Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Per OP - I have always said that Dianne Feinstein is the greatest gun sales rep in the history of the product.
She does more for gun sales with 15 seconds at a podium than the NRA could do in 100 years. Obama was a really good gun sales rep as well. He helped move tons of merchandise.
Shrieking anti-gun zealot politicians are a godsend for people who make a living buying/selling/trading firearms.
And taking joy in profiting because of the self-serving political grandstanding of others...nothing wrong with that.
Liberals just don’t get it. I profit off their ignorance.
Also, according to this logic, we should legalize ownership of nuclear weapons. Because, after all, nuclear weapons haven't killed anyone in a long, long time. So they must be even safer than guns!
Per OP - I have always said that Dianne Feinstein is the greatest gun sales rep in the history of the product.
She does more for gun sales with 15 seconds at a podium than the NRA could do in 100 years. Obama was a really good gun sales rep as well. He helped move tons of merchandise.
Shrieking anti-gun zealot politicians are a godsend for people who make a living buying/selling/trading firearms.
And taking joy in profiting because of the self-serving political grandstanding of others...nothing wrong with that.
Pretty sure that old bat gets kickbacks from the sales.
As you see many far RWNJ think they should be legal...
In another thread last year some of the cons here were telling me something similar. Not surprised.
By this bizarre logic pretty much everything should be legal, according to them. If common citizens should be allowed to own tanks, machine guns, fighter jets and nuclear weapons, why stop there? Just make ownership of anything and everything legal, and get it over with.
In another thread last year some of the cons here were telling me something similar. Not surprised.
By this bizarre logic pretty much everything should be legal, according to them. If common citizens should be allowed to own tanks, machine guns, fighter jets and nuclear weapons, why stop there? Just make ownership of anything and everything legal, and get it over with.
It's simple enough - if you think that's ridiculous, you would be advocating amending the constitution to clarify the limits of the 2nd Amendment. But as written, the 2nd Amendment has no limits.
As you see many far RWNJ think they should be legal...
They are legal. A friend of mine converts fifty gallon water heaters into bombs and then loads them into his B-25 bomber and then sees how close to the bullseye he gets from varying altitudes.
In another thread last year some of the cons here were telling me something similar. Not surprised.
By this bizarre logic pretty much everything should be legal, according to them. If common citizens should be allowed to own tanks, machine guns, fighter jets and nuclear weapons, why stop there? Just make ownership of anything and everything legal, and get it over with.
Citizens can own fighters, tanks, machine guns, cannons, all fully functional. There is a place in Texas where you can drive a tank and fire the main gun.
The USSC is now just a partisan theatre. Democrats nominate one justice, you get one result. Republicans nominate one justice, you get another result.
The 2nd amendment is written in plain English, and everyone can read it. You tell me where the limit is. Instead of using judges anointed for political reasons to do your thinking.
The 2nd amendment is written in plain English, and everyone can read it. You tell me where the limit is. Instead of using judges anointed for political reasons to do your thinking.
OK ...
Quote:
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.
The preamble (bolded here) makes it clear the amendment was intended for the military - which, back in those days, consisted of a militia (roughly the equivalent of the modern National Guard). Thus, the limit is pretty much anywhere anybody wants to put it, because the amendment was not even intended for the common citizenry.
If you want your gun rights to be unrestricted, you can always join the National Guard.
That was easy ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
