We need to clean America of the guns !

Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.
 
Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world

You left out other classes of guns like hunting rifles like the Remington 700. I doubt you can talk almost anyone to banning that one.

Now, let's take a look at the legal definition of the civilian use of the term Assault Rifle. There isn't one. If you use the term Assault Rifle in your ban law it will get bounced by just about every level of State and Federal Court in the land. Assault Rifle is a Military Term and applies to one specific type of weapon only. Here is the definition of the Assault Rifle. Or at least my definition. It was also Stoners definition that started all this.

Any weapon that is designed to use in a firefight where it can do the maximum rate of fire, be light in weight, have one hand changing of mags, can be easily maintained, operated with very little training. It must be able to have the highest number of ammo. It must have a high rate of cyclic rate. At one time, it was thought to have to also be fully automatic but that's not the case anymore. IT needs to be able to be used in short and medium range. No specific caliber but you can pretty well rule out most 30 cals unless it has a light powder load behind it. It must be designed where every feature is for war with nothing for cosmetics.

Even though our Modern Hunting Rifles first saw action in war, they no longer can be used for war realistically with the exception of the bolt action sniper rifles in the 308 and larger calibers. But those are spec ops only and very rare do you see them on the battle field so we won't even discuss them nor do we even need to try and ban them. They are Hunting Rifles. The Courts won't even consider even a minor ban on those.

Handguns. Heller V D.C brought into the term "Reasonable". I know it doesn't specifically say that but that's the meaning. You have the right as per the 2nd Amendment to have a reasonable handgun in your home for obvious reasons. The courts have pretty much decided that the mag capacity of 15 rounds is reasonable but limiting it to 10 is unreasonable. A State can make it 30 rounds if it wants but never less than 15. I have one that hold 8 and the other holds 9 but one is a 45 cal so you can only have so many without have a mag that jams and the other is a pocket 9mm which can only hold 9 and still stay small. Both are considered "Reasonable" by law.

Now, about your banning concealed weapons. I agree that unlicensed individuals should never be allowed to carry concealed weapons of any kind. The reason for that is, the number of wrongful shootings by people that are licensed to carry concealed weapons is almost zero. These are the safest gun carriers by far.

Now let's talk about banning specific weapons. The State, County and Municipals CAN ban specific weapons but they have to be very specific in how they word it. If they use the term Assault Rifles and even talk about their general operation then that also grabs some fine hunting rifles as well that really make lousy Military Rifles. But if they are specific then it can be found legal. Instead of using the term Assault Rifle when you mean the AR-15/AK-47, be specific and use the phrase, "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". That's legal and will stand in court. But to harp on Assault Rifles will fail in almost every court.

I am mixed on whether a ban on the AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones is necessary. What is needed is the breakup of the Cult that goes with them. In Colorado, through creative laws, we didn't ban the AR, we broke the Cult. Oh, we still have a few that are still living the cult but it's no longer as prevalent. And there are fewer ARs in homes these days. Not fewer AR but just fewer in homes. You can still walk into any Gun or Pawn Shop and buy them in about 10 minutes if you have the cash and can pass the basic background check, just fewer and fewer people are doing it today. But try and find a decent Model 700 308 on the shelf. It wasn't the laws that changed, it was the Community.
This is ludicrous.

It''s the law. You want it changed, get the laws changed and the almost ALL the Judges replaced. Or you can move to Yemen which is the only country on the face of the Earth with zero Gun Regulations. And you see how that is working out for them.

Changing Laws does not change the Constitution.
No matter what Laws are passed, it is the US Constitution that determines what laws can and cannot do.
No US Court has the authority to change the 2nd Amendment.

No court has the right to change the intent of the Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court.
That they have is a testament to the willingness of corrupt people to ignore the Constitution
The constitution means zero to the far left Stalins
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.
Who cares !!
Harris will pass executive orders
She is a Nazi and the Dems run it all
 
I said 10 times you only need a revolver and shotgun for home defense ..anything else needs to be confiscated
/——/ Gun grabber Plan B: Ban revolvers.
Plan C: Ban shotguns.

Count me out on this discussion. More like a yelling and screaming match between two 8 year olds. I'll take care of the real world to keep both sides from killing each other although that might not be a bad thing if innocents didn't get hit by the misses.
 
The constitution means zero to the far left Stalins

Correct.
But you are very adverse to the 2nd Amendment.
So many might call you a far Left Stalinist

You also REFUSE to say why you are so frightened by AR15's ?
I'm more afraid of Democrats releasing tens of thousands of violent criminals (for their covid19 safety), who might actually use AR15's to kill people.
 
When that’s all the police and military are allowed to carry, we will agree.

I won't agree.

Whatever restrictions you put on law-abiding citizens, on police, or on military, criminals will not obey those restrictions.

I cannot agree with insuring that criminals are able to be better armed than police or soldiers or ordinary law-abiding citizens. I want the good guys—all good guys—to be at least as well-armed as the bad guys.

Beside, do you really want to put our military up against that of any hostile foreign nation, with inferior arms to what that other nation is giving its military?

You missed the point entirely. The ooint was that US Citizens should be able to own anything the US Military and LEOs are able to; so long as the civilian can safely store it.

Criminals are not part of the equation because they do notobey the law, no matter what level the restrictions are set at.
 
Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world
Sounds like you majored in History at AOCs Boston U.
 
Come and get 'em!
I won’t but Harris will
Tell that bullshit to the millions of big game hunters and all the Natives in the North who rely on long rifles for survival in many cases. 'Karen' Harris is welcome to send Beto across the country to confiscate millions of legally owned guns.
The little fag can start in Chicago's South side.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world


Is this a joke? It is a joke, isn't it? Nobody is this fucking stupid.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.
 
