A federal appeals court on Friday struck down parts of New York's controversial concealed carry law but upheld most of the ban on carrying guns in "sensitive places."
We don’t agree on a lot but I’m forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
I’m glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
I’m being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
deleted by creator
We don’t agree on a lot but I’m forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
I’m glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
deleted by creator
I’m being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
deleted by creator
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
deleted by creator
Might as well include tactical nukes in “arms”.
Source on this?