If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Someone doesn't like to follow the supreme court rulings. CA sucks bigtime. So so many people we'd be much better off without.
Amazing that they will read the Constitution and find all sorts of make believe rights but can't find the ones spelled out in black and white.
These people deserve to be tried for treason
Hey just so the other amendments don't feel discriminated against, California should rule that 1A no longer covers conversations in public. Pass a law doing such and the libtardians would burn Sacramento to the ground. And they better not do it with high-capacity assault matches !!!!! They banned those too !!!!!!
""it may be true that no amount of smallarms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks ut [that] fact . . . cannotchange our interpretation of the right [conferred by the Second Amendment]" How silly of us all... w forgot they have tanks. I concede. Burn the constitution... they win.... By that retarded logic 300 million people should turn in 150 million guns because the military has what a few thousand tanks? That and it would set a precedent that 2A does not cover any given class of gun such that they could whittle it down to single-shot break-action shot guns with bird shot only and that would satisfy the 2A because--- uh... I just vomited on the ceiling....
That line is so ridiculous. Do they not realize that the entire military of the US would need to be deployed to protect those tanks and other assets? That you can't win a fight with tanks or high tech weapons unless you are willing to murder a gazillion non-combatant civilians? Even our "surgical strike" drones have killed hundred of innocents, probably more than the number of insurgents?
If small arms are no good at fighting against tanks and planes, then why are we giving small arms to Syrian rebels? Why did we give small arms to the Libyan rebels?
Idiots.
To the legal experts here, they seem to be staking a lot of their claim on the AWCA being valid because it bans "unusually dangerous" weapons. Doesn't this open up a can of worms for an appeal as it is a FACT that the AWCA bans are arbitrary and capricious, which could be proven before a court that has even a little respect for the law?
The obvious perversion of the legal system in that decision was somewhat astounding.
mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
""it may be true that no amount of smallarms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks ut [that] fact . . . cannotchange our interpretation of the right [conferred by the Second Amendment]" How silly of us all... w forgot they have tanks. I concede. Burn the constitution... they win.... By that retarded logic 300 million people should turn in 150 million guns because the military has what a few thousand tanks? That and it would set a precedent that 2A does not cover any given class of gun such that they could whittle it down to single-shot break-action shot guns with bird shot only and that would satisfy the 2A because--- uh... I just vomited on the ceiling....
They don't realize tanks need gas, ammo and the tank operators need water and food.
They think you can win a war with nothing but one tank. Like guns, they don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about.
This is exactly the tack taken by MA - that large capacity semi-automatic firearms are unusually dangerous, practically the same as machine guns and are not covered by the second amendment. To understand how MA is already defending their laws in court you should think of guns in terms of five types: Handguns (call firearms in the statutes), shot guns, rifles, large capacity weapons, and machine guns.To the legal experts here, they seem to be staking a lot of their claim on the AWCA being valid because it bans "unusually dangerous" weapons. Doesn't this open up a can of worms for an appeal as it is a FACT that the AWCA bans are arbitrary and capricious, which could be proven before a court that has even a little respect for the law?
The obvious perversion of the legal system in that decision was somewhat astounding.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
""it may be true that no amount of smallarms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks ut [that] fact . . . cannotchange our interpretation of the right [conferred by the Second Amendment]" How silly of us all... w forgot they have tanks. I concede. Burn the constitution... they win.... By that retarded logic 300 million people should turn in 150 million guns because the military has what a few thousand tanks? That and it would set a precedent that 2A does not cover any given class of gun such that they could whittle it down to single-shot break-action shot guns with bird shot only and that would satisfy the 2A because--- uh... I just vomited on the ceiling....
Yeah, I love when some nitwit says you cannot fight a tyrant who has jets, tanks, etc with small arms. Who needs to fight a tank or jet, you use the small arms to take the jets, tanks, etc. But these are always the same gun grabbers who think an AWB and mag limits stop crime.
These people deserve to be tried for treason
Until we do this they will continue to violate their oaths to uphold the COTUS.
You're a little off on your numbers.
Last time I checked I'm pretty sure the number of guns in this country was in the 250+ million range and might be approaching 300 mil by now.
There's damn close to one gun for every person in the country. That's not the problem. The problem is that those guns are not held by every person in the country. Some portion of the country has multiple guns.
CA is the laughingstock of the nation.
I thought that was NY?