#NRAlogic

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
it's a weapon, and it's certainly not one that's "in common use at the time".

you swallow.
Click to expand...
where in the Conny is the limiting "in common use at the time" at? Please be specific and link me to the supreme court decision that states that arms can only be of the time in common use at the turn of the 18th century.

You won't find it, in fact you won't even look because you know your argument falls flat on its face. You have nothing.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Thank you for backing up what I was saying...m203 is a DD (destructive device). so he lied when he said he owned one with no papers or tax stamp. Should not be surprised seeing that it comes from Modrama. What else he has lied about I now start to wonder.
Click to expand...
I haven't LIED about one single thing. It is you who MAKES SHIT UP!!

If I have lied, then it should be easy to prove it.

This ought to be wonderful to watch the most dishonest person in the forum try and make a case that someone else has lied. You are the laughing stock of the entire forum because you just make up shit all day long, your arguments lead to nowhere because they are devoid of any thought whatsoever. Your entire existence is based upon the fantasy you make up in your own head.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'm not a gun expert, so i can't say which ones exactly.
Click to expand...
Rephrase as " i don't know shit about guns, never owned one, never touched one, they scare me because I am an incompetent fool"

With absolutely no knowledge of guns whatsoever, BUcky presents himself as an expert. Thats why this Forum is so much fun sometimes. Idiots thinking they know shit.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I haven't LIED about one single thing. It is you who MAKES SHIT UP!!

If I have lied, then it should be easy to prove it.

This ought to be wonderful to watch the most dishonest person in the forum try and make a case that someone else has lied. You are the laughing stock of the entire forum because you just make up shit all day long, your arguments lead to nowhere because they are devoid of any thought whatsoever. Your entire existence is based upon the fantasy you make up in your own head.
Click to expand...
NoDrama said:
Hey London, you know how you give people advice to shut up if they don't know what they are talking about?

Grenade launchers aren't illegal to own, I have one. They aren't considered a gun. Do a search on gun auction sites for M-203 grenade launcher, you can get them new for under $500. No FFL paperwork even needed.
Click to expand...
NoDrama said:
Don't need a tax stamp, or any paperwork filled out, OTC sales, totally legal. Don't need a permit, a license or even a bubble gum comic.

Ammo? Different kinds of ammo, some are too costly to buy, plus the HE rounds have to have paperwork filled out on them as a destructive item. Training rounds and the like are plentiful.
Click to expand...
first I never used the word illegal when asking about some ones right to own a grenade launcher. Second you lying about owning a m203 with no paper work, tax stamp..etc
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
where in the Conny is the limiting "in common use at the time" at? Please be specific and link me to the supreme court decision that states that arms can only be of the time in common use at the turn of the 18th century.

You won't find it, in fact you won't even look because you know your argument falls flat on its face. You have nothing.
Click to expand...
you are such an idiot, a liar, a welfare mooch, and a plagiarist.

here is the heller decision.

*Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.*
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Murfy said:
...stating "no infringement", as clear a statement as there could be.
Click to expand...
as you can see in the heller decision, certain "infringements" are perfectly consistent with the second, just as certain abridgements are perfectly consistent with the first.

no matter how many times you repeat your simpleton "shall not be infringed!" moronicism, it will not make it true.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you are such an idiot, a liar, a welfare mooch, and a plagiarist.

here is the heller decision.

*Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.*
Click to expand...
The AR-15 is the No 1 selling rifle in the USA, the military carries a variant of it. The AR-15 is most definitely in common use at this time.

Do you think that bolded part means that the founders only meant people to be armed with weapons that were commonly used at THEIR time only? The wording is "in common use at THE time" which in legal diction means the present.

Get with it.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
as you can see in the heller decision, certain "infringements" are perfectly consistent with the second, just as certain abridgements are perfectly consistent with the first.

no matter how many times you repeat your simpleton "shall not be infringed!" moronicism, it will not make it true.
Click to expand...
REASONABLE restrictions. Limiting Magazine capacity will do nothing to limit the number of people killed by guns, nothing.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
HAHA no, you are wrong. So so wrong, I sometimes wonder if you EVER actually look into the facts before you fart them out of your face..
Click to expand...
NoDrama said:
Rephrase as " i don't know shit about guns, never owned one, never touched one, they scare me because I am an incompetent fool"

With absolutely no knowledge of guns whatsoever, BUcky presents himself as an expert. Thats why this Forum is so much fun sometimes. Idiots thinking they know shit.
Click to expand...
That right there is some funny shit... :lol:

But on another note, I wonder if my single shot .223 would be labeled in the same category as the ar15, considering it uses the same exact round. I can also unload/reload that rifle in 1 second, so does that make it a semi auto? :grin:
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
The AR-15 is the No 1 selling rifle in the USA, the military carries a variant of it. The AR-15 is most definitely in common use at this time.

Do you think that bolded part means that the founders only meant people to be armed with weapons that were commonly used at THEIR time only? The wording is "in common use at THE time" which in legal diction means the present.

Get with it.
Click to expand...
that was not the founders, that was the five most conservative justices in heller.

and AR15s compose a few million of the several hundred million arms in this nation. that's not exactly "in common use".
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yes it will. hell, it already has.
Click to expand...
Not to sure about this. If you have someone who is well trained and very accurate they won't need a high capacity mag. Take this for example, two 10 round semi auto pistols with an accurate shooter can kill 20 ppl.
[video=youtube;UU6m_MelwnM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU6m_MelwnM[/video]
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
that was not the founders, that was the five most conservative justices in heller.

and AR15s compose a few million of the several hundred million arms in this nation. that's not exactly "in common use".
Click to expand...
So, it is your understanding that there are 110 million of rifle type A and then there are 10 million Ar-15s? You really think there are only 2 kinds of gun in the USA? Really bucky? I figured you for stupid, but you've sunk to a new level of negative intelligence, the kind of stupidity that actually destroys other people's brain cells if they happen to converse with you.

At this point your wife may never graduate and may have to be institutionalized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top