Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
To: Simon Green
What in hell is a legal definition of an assault weapon and what does it have to do with the second amendment? The whole purpose of the second amendment was to give "the people" the ability to resist tyrannical government. It did not say only the government can have semiautomatic or full auto weapons and you will have bolt action rifles. It says, WILL NOT BE ABRIDGED!
76 posted on
04/06/2018 1:30:34 PM PDT by
cpdiii
(cane cutter, deckhand, roughneck, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
To: Simon Green
Weapons of war are exactly what the 2nd amendment is about. The people armed with weapons of war to check and balance the gov’t weapons of war. A well regulated militia (read gov’t army) was a necessity to the security of a free state, and needed a check and balance to keep the gov’t from using that necessary evil against us.
“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.”
77 posted on
04/06/2018 1:36:01 PM PDT by
walkingdead
(It's easy, you just don't lead 'em as much....)
To: Simon Green
Unconstitutional.
These are NOT “military style” weapons. These semi-automatic rifles were intended for the civilian market.
And “sporting purposes”? The Second Amendment has nothing to do whatsoever with so-called “sporting purposes.”
To: Simon Green
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “sporting rifles”.
82 posted on
04/06/2018 2:02:42 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Conservatives love America for what it is. Liberals hate America for the same reason.)
To: Simon Green
89 posted on
04/06/2018 3:22:29 PM PDT by
Chode
(You have all of the resources you are going to have. Abandon your illusions and plan accordingly.)
To: Simon Green
Hello - "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 Second Amendment talks of a "militia" and "security" - it's not about hunting or sports - it's about the military - what a dunce.....
To: Simon Green
“U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”
The judge needs to be impeached by the US Congress and charged with treason for denying Americans their constitutional civil rights. Black-robe fascists are out of control.
93 posted on
04/06/2018 6:02:05 PM PDT by
sergeantdave
(Teach a man to fish and he'll steal your gear and sell it)
To: Simon Green
Funny - my copy doesn’t have all those conditions added to the word “arms”.
95 posted on
04/06/2018 9:47:09 PM PDT by
Some Fat Guy in L.A.
(Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
>> AG Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”
Well, that’s one dumb jackass.
97 posted on
04/06/2018 10:05:31 PM PDT by
Gene Eric
(Don't be a statist!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
