The Brits have been killing each other off in wholesale lots for a while.
List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia
List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Behold another leftist nincompoop spouting nonsense about the only solution that will solve this problem.Backcountry guides advise not attempting to shoot at bears at all - it’s the least effective way to neutralize a bear attack. Bear spray is what you should be carrying - two cans, in case a very pissed off bear finds you again before you get to safety.
Most people think they are a much better shot than they actually would be in a crisis situation. Even police who practice routinely often struggle in crisis settings. This is why all the ideas about arming teachers and other civilians as a means of defense against suicidal mass shooters is insanity.
Nobody but military and law enforcement need to have ownership or possession of assault firearms and large capacity magazines. All the arguments to the contrary are specious.
The Brits have been killing each other off in wholesale lots for a while.
List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia
Congress did not create the Militia, dummy.
The plain language of the Second Amendment's main clause, as the Federalist Papers affirm, firstly pertains to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are predicated on the imperatives of natural law regarding the inalienable rights of the people endowed by God (or nature if you please), not by governments. This inherent right of the people precedes the security of the several states, just as the militias of the several states precede the existence of Congress. Under natural and constitutional law the right to keep and bear arms and the existence of the Militia are ontologically rooted in the people themselves.
As the Court has observed on several occasions, Congress is empowered "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). It did not create nor is it empowered to create the militia.
Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.That is your ultimate goal. You passing more laws is meaningless. Criminals will not obey. Murder is against the law do murderers care?
It will only effect law abiding citizens who have done norhing to bebpunushed for
Indeed, your fellow leftist bitch poodles are stark raving mad, aren't they? Banning long rifles and 20-to-thirty-round magazines wouldn't fix anything.Yet another gun thread filled with rightwing fearmongering, ignorance, and lies.
Guns aren't going to be banned, guns aren't going to be confiscated.
Indeed, AR 15s with 30-round magazines shouldn't be banned, that would be unwarranted government excess and overreach, and bans don't work.
You gaslighting whore. You and your ilk are the fearmongering bitch poodles of ignorance and lies.Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.
No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.
And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.
Exactly.The Militias were set up by incorporating the existing colonial militias under the authority of Congress via the Constitution. They were always an instrument of the state, not vigilantes guarding against tyranny.
And don't forget Joe Biden's advice! Shoot through the closed door before you know who is out there and what they want.1. Hunting
2. Target practice
3. Self defense
Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.
2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy
3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.
Oh really?Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.
No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.
And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.
The Militias were set up by incorporating the existing colonial militias under the authority of Congress via the Constitution. They were always an instrument of the state, not vigilantes guarding against tyranny.
Why the thumbs down on my post, surada?United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats
Murders, Murder rate per million people, Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate, Murders per million peoplewww.nationmaster.com
1. Hunting
2. Target practice
3. Self defense
Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.
2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy
3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.
Relying on a handgun to take down a bear is foolhardy. It takes a very, very well-placed shot to kill a bear. You wouldn't want to try to kill a brown or grizzly bear with a .357 magnum. I know I've seen someone try...
You're full of shit.Bullshit. It was for the defense of the Nation against the worlds superpowers and the natives. The Militia referenced was the one set up by Congress for defense, not bands of Conspiracy theorists.
Actually it does, but over the years restrictive laws have been passed.But not machine guns or rocket launchers.
Why?
Once again you are wrong.Correct.
Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'
Correct.
Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'
Exactly wrong.Exactly.
[1] Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the state's, safeguarding the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including regulating state militia.
[2] The Second Amendment was a collective, not individual, right having nothing to do with defending against tyranny.
Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'