Jump to content
William1444

assault rifles are unconstitutional and illegal

Recommended Posts

This on-going gun control debate is sending people straight to the Democratic Party.

 

More people are defining their pollitical identity  by their stance on this issue and more and

more are choosing to define themselves as Democrats.

 

YEEEEEHAWWWWWW!!!!!!  Life is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Libswatter said:

Where do you get that definition? One can be assaulted with any rifle......

Well, in WWI, assault rifles were pretty much bolt action jobs like a hunting rifle.

In the civil war, a repeater rifle.

 

or a baseball bat.

or a knife.   Okay, now you can not own any of those either, just a single shot muzzle loader.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scout said:

Quibbling Over The Definition Of ‘Assault Weapon’ .....

 

Every gun-person on this forum knows the difference between the term "Assault Weapon", which has a legal meaning in the context of certain laws and expired laws, and "Assault Rifle", which was the term you incorrectly used and is not referenced in any law or proposed law, but has a different meaning.

 

You have been educated on this.

 

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the difference between the two terms, which I have personally pointed out to you.  So, form this point forward, all knowledgeable people on this forum can assume several things about you:

 

1.  You want gun bans enacted and you purposely conflate gun terms

2.  You disregard what many here have explained to you because the truth has no interest for you and your gun-ban agenda;

3.  You are a disingenuous person with a corrupt agenda when it comes to the discussion of guns and gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Right to own firearms is an individual right. ONLY if you are in a state national guard.

The constitution says nothing about a "state national guard" - not in any article or amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

 

I read your argument, pondered on it and came up with the reply of, NO. 

 

That is all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skans said:

Every gun-person on this forum knows the difference between the term "Assault Weapon", which has a legal meaning in the context of certain laws and expired laws, and "Assault Rifle", which was the term you incorrectly used and is not referenced in any law or proposed law, but has a different meaning.

 

You have been educated on this.

 

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the difference between the two terms, which I have personally pointed out to you.  So, form this point forward, all knowledgeable people on this forum can assume several things about you:

 

1.  You want gun bans enacted and you purposely conflate gun terms

2.  You disregard what many here have explained to you because the truth has no interest for you and your gun-ban agenda;

3.  You are a disingenuous person with a corrupt agenda when it comes to the discussion of guns and gun laws.

 

Hogwash.  I have intentionally gone back and forth between the two terms.

You are the first person to notice. 

YOU, looking for a log to keep you afloat in the raging river, lunge at one. 

Oh, well!  Perhaps there will be another log.

And such is this ongoing debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

Hogwash.

^^^^ I'll just let that be the last word on this matter, and permit others to judge which of us is writing hogwash and which isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hankk said:

You are wrong!

Nope, I am right.

 

I have the Right to posses the latest and most modern firearms available, now we can agree having a Tank or fighter plane is somewhat over the top.

So is an assault rifle.

 

The Militia is every citizen in this country not the National Guard

Yes, the state national guard is the militia organized by Congress according to the Constitution.

 

and the purpose of the Militia is  to protect the citizens and  the Constitution from a  Tyrannical Government or as I like to call them, Democrats.

No, that is what elections are for.  Are you going to take up arms against Democrats?? 

 

As long as the Elected Government follows the Constitution and doesn't start kicking in doors and taking away the Rights of citizens everything runs smooth, start acting like a communist, socialist government and it is our Duty to squash the Tyrants.

Or you could just vote for Democrats instead of neo nazi republicans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Skans said:

The constitution says nothing about a "state national guard" - not in any article or amendment.

 

The Constitution says that Congress will organize a militia BY LAW according to the Constitution.

It did.  The militia Congress organized is now called the state national guard units.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Or you could just vote for Democrats instead of neo nazi republicans.

Democrats could become more to the right than Republicans, and I would never vote for one of them.  Why?  Because, Democrats have proven themselves to be disingenuous perpetual liars.  They truly are the most indigenous construct that has ever infiltrated this Great Nation of ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

Democrats could become more to the right than Republicans, and I would never vote for one of them.  Why?  Because, Democrats have proven themselves to be disingenuous perpetual liars.  They truly are the most awful construct that has ever infiltrated this Great Nation of ours.

