It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order: ‘We Are Armed… Familiar With Marksmanship

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


He is for it, and has been arguing for it, but just like all gun grabbers he will not be truthful, he will use half truths etc.. to hide his real intent because he knows the truth is not his ally.




posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by James1982
 



The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.


Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?


The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."


It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?


None. When it was written "well regulated" meant. "In good order" and "well equipped." Which is why the militia act of the same time period defined all men with a few exceptions part of the militia and instructed them to provide themselves (IE buy their own) with the same arms and basic kit of the average infantry soldier. Thus, we can see quite plainly that the intent of the second amendment was that all of the people be armed with the same basic small arms of the regular army.


Then where are these well regulated militias required by the Constitution? Does a strict interpretation mean that all able bodied citizens must enroll in the National Guard?


By law, if you are a male between the ages of 16 and 65, ARE part of the militia. The militia act divided the militia into two parts--the organized and the unorganized. The organized militia is comprised of those who actively drill (see national guard) the unorganized militia is everyone else.


Is the "unorganized militia" expected to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land?


All Citizens are to the extent that the "laws of the land" do not violate the Constitution nor take away the rights of the citizens. Jim Crow was once the "law of the land" but we can all agree that it was an immoral and unconstitutional collection of laws that a moral citizen would disobey--unless you think that all laws are worthy of obeying and moral just because they are law.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


So because I am and have been trained extensively in its proper use, I should be able to own and operate a 19r8 155mm howitzer?

How about a Mk-19 grenade launcher?

I like where this conversation is heading.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


About damn time.

The State Govt has truly backed themselves into a corner.

If they back-down, they will be seen as weak and the time to politically pounce on them is ripe.

If they proceed, they will be seen as the authoritarian thugs that they are, and will see repercussions that haven't happened for some time now.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Criminals- Are persons who live outside of and break the law.
In this case that would be specifically the same people
making unconstitutional laws. I'm sure you would say they
belong in prison. Well, who is going to put them there?

edit on 3-3-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


and this is why the NRA has the stance of "not one more inch".

Gun control has not done what it was promised. So i see no further reason to follow that particular failed line of logic.


edit on 3/3/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

beezzer

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".



Laws have become something that is passed on the back of pathos. Fear is not a rationale mindset to base decisions that should require logic instead.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

beezzer

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".


Creeping incrementalism has certainly eroded our rights.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Criminals- Are persons who live outside and break the law.


There are many types of law. Some laws are unjust or unconstitutional. By your definition, some criminals are just, even brave and admirable.


In this case that would be specifically the same people


In which case? If someone breaks a law of their own making, they are indeed a criminal and need to suffer the consequences of that law.


making unconstitutional laws. I'm sure you would say they
belong in prison. Well, who is going to put them there?


So what you seem to be saying is that if a law-maker makes a law that you, personally, believe violates the Constitution, you can arrogate yourself the right to imprison them?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

beezzer

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".



Laws have become something that is passed on the back of pathos. Fear is not a rationale mindset to base decisions that should require logic instead.


Such as the fear that "they" are going to take away your guns.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by oblvion
 


and this is why the NRA has the stance of "not one more inch".

Gun control has not done what it was promised. So i see no further reason to follow that particular failed line of logic.


edit on 3/3/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


It sure has, it has made criminals out of law abiding citizens, it has turned major cities into hell holes of death and danger, and it has taken the ability of the common man to defend himself out of his hands and left the criminals with the ability to harm without fear of reprisal.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


Although I admit that books are far more dangerous than guns, which is why tyrants burn books but let their supporters keep their guns, a child cannot accidentally kill another child with an improperly stored book.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

DJW001

bigfatfurrytexan

beezzer

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.


How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?


Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.


Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?


Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.


Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.


Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.


But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?


Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.


What am I proposing, exactly?


I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?


I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?


Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.


This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".



Laws have become something that is passed on the back of pathos. Fear is not a rationale mindset to base decisions that should require logic instead.


Such as the fear that "they" are going to take away your guns.


For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

How many names of those in power that have flat out said so do you require me to give before you give this nonsense up?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



Where is the infringement


Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 



So because I am and have been trained extensively in its proper use, I should be able to own and operate a 19r8 155mm howitzer?


If you can afford the upkeep and prove to the insurance company that you will use it safely, I see no reason why not.


How about a Mk-19 grenade launcher?


Again, if you can prove that you will store the grenades safely and use them appropriately.... Mind you, if you do not store them properly and a gang of thieves uses them to rob an armored car, the consequences would be extremely dire.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08
 



Where is the infringement


Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?


Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


You did read the letter, right???



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


looking solely at the law in CT and forming that opinion would make no sense. that's too narrow banded. you have to look at the larger picture of what's going on in the united states as a whole for it to become apparent what the governments agenda is.




top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join