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.
I'm sure gun store owners have been doing cartwheels for decades regardless of who's president.
After Obama the average AR was 6-800 bucks. Right after Trump was elected you could find an AR for less than 300. That's complete, bcg and even a cheap optic. Right now you will be paying top dollar if you can even find one for sale. About all that is out there is gun broker and 1000+ rip offs.
Biden and his extreme radical socialist cabinet are planning strict anti-gun legislation that will:
- limit the number of guns per household to no more than two per registered firearms adult
- place restrictions on ammunition to not more than 100 rounds per year per adult
- notarized explanations of purpose for gun ownership
- 24/7 surveillance of gun owners suspected of curtailing new restrictions
Better stock up now and buy a bunch more guns and ammo while you still can!
Read Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision for details. Banning some types of firearms is well within the boundaries of the Constitution.
And by that same logic, banning everything besides, perhaps, useless antique matchlock muskets would be "well within the boundaries of the Constitution" as well, wouldn't it? In fact, banning everything besides spitwad straws would be "well within the boundaries of the Constitution." Language and the Constitution are fluid in the eyes of the left. Anything can be justified. Or demonized.
"No worries, Hindenburg was FIRED, so things will come back to normal soon.
They already have. There are certain types of firearms that you cannot own, no?
So don't come off telling everyone that it is an impossibility, since it has already been done.
No one has taken all guns away. Get a grip. Restrictions on certain firearms is NOT the same as banning all guns. The government has also banned PCBs, Asbestos, Hexavalent Chromium, etc...you going to complain about wanting those back?
After Obama the average AR was 6-800 bucks. Right after Trump was elected you could find an AR for less than 300. That's complete, bcg and even a cheap optic. Right now you will be paying top dollar if you can even find one for sale. About all that is out there is gun broker and 1000+ rip offs.
Nonsense. They are available and the prices have not fluctuated. They were never going for $300.
And by that same logic, banning everything besides, perhaps, useless antique matchlock muskets would be "well within the boundaries of the Constitution" as well, wouldn't it? In fact, banning everything besides spitwad straws would be "well within the boundaries of the Constitution." Language and the Constitution are fluid in the eyes of the left. Anything can be justified. Or demonized.
You don't think the Constitution was intended to be fluid? I'm sure the founding fathers misplaced their crystal balls when they were pulling it together.
No one has taken all guns away. Get a grip. Restrictions on certain firearms is NOT the same as banning all guns. The government has also banned PCBs, Asbestos, Hexavalent Chromium, etc...you going to complain about wanting those back?
I can't attempt to protect myself from a runaway tyrannical government (which is why there is that clause in the founding documents--it AIN'T for hunting ducks) with asbestos. Or PCBs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uconn97
You don't think the Constitution was intended to be fluid? I'm sure the founding fathers misplaced their crystal balls when they were pulling it together.
Nope.
But I expect we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the ability to "override" or "add." I am talking about the contorting of the meaning of the English used in the document itself. We can do the former, through amendments. We should not be able to do the latter. The language is as clear now as it was then, besides within the woke community, wherein they learned primarily how to hate America rather than reading, writing, math, etc.
I can't attempt to protect myself from a runaway tyrannical government (which is why there is that clause in the founding documents--it AIN'T for hunting ducks) with asbestos. Or PCBs.
Nope.
But I expect we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the ability to "override" or "add." I am talking about the contorting of the meaning of the English used in the document itself. We can do the former, through amendments. We should not be able to do the latter. The language is as clear now as it was then, besides within the woke community, wherein they learned primarily how to hate America rather than reading, writing, math, etc.
Well, I doubt we will agree, but the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for service in the militia. Today's world is vastly different than it was back in the late 1700's. Using that same logic, Jim Crow laws should still exist, segregation is great, etc. My point is - things change. NO ONE needs unlimited access to guns with the firepower that advanced technology has given us. Do I think people should be able to own guns? Yes. Do I think there need to be restrictions on types and numbers? Yes.
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.
