Yep. That is how it is supposed to work. A free man is supposed to be free.That's a weak argument. So if someone murders someone and they serve their time you want to give them a firearm? GTFOH
That’s nice for you. Kind of screws over all the people who don’t, or like my case with the Hughes amendment, aren’t even born yet that will be f**ked out of ever being able to get their hands on something when the prices inevitably explode, if they are even legally transferable. People like you are no better than gun grabbers.I already have one with hi cap mags and reload 223, so if they ban them I don`t care, plus I see so many out there for sale on line and at gun shows, how could banning them have any effect?
I’d rather not have ugly anti-ergonomic gimped rifles. I’m just thankful they put a sunset clause on the original one. They wouldn’t make the same “mistake” this time as well as knowing what else they would need to do after learning from the last ban. There shouldn’t have to be a never ending list of “work arounds” and “loopholes” for a constitutional right.wow, a bunch of paranoid people out there, anyway to clarify the most they will do is ban the sale of assault rifle, and all us older guys that went thru the last ban know how it works, they will define what an assault rifle is and ban those features like pistol grips etc, anyway, like last time there are ways to find a loop hole and the ban will be worthless, just like last time. so, who cares, its just a way of getting votes for looking like they are doing something
This was pretty much to be expected. The real battle is in the Senate.This will fix it....
This was pretty much to be expected. The real battle is in the Senate.
Everything that is banned is another chip at our rights. Every single one.I already have one with hi cap mags and reload 223, so if they ban them I don`t care, plus I see so many out there for sale on line and at gun shows, how could banning them have any effect?
I think you missed the point. I don't believe that there should be any exception for felons, and never implied that. That's a whole separate subject.Where in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does it make exceptions for felons?
Also, per the person being called the president stating that the second amendment is not absolute, let us take it to the first as well. SHUT DOWN THIS WEBSITE! At the writing of the constitution, hand written notes were delivered usually by foot or horseback, so internet, cell phones, and any electronic transmission could also be denied if the second amendment supposedly (which it does not) only apply to weapons at the time of it's writing.
There, now to pour the bourbon. Hey they tried to ban that and look what happened!!!
^^^ What he said...If they're too dangerous to be in society, then they shouldn't be in society. Simple as that really. If they've served their time, including any parole, then they should be free to defend themselves. Don't want them to do that? Then keep them in prison or execute them.
So my eight year old won’t be allowed to shoot my .22 until after graduating high school? I’ll agree, suppressor’s shouldn’t be regulated, however, requiring firearms training is still violating the 2nd Amendment. Want kids to be safe and respect firearms and life, teach them that, that’s the parents job, not the schools.Can we decide as a group that we need common sense gun control reform? Silencers should be deregulated, and firearms safety courses, with life fire portions, should become required to graduate an american highschool. This would lead to individuals who are safer with guns, and hopefully less careless death, and more armed good guys to defend against evil.
I think he was saying to require firearms training to graduate school, not as a prerequisite to ownership.requiring firearms training is still violating the 2nd Amendment.
Murderers should be executed.That's a weak argument. So if someone murders someone and they serve their time you want to give them a firearm? GTFOH