Any Assault Style Long gun should be banned

You only need a shotgun and revolver for home defense!!
Get rid of big mags and pistols
Concealed guns must be illegal as well

This is the most violent nation in the history of the modern world

6e857959255ec07ef5d1dcba952248f85e2c45ff-1527193.JPG
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.





Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.





Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.

Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.





Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.

Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.






Um, no, you haven't. You never knew about the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston until I refuted one of your other infantile arguments with their existence. And you claim it is by "my logic" that you can go around with a M2 HB. No, fool. That is the logic of the US SUPREME COURT!
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.





Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.

Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.






Um, no, you haven't. You never knew about the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston until I refuted one of your other infantile arguments with their existence. And you claim it is by "my logic" that you can go around with a M2 HB. No, fool. That is the logic of the US SUPREME COURT!

The Supreme Court has avoided the 2A rulings except for the Heller V like the plague. Outside of weapons directly outlined in the 1934 Firearms Act, that is. And, to the best of my recollection, there are no mentions of any AR-15s in the 1934 Firearms Act. And using your logic, we should revoke the 1934 Firearms act as being against the 2nd amendment as well.
 
Get rid of these guns
Be a civilized society
What more do you need than a shotgun and revolver
Are you stupid enough to think that criminals won't have all the firepower you're saying honest people should be prohibited from owning.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about a need to have guns. It's about the right to have them.
I said just shotguns and revolvers only
Doesn't matter. The needs of people vary. I can imagine that there are many thousands of US citizens in each category listed below:
  • owns no firearms
  • owns only a small caliber revolver
  • owns only a shotgun
  • owns both a revolver and a shotgun
  • owns more than two of each
  • owns a semi-automatic pistol
  • owns multiple semi-automatic pistols
  • owns a bolt action hunting rifle
  • owns a lever action rifle
  • owns a semi-automatic rifle
  • owns one of each of ALL OF THE ABOVE
  • owns several of each of the above
  • owns a gun store
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. (Arms is the PLURAL of arm) It doesn't say we can bear a sidearm. It doesn't say that we can bear a shot gun and a revolver. I can bear any number and any type of weapon that is available to an infantryman in the US military, with exception of fully automatic weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. Since I have passed a background check, if my firearm du jour is small enough, I can conceal it on my person or in my glove box...fully loaded and ready to fire. And my permit is a Weapons Carry License...includes knives of any length, swords, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, baseball bats, boat paddles (actually a wicked weapon...especially if you strike with the edge of the flat end), ball peen hammers, screwdrivers, sharpened #2 pencils...the list is endless.

Need is a subjective term. Right is an objective term and is clearly defined. I have the right to bear arms. That right is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. It is not granted to me by the constitution...it is PROTECTED by the constitution no matter what you think my needs may be.
Second amend does not guarantee an AR 15 or 20-30 mag clip





Yeah, it does. So does the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller.

Miller V was questioning the 1934 Firearms act that states what a shotgun can be and be illegal. Miller's shotgun was a sawed off shotgun with no shoulder stock. It had no use as a Militia nor a hunting application. But if read Miller V it doesn't say you can't have a sawed off shotgun. It goes on to explain how you can legally own one. Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper NFA stamps and license. In conclusion, Miller V has nothing to do with whether an AR can have a 20 or a 30 round mag. But Heller V DC has established that a Reasonable amount as per other ruling since is at least 15 and not 10.







The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Miller only dealt with the 1934 Firearms Act. Nothing more. That shotgun was specifically listed in it along with the Thompson M1921. it wasn't that the shotgun was illegal, it was the fact that Miller didn't pay the 200 bucks and have the proper FFL Licensing.






Miller stipulated why the shotgun could be regulated. Which absolutely guts your arguments to get rid of the ARs.

Using your logic, I should be able to cruise the neighborhood with my Mah Duece mounted on a tripod on top of my CJ-5. Heller V introduced the "Reasonable" to the mix of things.





Always with the infantile response. But, to your point, the first artillery (you do know what artillery is don't you?) unit in the US was a privately funded one.

So Artillery was provided by WE THE PEOPLE for almost 30 years.

Considering I have said that for quite some time in here and you have found that as untrue, glad you finally admitted you are wrong. And it was owned by wealthy land owners for defense against Indians who highly respected the big fire sticks. Most of the Canons (not artillery) used by the Colonials were loaned by private individuals to be returned or replaced. As I have said more than a few times.

But the common man could not afford a canon. Your whole premise is based on a lie. It wasn't WE THE PEOPLE. It was WE THE RICH PEOPLE.






Um, no, you haven't. You never knew about the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston until I refuted one of your other infantile arguments with their existence. And you claim it is by "my logic" that you can go around with a M2 HB. No, fool. That is the logic of the US SUPREME COURT!

The Supreme Court has avoided the 2A rulings except for the Heller V like the plague. Outside of weapons directly outlined in the 1934 Firearms Act, that is. And, to the best of my recollection, there are no mentions of any AR-15s in the 1934 Firearms Act. And using your logic, we should revoke the 1934 Firearms act as being against the 2nd amendment as well.







But the AR-15 HAS a MILITARY PURPOSE! You silly people are always calling them weapons of war. Guess what. They are, and according to the Supreme Court decision ONLY weapons that can be used in a time of war are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Like i said, silly boi, the ONLY weapons that can be regulated by the government, according to the USSC, are those that have NO MILITARY PURPOSE.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top