Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

Should they ban assault weapons?


  • Total voters
    374
Then maybe you'll allow the smart people to make policy instead of the insecure shit-for-brains rednecks who use guns as a dick measuring contest.
MODS:

Could I ask you to please change my vote in this poll from "No," to "Yes," ?
 
Aren't you ex-military? You know what the Bill of Rights is and what the 2nd Amendment says. Does it say hunting? For sporting purposes? No.
I am, which is partly why i'm against massive firearm ownage. I saw trained people ND routinely, i don't trust rando's whatsoever and unlicensed people even less. We have too many guns here, period

it also says 'in a well regulated militia' i.e Switzerland or the National Guard
 
'there is no such thing as an assault rifle'

wait, what? what's an M16 or M4?
 
Why not an AT-4? Or Tow Missile? Those are 'arms' still?

Lets not be purposely dense, the 2nd Amendment is HIGHLY up to interpretation

No, it's really not. "Shall not be infringed."

The government can not legally, and should not restrict any type of weaponry from citizens. It's illegal overreach.
 
I am, which is partly why i'm against massive firearm ownage. I saw trained people ND routinely, i don't trust rando's whatsoever and unlicensed people even less. We have too many guns here, period

it also says 'in a well regulated militia'

I know between myself and @Cubo de Sangre we've been over this at least a dozen times. What do you imagine "well-regulated" means?
 
No, it's really not. "Shall not be infringed."

The government can not legally, and should not restrict any type of weaponry from citizens. It's illegal overreach.
so you can have a tank? a nuclear weapon? a biological weapon?

ANY weaponry? geneva convetion doesn't apply? how about a SAW?
 
I know between myself and @Cubo de Sangre we've been over this at least a dozen times. What do you imagine "well-regulated" means?
exactly what it implies

a FORMAL and regulated militia or in the modern day Reserves/NG type situation
or like Switzerland does, where at least registration and training is mandatory
 
so you can have a tank? a nuclear weapon? a biological weapon?

ANY weaponry? geneva convetion doesn't apply? how about a SAW?

A SAW can be specific to self defense.... That's a go. The other area ordinances you mentioned? Not so much...
 
For the love of god, man. Yes, it does say that. It's also 2 separate clauses, and well regulated doesn't mean what you're implying that it means.

I am, which is partly why i'm against massive firearm ownage. I saw trained people ND routinely, i don't trust rando's whatsoever and unlicensed people even less. We have too many guns here, period

it also says 'in a well regulated militia' i.e Switzerland or the National Guard
 
so you can have a tank? a nuclear weapon? a biological weapon?

ANY weaponry? geneva convetion doesn't apply? how about a SAW?


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.



Shall not be infringed.
 
exactly what it implies

a FORMAL and regulated militia or in the modern day Reserves/NG type situation
or like Switzerland does, where at least registration and training is mandatory

Yeah what does "regulated" mean to you in that context? You think it means regulated as in having the correct number of hand washing stations in a business?
 
And you were supposedly in the military?

I'm calling horse-shit.
I was, and work for the Marines now. It's literally a military term, coined by Hitler for the Sturmgewehr
It's an official and formal term, as anyone in the military would know.
fstcp67.jpg
 
Yeah what does "regulated" mean to you in that context? You think it means regulated as in having the correct number of hand washing stations in a business?
regulated as in Reserve Forces
 
Back
Top