respect it.

It doesn’t take that type of training to understand and use firearms of any sort. Simple hunting classes for juveniles would do the same. Millions upon millions of people have had the classes and they work just fine.
I was in the National Guard for eight years, I did my basic training at Fort Jackson South Carolina. I already knew what was being taught when it came to firearm marksmanship

No it isn't the same. People don't respect what a gun can do, especially a weapon like the AR-15, until they've seen it in action.