Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: rlmorel

I guess I should have made clear that they have little in common where it counts...semi automatic fire vs fully automatic. One is for war,the other is for self protection and other lawful activities.


24 posted on 12/30/2023 6:15:07 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Proudly Clinging To My Guns And My Religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Gay State Conservative; rlmorel

NFA of 1934 is blatantly unConstitutional. The Constitution clearly includes weapons of war as arms.


28 posted on 12/30/2023 6:17:22 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Gay State Conservative

I understand…I suspect you know far more about this than I do in any case…:)


43 posted on 12/30/2023 6:58:22 AM PST by rlmorel ("The stigma for being wrong is gone, as long as you're wrong for the right side." (Clarice Feldman))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Gay State Conservative
”One is for war,the other is for self protection and other lawful activities.”

The idea that the Second Amendment permits the government to ban the people from having instruments of war is false and dangerous. This mistaken notion has led to the government trying to outlaw pistols, bayonet lugs ( not just bayonets), and so-called “short-barreled rifles”.

There are numerous instances in human history where people are obliged to abolish their form of government using force. The Second Amendment is intended to make that less likely for Americans to face and easier for Americans to accomplish.

75 posted on 12/30/2023 8:54:56 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson