What constitutes right and wrong? Many peoples idea of right are wrong are different.
Read the link I posted one page back what you did is clasic victim blaming. Even if not intended by you it is still victim blaming.
Actually no. The government can't say that guns are illegal. because the supreme court has settled this semantic argument a long time ago. Arms = guns, this is a fact. If the house passed a law making guns illegal, it'd be struck down. Because it goes against the constitution.
Really? How about the party that voted no against stopping gerrymandering which would cause equal power. Who is the party that decided that people should never be able to transition? Who was the party that just now, voted that a state can control another person's atonomy. Who was the party that supported a coup, and wanted to kill their political leaders. Who is the party who is closely aligned with the proud boys "proud boys stand back and stand by"
Why are you "caring" about the baby when your obviously don't care about the baby.
It’s the opposite of an activist court, they’re reversing an activist decision on the basis of interpreting text as it is written, which is the only interpretation that should ever be used when it comes to law.
It doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is the rule of law. We can’t approve of the government overstepping its boundaries just because we like the results. The Constitution functions as a check on the federal government, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be “reinterpreting” the document to mean what they want it to mean at any given time to cover for the incompetence of Congress. If the Constitution says whatever it needs to say to justify the whims of those in power then it means nothing. Legislating is not the court’s function, and the fact that it’s been corrupted to serve such a function in the past does not justify ignoring the issue today. It was a bad decision founded upon a false premise and repealing it corrects that past wrong. What happens going forward is up to Congress, and with some luck, this will serve as a warning to those who wish to usurp the court in the future.
I am in favour of privately-owned tanks, you keep that “grunt talk” to yourself.
If the second amendment is supposed to function as a check against government tyranny and as a safety measure in the event of an invasion, it must cover the same weapons the government has access to, by definition. This was the belief the founders held when writing it and that’s what it means. Also, Galil is out, Sig Spear is in - get some modern stuff up in here.
An AK-47 is a Class 3 weapon, it’s heavily restricted. In order to be permitted purchase, you have to be a Class 3 FFL (Federal Firearms License, intended for firearms dealers), ideally an SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayer). If you’re comfortable with annual testing, shelling out $37K for the weapon and then subsequently paying an additional $500-$1000 in tax every year (flat annual rate, by the virtue of SOT status), go nuts. You don’t even have “a premise for conducting business” - an FFL, even a home-based one, requires you to have a business intent. Are you planning to become a gunsmith? Do you even know what that entails? For the record, holding an FFL license also means ATF inspections of your “place of business”, just so you know. Have fun with those guys, especially during the in-person interview:
Whilst I don't agree with the majority of what you post I will give you respect for this reply because you took time and went and got all the relevant data to reply to me.It’s the opposite of an activist court, they’re reversing an activist decision on the basis of interpreting text as it is written, which is the only interpretation that should ever be used when it comes to law.
It doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is the rule of law. We can’t approve of the government overstepping its boundaries just because we like the results. The Constitution functions as a check on the federal government, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be “reinterpreting” the document to mean what they want it to mean at any given time to cover for the incompetence of Congress. If the Constitution says whatever it needs to say to justify the whims of those in power then it means nothing. Legislating is not the court’s function, and the fact that it’s been corrupted to serve such a function in the past does not justify ignoring the issue today. It was a bad decision founded upon a false premise and repealing it corrects that past wrong. What happens going forward is up to Congress, and with some luck, this will serve as a warning to those who wish to usurp the court in the future.
I am in favour of privately-owned tanks, you keep that “grunt talk” to yourself.
If the second amendment is supposed to function as a check against government tyranny and as a safety measure in the event of an invasion, it must cover the same weapons the government has access to, by definition. This was the belief the founders held when writing it and that’s what it means. Also, Galil is out, Sig Spear is in - get some modern stuff up in here.
An AK-47 is a Class 3 weapon, it’s heavily restricted. In order to be permitted purchase, you have to either be a Class 3 FFL (Federal Firearms License, intended for firearms dealers) or a Class 3 SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayer). If you’re comfortable with annual testing, shelling out $37K for the weapon and then subsequently paying an additional $500-$1000 in tax, go nuts. You don’t even have “a premise for conducting business” - an FFL, even a home-based one, requires you to have a business intent. Are you planning to become a gunsmith? Do you even know what that entails? My bet’s on “you’re not qualified to purchase this weapon”. The gross majority of citizens do not fulfil the requirements for purchasing an automatic weapon, they *are* rare, and those who can buy, sell or otherwise transfer them are exceedingly well-qualified, usually involved in the firearms business themselves, or they have another lawful use case. They’re not “off the shelf” items, you can’t walk into a gun store and leave with an automatic rifle, or any other NFA item, period. Most importantly, even if you are qualified, it’s not a *new* item, it’s from the 80’s - a collectible piece that’s older than most people reading this exchange.
If guns magically evaporated, there would be no school shootings - nobody will argue in earnest that this is not the case. The argument goes well beyond that, and I disagree that the right to bear arms is “not needed” - the opposite is true, it is a pre-requisite for the proper functioning of a truly free society that can self-determine. I think the fact that people in Europe were, for the most part, stripped of this essential right is an absolute travesty. I can only hope that this will one day be corrected, but that’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Thankfully, with some perseverance and dedication, you can still obtain a legal firearm on the isles, and I hope that never changes.
Glasgow is one of the worst crime ridden citys in scotland. Maybe if law abiding citizans could protect themselves and their property with guns that number could drop.
Are you proposing that the UK is less free than the USA in the same thread as folks defending gun rights here by making schools single-entry point fire hazards guarded by federal agents? Deep irony and baseless condescension here... your viewpoints are an absolute travesty and I can only help that it will one day be corrected, but that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime.
And yet their homicide per capita rate is still less than it is in the USA. Maybe if man-children stopped talking down to every woman they saw, they'd have more time to self reflect?
Yes. You can stop there, the answer is “yes”. The rest was just projection and an imaginary scenario, proposed by you, not me.
In the US, sure you can. If it is not a black powder weapon, it must be registered with the BATFE, and a $200 transfer tax paid on the “Destructive Device”. Each round of ammo with an explosive warhead must also be registered, and tax paid.
I dont know about other towns but where i live muder rate is almost 0. Of course i live in a respectable, law abiding, red state. Not one of those democratically ran, criminals have more rights than victims, blue city's.Are you proposing that the UK is less free than the USA in the same thread as folks defending gun rights here by making schools single-entry point fire hazards guarded by federal agents? Deep irony and baseless condescension here... your viewpoints are an absolute travesty and I can only help that it will one day be corrected, but that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime.
And yet their homicide per capita rate is still less than it is in the USA. Maybe if man-children stopped talking down to every woman they saw, they'd have more time to self reflect?
Shall we just ignore the fact that Glasgow has the highest population of anywhere in Scotland so kinda stands to reason crime rates would be higher. Also the highest reported crime was for fraud so not sure how a gun stops someone hacking your bank account.
Xdqwerty
Psionic Roshambo
BakerMan
