Banning AR-15s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

the militia not the weapons

The weapons too. We can regulate them however we choose. It is our country.

Let’s be honest, nothing is going to change because the anti-gun crowd isn’t prepared to do what’s necessary. All you do is wring your hands and make snarky comments on DCUM. Make no mistake, there are tens of millions of gun owners all across this country who are prepared to do a hell of a lot more than that to defend their rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well of guns were taken away from democrats that would reduce gun homicides by 95%

The average murderer is a white dude in nowhere America who shoots his ex.

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried

[Anonymous]

Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your typical deer rifle at .308 is way more powerful than a .223.

Literally the marine basic sniper rifle is very common to use for hunting.
You can buy some wicked assault rifles that fire .308 - you do not hear about them because as they are wickedly powerful they are expensive and so is the ammo for them.

Then make the purchasing age 21, not 18, for starters.
Require a background check for ammunition.
Little basic things that can be done.

Limit bulk gun sales which are a red flag for straw purchasing and trafficking, and more likely to occur in states without bulk limits.

No. It’s time to just take the guns and ammo away. No more compromise. There is no reason for this slaughter to continue.

It's a start that will help with some school shootings at least. The gun nuts won't let you strip them of their manhood so you have to start with little steps like was done with abortion.

They are ammosexuals. Real sickos, clinging to their fringe beliefs.

AMMOSEXUALS !!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ARs can’t be banned as they are in “common use” now.

Most popular rifle in the US at this point. Also commonly used for hunting, self defense, etc. Half the people in the us own some sort of firearm.

Using ARs to hunt is for the wimps. No true hunter needs an AR.

because they need a more powerful round than 223 to hunt large animals

Large animals were hunted long before ARs were created. Many gun owners are simply pretending to be macho by owning and using guns.

They only pretend to be macho. But in reality they are ammosexuals ie - real sickos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

How’s the weather in fantasyland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

Are car manufacturers responsible for car accidents? Are car parts stores responsible for accidents? Do these organizations need liability insurance to cover car accidents.

See the analogy?

Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

Are car manufacturers responsible for car accidents? Are car parts stores responsible for accidents? Do these organizations need liability insurance to cover car accidents.

See the analogy?

Probably not.

DP... you seem to have forgotten that auto makers HAVE been repeatedly held responsible. That's why cars now have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, and dozens and dozens of other safety features.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

Are car manufacturers responsible for car accidents? Are car parts stores responsible for accidents? Do these organizations need liability insurance to cover car accidents.

See the analogy?

Probably not.

DP... you seem to have forgotten that auto makers HAVE been repeatedly held responsible. That's why cars now have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, and dozens and dozens of other safety features.

Also the tobacco industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

It is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The opening phrase is what is called an absolute phrase that lists a prominent example of why, but not the sole reason why, the rights of the people shall not be infringed. An absolute phrase is not exclusive.

Consider: Trembling, I opened the package. It does mean I exclusively trembled. I could also have also been frowning, sweating, shaking or any other number of things as well that are not ruled out grammatically by choosing to focus on trembling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

It is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The opening phrase is what is called an absolute phrase that lists a prominent example of why, but not the sole reason why, the rights of the people shall not be infringed. An absolute phrase is not exclusive.

Consider: Trembling, I opened the package. It does mean I exclusively trembled. I could also have also been frowning, sweating, shaking or any other number of things as well that are not ruled out grammatically by choosing to focus on trembling.

We change up SCOTUS and we change up the interpretation. Pleases see Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

It is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The opening phrase is what is called an absolute phrase that lists a prominent example of why, but not the sole reason why, the rights of the people shall not be infringed. An absolute phrase is not exclusive.

Consider: Trembling, I opened the package. It does mean I exclusively trembled. I could also have also been frowning, sweating, shaking or any other number of things as well that are not ruled out grammatically by choosing to focus on trembling.

We change up SCOTUS and we change up the interpretation. Pleases see Roe.

Not an interpretation but the logic of the grammar. Which our forebears knew a lot better than we do today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

It is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The opening phrase is what is called an absolute phrase that lists a prominent example of why, but not the sole reason why, the rights of the people shall not be infringed. An absolute phrase is not exclusive.

Consider: Trembling, I opened the package. It does mean I exclusively trembled. I could also have also been frowning, sweating, shaking or any other number of things as well that are not ruled out grammatically by choosing to focus on trembling.

We change up SCOTUS and we change up the interpretation. Pleases see Roe.

Not an interpretation but the logic of the grammar. Which our forebears knew a lot better than we do today.

regardless, SCOTUS will decide what it means and when the justices change, the meaning changes,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons
Ban large capacity magazines
Ban bump stocks

Require gun owners, gun and ammunition manufacturers, and gun and ammunition sellers at every level to carry liability insurance akin to automobile insurance.

Make all of the above strictly liable any time their weapon and/or ammunition is used to commit a crime or is improperly or accidentally discharged.

Market forces and the insurance industry will take care of the rest.

civil war sounds great. can't wait

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

It is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The opening phrase is what is called an absolute phrase that lists a prominent example of why, but not the sole reason why, the rights of the people shall not be infringed. An absolute phrase is not exclusive.

Consider: Trembling, I opened the package. It does mean I exclusively trembled. I could also have also been frowning, sweating, shaking or any other number of things as well that are not ruled out grammatically by choosing to focus on trembling.

We change up SCOTUS and we change up the interpretation. Pleases see Roe.

Not an interpretation but the logic of the grammar. Which our forebears knew a lot better than we do today.

regardless, SCOTUS will decide what it means and when the justices change, the meaning changes,

In other words, you concede the framers of the Constitution did not mean to limit arms to militias, but SCOTUS is free to decide that limiting arms is what it should have said.