 

FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter, Obama all had very great character.

 

In contrast, look at ass holes Nixon, bobblehead ronnie ray gun, bush junior and his lies to kill our soldiers, 

ass hole lying Mofo trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, William1444 said:

The Constitution says that Congress will organize a militia BY LAW according to the Constitution.

It did.  The militia Congress organized is now called the state national guard units.

No, not quite.  Article 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes..... 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 8 is not in any way a limitation on the right of the American people to keep and bear arms as provided for by the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, William1444 said:

 

As between a "right wing" Democrat and a Republican dead corpse for President, I'd vote for the dead corpse without hesitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

No, not quite.  Article 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes..... 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 8 is not in any way a limitation on the right of the American people to keep and bear arms as provided for by the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree because that same 2nd amendment says "a well-regulated militia being necessary"  Join the national guard.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

As between a "right wing" Democrat and a Republican dead corpse for President, I'd vote for the dead corpse without hesitation. 

 

You would probably also rather have sex with a republican dead corpse than a good looking Democrat, 

but then, to each his own.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, William1444 said:

I disagree because that same 2nd amendment says "a well-regulated militia being necessary"  Join the national guard.

You can disagree all you want, but the application of English grammar rules to the 2nd Amendment, coupled with the Supreme Court's affirmation of the meaning, clearly does not limit the individual's reasons for owning guns to that of being a part of a well regulated militia.   It simply enumerates one such reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Skans said:

You can disagree all you want, but the application of English grammar rules to the 2nd Amendment, coupled with the Supreme Court's affirmation of the meaning, clearly does not limit the individual's reasons for owning guns to that of being a part of a well regulated militia.   It simply enumerates one such reason. 

It is pretty simple.   If you want to keep and bear arms, you must be in a well regulated militia, organized, disciplined 

and armed by Congress.  Besides, it would do you good to go through boot camp and do some good for your 

community and shoot up all that free ammunition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

Name five people.

 

As I thought... You don't no the reason that the average colonist or later citizen of the United States did not own a cannon was because the cost was prohibited however there was no regulation saying that they couldn't own one and in fact if they had the money they could have easily purchased one or if need be they could have made one if they had the proper tools to do so. You make declarative sentences with no facts you basically just pull them out of your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Giujo said:

As I thought... You don't no the reason that the average colonist or later citizen of the United States did not own a cannon was because the cost was prohibited however there was no regulation saying that they couldn't own one and in fact if they had the money they could have easily purchased one or if need be they could have made one if they had the proper tools to do so. You make declarative sentences with no facts you basically just pull them out of your ass.

 

You would need a lot of people to help you move it and the cannon balls and the ammo,

kinda like a militia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Scout said:

This on-going gun control debate is sending people straight to the Democratic Party.

 

More people are defining their pollitical identity  by their stance on this issue and more and

more are choosing to define themselves as Democrats.

 

YEEEEEHAWWWWWW!!!!!!  Life is good.

It's nice to live in a fantasy world for a few minutes unfortunately you seem to make it your entire life. You have no concept of reality because either you are a liar or complete and total idiot. When it comes to this next election cycle I can guarantee the guns will not be on the minds of the majority of Voters. Just about any poll taken shows that. But only in the small minds of idiots like you does it become Paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Giujo said:

As I thought... You don't no the reason that the average colonist or later citizen of the United States did not own a cannon was because the cost was prohibited however there was no regulation saying that they couldn't own one and in fact if they had the money they could have easily purchased one or if need be they could have made one if they had the proper tools to do so. You make declarative sentences with no facts you basically just pull them out of your ass.

Actually, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. For example, it was very common for private merchant ships  to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen".  The term "Arms" did include cannons.  In fact, it is legal today to own a cannon, if you want one.  I know one individual who makes cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, William1444 said:

You would need a lot of people to help you move it and the cannon balls and the ammo,

kinda like a militia.

Yeah... the horse and wagon they would use would be the militia... Hahaha hahaha are you a dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...