limiting magazine capacity, which accessories a gun can have, requiring permits, is not an infringement.
right now American shooting team athletes are winning medals at the Pan Am games and most of them have no desire to shoot anyone either as to fantasies: given how many times you have ignored facts, denied reality and patently lied about American laws, don't you think you ought to calm down on claiming others engage in "fantasies" - - - Updated - - - given how many times your have made untruthful statements about gun laws, your opinion on this matter has no value whatsoever.
Which organized military are you talking about? Mexico? China? I think an armed population would slow them down severely. Were you talking about the US military? I doubt my son will be fighting against the American people over gun control and he won't be alone.
Can't compete at your level. Congratulations. I can only shoot the eyes out of targets using bows and standard rifles. I hope you don't run up against weapons outside your class when the rebellion comes.
no, an infringement was like the ban on possession of handguns in DC. that was an infringement. requiring trigger locks, would not be. nor would a 10-round magazine limit.
I really should know better. Some of you actually believe that it is you patriotic duty to have as many guns as possible and that the welfare of the nation depends on your readiness. If you are right, the nation is already lost. I sign off. I'm sorry to have engaged in this discussion.
Don't worry, soft targets are easy. But you brought it up first Professor. For liberals, they always forget the laws of unintended consequences. It's your history and you never learn.
Oh I am skilled with most small arms. then again I shoot about 400 rounds a week. this week its olympic trap, speed pistol and IAU crossbow. so what brand bow do you use? I was on Hoyt's national staff as an archer. maybe we can discuss bows since I know as much about them as firearms - - - Updated - - - the patriotic duty is honoring an oath I took twice. To defend the Constitution of the United States-against all enemies, foreign and domestic - - - Updated - - - once again, this is your opinion and the merit of an opinion is based on the knowledge and expertise and veracity of the author. Given how many times you have been completely wrong about gun laws, gun issues, gun use, your opinion as to what is an infringement has absolutely no value whatsoever to people who actually understand this issue
I can't even believe I'm replying to this but.. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means in full-working order and up to the standards of modern military as per the author's intent. I know you're a shill so you'll blather on,but that's how it is. Any restrictions passed after that were unconstitutional. Tbh,Citizens should be able to buy full-auto m4s and M-16s with m203s attached and full body armor.Grenades, too. or BARs, why anyone would idk but.. oo oo..M249s
Sort of like the first amendment. You can say anything you want, as long as it is within the authorities guidelines. Who decides that?
specific threats of violence are speech....but illegal. providing moral support to the enemy is speech...but illegal. giving out American military secrets is speech....but illegal. etc.,..etc..
Since it infringes on my right to keep and bear say my AK with its 30 Rd mag or one with a foregrip or adjustable stock, tautologically it has infringed upon my right to keep and bear arms.
Freedom of Speech - the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Like free speech, all other rights are inviolable. Yes, totalitarians will punish those that express themselves and there will always be those that side with authority. - - - Updated - - - You have no natural right to express your opinion on this, according to you.
lol.....Im not threatening anyone, now am I? and yes, threatening violence, terrorism, specific acts is a crime and should be a crime. nothing wrong with throwing someone in prison for saying "Im going to drive to your house right now and rape then kill your baby daughter!!"....right?
It's an arm. I have the natural right to keep and bear arms for defense amd that right shall not be infringed. Protected by the constitution. It's a tautology. A=A I have the right to possess arms. Included in the definition of arms is firearms in all their myriad forms. A=A
My long range rifle is in 30.06 so I can share ammo between weapons if necessary. Plus they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cool as (*)(*)(*)(*)
That's quite fine by me,because I'd rather possess an AR that is of higher quality that I built myself. Perhaps one in ".300 AAC Blackout" to mirror the 7.62 X 39 yet be 'murican qualitie Maybe with a 100-round drum.. ok..maybe not..That could get heavy. ..and I'll probly roll with a heavy barrel 5.56 And 30 Rd mags. And to be honest,He has a natural right to possess whatever firearm he can afford. Who are you to deny that? PS:Heavy barrel AAC .300/5.56 > AK47 all day every day
It is an arm. He has a right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, he has a right to keep and bear it. I guess my reply was unnecessary
