mr2shim
Well-Known Member
Probably according to the constitution. I'm in no way saying we as individuals need nukes or jets. Just wondering would it technically be unconstitutional.
So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
I think it would be unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to rule that no citizen could own any firearm. I do believe that, along with all other rights, that there are proper limits that can and must be applied. We have the right to free speech but we do not have the right to incite through that speech. Is there any 2nd Amendment hard core who would disagree with the notion that with any right comes a set of responsibilities? and yet 2nd Amendment folk seem to think that their particular right is magicaly exempt from the rules that govern all others?
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Canndo doesn't care about the Constitution or it's protections. He thinks that it's an outdated worthless piece of garbage.
I want an Apache helicoptor...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
You need a mental health evaluation to have all your rights taken away. You have serious schizophrenia if you think that from this:
arms
Noun: 1. Weapons and ammunition; armaments
2. Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the
heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or
countries
How does that not include an M60 or M16?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Why not the AH64D Longbow? That one fell outside your budget compared to the Apache?
kelly4
Well-Known Member
AH64D is still an Apache...
Plus, I'm not gonna buy it. I'm gonna wait for someone else to buy one and I will steal it.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The AH64C is an Apache. The AH64D is a redesign similar to the Apache built from the ground up.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Awesome! That's the one I'm gonna steal then...
Edit: Even the Boeing website calls it an Apache.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
There's only a bit over 200 Ds. It's the very best helicopter on the planet. Just one could level a city the size of Anaheim in about 20 minutes IIRC.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
rotflmao... thanks
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Really? We do not have the right to incite? You've never listened to a politician, have you?
WHAT? Your contradiction factor is high. Your clarity of meaning is low.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Well then, you'd only need a remote control scale model.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
in the interest of preserving the majority of their rights to not be raped, i propose all women should give it up more often.
by increasing the availability of consensual sex, rape would naturally decline based on the greater sleepiness and general desire for a nap and a sandwich in the male (Raper) population.
this simple "common sense", "sensible solution" could be easily accomplished by establishing a National Slut Registry, where women who are willing to "take one for the team" can make themselves available for use by those who need a bit of the tuna.
if the National Slut Registry doesnt get it done, then we could perhaps institute a "draft" of sorts, since women have been immune from compulsory military service since time immemorial, its time they did their "Fair Share".
women between the ages of 18 and 24 could be drafted into the National Hookup Service, with a their own "GI bill" (i propose we call it the Hoe-I bill), a cabinet level post for the Secretary of Bootycalls, and the Joint Chiefs of One Night Stands.
any woman who opposes this forced conscription into prostitution is a proponent of RRRRAPE!! and a RRRAPE enabler.
im all for anything that reduces the number of raapes in this country, and if getting a little government sponsored pussy prevents even one rape, then it's worth it.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The 2nd Amendment.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
SCOTUS disagrees with you, stormfront red!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Could you bother to cite something to back up your claims?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
You know he won't.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
my SCROTUM disagrees with you, and is has more weight (and greater potency) than that collection of dried up flaccid lawyers ever will.
Doer
Well-Known Member
In the interest of preserving the majority of your gun rights, what ARE you willing to do? Anything at all? Do you have a problem with any curtailment of free speech? Those folks who picket funerals of veterans and call everyone fags, should they be in any way controlled? Should in the interest of unfettered right to worship, children be forced in all situations to abide by their parent's decision to withold lifesaving treatment? that permit to assemble could easily be seen as a slippery slope and yet you don't seem to believe it is.
Now again, what, as a gun owner and dealer, are you willing to stand up and advocate for in the way of regulation?
This is an amazing example of extra-Constituional thought. So, a fine example of why we need it intact.
And Sigmund, you telegraphed your intentions.
To keep the majority of rights.....? So, you can whittle down more, later? You think you are up against a bunch of ignorant red-necks, because you drank the Nut-koolaid.
So, you admit you are attempting to take our Rights. And you want to erode, abridge, and infringe them piecemeal, and have us swallow. And it is attempted thru this sickening mis-direction, like Animal Farm.
We are forewarned, and actually fore-armed.
We will keep all our Rights, thank you. Don't Tread on Me. None of this Sophisty you mention is in there.
What is in there is, Right shall not be infringed.