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.
Another idiot telling me what I "need" and don't "need". I am exercising my rights, and he wishes to take them away. Should not the burden of proof be on Mr. Sharpton to prove that such a magazine restriction would actually reduce crime? State facts, make a case?
Nope, instead just a lecture on what I "need" and who would "need" this or "need" that. Why would anyone "need" those things? Pathetic.
Ammo isn't in the constitution therefore not protected.
Ammo isn't in the constitution therefore not protected.
What you're saying is just pedantic. Abortion isn't in the constitution either, but it's protected by the implications of the 9th amendment. In the same way ammunition to put in the arms is protected by implication in that bearing a firearm that cannot fire is not really bearing arms.
Ammo isn't in the constitution therefore not protected.
Oh please!! You really think that's going to wash? Ammunition is a component of a firearm. It's implied, and quite clearly. Trying to take down firearms ownership by removing the means by which firearms function is about as infringement as it gets. What kind of drugs induces thoughts like this? Gotta be some good stuff......
Oh please!! You really think that's going to wash? Ammunition is a component of a firearm. It's implied, and quite clearly. Trying to take down firearms ownership by removing the means by which firearms function is about as infringement as it gets. What kind of drugs induces thoughts like this? Gotta be some good stuff......
No i am not. Ammo is ammo firearms are firearms. Ammo isn't mentioned, nor implied in the constitution. You zealots wanted verbatim but cry foul when it's used against you. Can't have it both ways. You either want it verbatim or you want interpretation but can't have both.
We already infringe on the second amendment, the only difference is people just happen to agree with it so no harm no foul. At the end of the day ammunition is not in the constitution.
No i am not. Ammo is ammo firearms are firearms. Ammo isn't mentioned, nor implied in the constitution. You zealots wanted verbatim but cry foul when it's used against you. Can't have it both ways. You either want it verbatim or you want interpretation but can't have both.
We already infringe on the second amendment, the only difference is people just happen to agree with it so no harm no foul. At the end of the day ammunition is not in the constitution.
Zealot? Your calling me a zealot. Bwhahabaha....So, thiz will be "used against" us "zealots" aye? Hmmm...then I suppose the mysterious "we" that keeps popping up, will be coming for us yea?
Yep, all us trailer dwellin' beer swillin' propane tank shootin' good ol' boys are no match for blazing intellect like this. Lol Mr May as well just surrender boys! Come on now...give em' up!! We's licked.
Priceless man.
Al Sharpton The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect amendments 1-12.
LOL That Stupid brain dead thug needs to get a life and a education. I could pick that comment to bits drunk, except i don't drink Sharpton wouldn't know a Right if it bit him on the ass.
In a backhanded way, Sharpton is indeed correct. Our rights are not absolute, which is one thing people tend to not understand, esp. 2nd amendment rights people. The 1st and 2nd amendment tend to be the least understood.
We do not have the right to say anything we want without repercussions. You call your boss an a-hole, expect to be fired. Why, because the first amendment only deals with the government and not everyday life so those actions have consequences which are not protected by the 1st amendment.
While the courts has long stood by the right for the individual to bear arms, it has been noted that governing bodies do in fact have the right to limit those types of arms, and ammo isn't even covered under the constitution. It makes no mention of ammo and ammo is not what we deem "arms."
just like all of our rights, they are granted until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Meaning a right to carry state like Indiana, John visits steve at his home and has his gun holstered. Steve tells John not to bring said gun on his property, John cannot invoke the 2nd amendment and try to decide to do as he pleases because as owner of said property, it is steve's right to not have any type of weapon on his property so Steve tells john, leave the gun or get stay off my property without any legal recourse from John as he wouldn't have any to fall back on.
You and Sharpton are both completely WRONG. Besides being a thug, he is stupid.
“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” "Sharpton continued."
There is no such thing as regulated Rights. The Feds didn't give us any Rights. These Rights belong to us the We the People, and all the gov can do is try to take them. it's ok with me if you want to give up your Rights, but don't think for a second it's ok for you to give up mine.
And Sharpton isn't going to give up mine either. He can go pound salt or swim back to Africa for all I care.
Only a IDIOT would even say something like this "People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country".
I have no right to a drone but of i wanted one I could build it and if I wanted a camera and a gun mounted on it I could do that too.
I absolutely have every right to every gun ever made.. including full auto if i want to.
These people who think they are in control are just public servants including Obama. If they start breaking the LAW they are going to find out what that constitution is for, and why the 2nd is the 2nd.
The first was created by smarter men than these fruit cake poly tic cowards we have today, but dueling was legal back then When you knew you could be slapped in the face for stupid, and face that guy in the morning on a field of honor, people tended to be more polite and used a little more brain power before running their mouths.
I myself wish I could extend a challenge to Al, but he never had any honor to begin with. He is a common blow hard..... That's all he will ever be.
I can tell you he would be miffed if he knew drones were being used over harlem and the inner black cities of America. His whole tune would be vastly different. What a IDIOT he is.
Ammo isn't in the constitution therefore not protected.
Oh bull dicky...... The framers fought in the French and Indian War, and again in the Rev War. When they mention arms, they didn't think anyone as stupid as you would come along and whine about powder and lead.
I didn't know you were this stupid before, but i do now.
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.
Sharpton wouldn't know a Right if it bit him on the ass.
