Originally posted by: alien42
banning assault weapons does not infringe on my 2nd amendmentOriginally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
every one's allowed to have their opinion, but the very amendment that protects the 1st amenddment and gives you the right to have that opinion and vocalize it is under attack.
with no 2nd amendment, there will be no 1st. look at china for an example....
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.
The Constitution says "arms" not "small arms" So my right to own nuclear arms should not be infringed.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.
Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.
The Constitution says "arms" not "small arms" So my right to own nuclear arms should not be infringed.
Since it just says "arms", and you're going for a literalist interpretation, I guess it's my constitutional right to own bear arms eh?
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned.![]()
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned.![]()
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.
Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.
Originally posted by: 50cent1228
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Bush can just veto it
:beer:
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned.![]()
Originally posted by: adairusmc
I have already wrote by reps several times on this, but still does not have a chance of going anywhere. Completely worthless and pointless legislation.
Every one of my "Assault Weapons" and my high-capacity magazines are worth more than the lives of those who would take them from me.
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned.![]()
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.
Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.
Originally posted by: computeerrgghh
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned.![]()
Text Here is the full text of the bill. There is a section called definitions that lists a bunch of assault weapons and further defines them.
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you believe we have a right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government, isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that you can own assault rifles but not mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc. You are going to need more than just rifles to fight the government unless you want to end up a steak like those guys in Waco.
In fact, they did mean bare arms. The classic definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to those weapons which a soldier carried into battle all by himself. And, not coincidentally, was usually required to provide himself as well.Originally posted by: senseamp
They meant bare arms. You can bare your arms any time you want.
fixed and agreedOriginally posted by: JDub02
When you hear that JDub's guns have been taken, you'll know that JDub is dead.
<- proud, gun-toting, redneck American
The elite governing class has really hammered away at the things that make America great: self-preservation, private property, and religious expression.
