Except NO ONES freedoms are under attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Printable View
Except NO ONES freedoms are under attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Speak for yourself, I don't own a Cadillac nor do I eat chicken sandwiches and french fries.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
There are two kinds of people in this world Simon: Those that have eaten at chick-Fil-a, and those that lie about eating at chick-Fil-a.Quote:
Originally Posted by simontibbett
I get the salad there and I HATE waffle fries.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
So you're right, I have HAD a chicken sandwich from there, but I got a side salad instead of those nasty things.
Waffle fries are hard to dip into the ketchup they give you... Fuck waffle fries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
You're too smart to be this stupid.
Whos freedom and what freedom is under attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
For starters.... anybody who owns one of these.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.co...r-15-guy-4.jpg
So then exactly what freedom is under attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
lol.....................Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
So then do you admit that no ones freedoms are under attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
riiiiiggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttt.... ....Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Did .blank hack your account?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Here's the questions that you should be asking about a ban on assault style weapons.
First, will it be a ban on future sales from manufacturers, or existing and already privately owned property?
If it is a ban on only future sales, then the manufacturers ability to make profits on these sales will be reduced by regulation of commerce.
If it bans currently privately owned firearms, then you are either making law abiding citizens into criminals, or you are seizing private property without due cause. If you do a mandated gun buyback, who foots the bill? And will the people who bought them receive what they paid, or much less? Are they just to take a loss because Obama says so?
Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate Americans w/o charge or trial. That will cramp your freedom.
That same NDAA law also gives him the power to detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime.
How about forcing Religious groups to supply/pay for birth control. Separation of church and state right? Isn't that what you guys claim when anyone mentions 8lb 6oz baby Jesus in a public domain? Works both ways.
Forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Violating Equal Protection and Voting Rights. The 14th Amendment guarantees “due process” and “equal protection of the laws.” The 15th Amendment guarantees that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race.…”. Anyone else remember the Black Panthers in 2008? Now that wasn't Obama doing it, but they sure dropped the charges on the ones that did.
All I want to know is if worst case scenario there was an all out ban and collection of Assault Rifles, how does that infringe on your "right to bear arms"?Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Can someone cite some language in the constitution that says I can own an assault rifle?
Just out of curiosity what is an assault rifle to you? It seems you are opposed to them, which is fine that is your opinion. Without looking it up (not sure your familiarity with firearms), without being sarcastic, or just posting a picture. After you write what an assault rifle is then why is it more dangerous than any other firearm?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm not opposed to assault rifles at all. And I don't think they are really any more dangerous than regular rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by On_Her_Face
For some reason I thought you were for the ban. Yeah they essentially are not more dangerous than a bolt action (sure you can fire faster than an assault rifle), but then you can have a shotgun and clear out a hallway of any building you want. Just curious... carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
1791 - Second Amendment - As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: "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."
Definition - infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on
2008 - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
As Congress did not state limits on types of firearms; technically, a restriction on assault style weapons is an infringement, and thus not in line with the US Constitution (i.e - unconstitutional).
A more important item to consider is how the collection of assault style rifles would be implemented. Would you encourage the US government to ignore the Fourth Amendment while they ignore the Second Amendment, and enter homes without warrants or probable cause where weapons might be stashed? Where is the line where you just throw out the entire Bill of Rights and revoke the First Amendment also? It's a slippery slope.
Edit that quickly - you might confuse Sinfix.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
BTW - Fully automatic assault rifles are not exactly the same thing as semi-automatic assault style rifles.
I am not 100% against the regulation of some assault style rifles, as we already have that with fully auto weapons.
Registration of all firearms should not be passed into law though, as that is counterproductive to the spirit of the law when the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment.
So the government making objects that i currently own peacefully, illegal and taking them from me would not infringe on my freedom..... ok, im starting to follow you and understand how we're not agreeing with each other on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
So the restrictions already imposed on military style weapons and suppressors is unconstitutional?Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Then you should be on my side of the fence opposing this over reach of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
they got the inch.... and want the mile.
Peopled accepted the inch as a compromise. Line is drawn in the sand now.
I did not say that. Once again, you do not pay attention and respond to the discussion, instead, you move to tangents.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Perhaps you should study up on the legal status before involving yourself in discussions that you apparently do not fully understand.
Start with the comments from Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Scalia, June 26, 2008: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Semi-autos are hardly considered unusual.
double post
AK47 with a slidefire stock, would you classify that as unusual?
Fully automatic rifles are only useful in military situations. There is no reasonable use for them in civilian life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
You ca get them legally though, and I know a couple of people that do have them - and legally. There is a lot of documentation and registration to getting them though.
Would you have military grade explosives, such as C-4, available to all as well? Should an individual be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons, if they have the capability to? There has to be a line in the sand somewhere.
If it was fully automatic, then absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
If it is a mass produced semi-automatic with no chance of being converted to fully auto, it's not unusual; however, requiring registration for such a weapon is not a violation of the Second Amendment, as you would still be allowed to own it - just like handgun registration.
Whatever you've got, I've read it, studied it. I know more than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
I agree with where the current "line in the sand" is. But for the sake of argument.... tyranny would be a military situation and in that situation you would be defending yourself from fully automatic weapons.
Some of the current legislation i agree with or understand more than others.... some i dont. If given the option to do so, i would remove the ban on select fire rifles.Also, I understand the danger of silencers being on the open market, but it would be nice to be able to target shoot at my leisure without annoying the neighbors. A silencer isnt rocket science....... it's easily duplicated and if someone intended to use silencing for criminal purpose, they could pick one up at autozone.
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...poilfilter.jpg
Certainly doesnt appear that way. Like most liberals, you seem to sweep the facts that dont support the agenda under the rug and forget about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I can't tell. You seem to be a 22 year old who doesn't have any facts to ever back up their statements, and always attempts to change topics when you have nothing to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I was an adult before the 1994 ban was enacted, you don't have the knowledge of the 1990's high homicide rates.
Exactly how would you use a fully automatic rifle against an Army brigade with tanks and body armor? How about fighter jets and attack helicopters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
You would accomplish nothing with a machine gun - nothing.
Coming from a person who is utterly wrong 99% of the time, I'll take that as a compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Then why are they so worried about them? By that explanation, isnt an M16 equally as ineffective as an AR15? I think the government has a greater respect for firearms than they are willing to admit. Our country was founded on the ingenuity of gun manufacturers more than it was the military prowess of our leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
You are delusional. You think your opinions are more relevant than actual facts. And as for "99%", that is another one of your made-up numbers. You just love to make-up statistics with no factual basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
When you get older and have some actual knowledge and experience, come back with factual basis for your opinions.
What makes you think that they are worried about them? As long as they can get people to vote for them, they already have the power. They actually don't need to take any weapons away, if the people continue to hand over power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
I'm fairly certain I could go back 100 of your posts and 99 of them be completely useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert