"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

The words of the amendment, and debate at the time of its passing, make clear that the reason for the amendment is to secure the state's as free. So not for any other reason then security and defence.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

Did it come with a pacifier?

 

If such were indeed the case, there would be historical evidence of individuals who were tried in a court of law on the charge of usage of a firearm outside of official militia purposes and/or duties. But since no such cases can be found, or presented as having taken place, there is no evidence the above claim on the part of yourself is factually correct. Thus making it par for the course for a great many claims that have been made on the part of yourself. All unsubstantiated, all demonstrating a complete absence of understanding pertaining to the laws and legal system of the united states.

 

But... but... he's a highly-educated, highly intelligent, man of the world!!!

 

So are those that receive college degrees in art history, underwater basket weaving, and any other skill that is unemployable in the modern world.

 

Virginia can no implement the assault weapons ban. It is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of arms, as the SCOTUS has pointed out.

 

yet you have said there is no case for the NRA or other gun orgs to get them overturned so it seems like a technical win on that issue

 

the owners of the firearms have standing to take it to court. If VA passes the ban, it will immediately go to court and will be struck down within 6 months.

 

They will lose their case, they are in the same judicial federal district as MD, and they court upheld the MD ban.

 

Doesn't mean they will uphold it again - Trump appointed 3 judges to the 4th since their last ruling.

 

irrelevant. the case will get to SCOTUS and all assault weapon bans will be struck down.

 

And the specific makeup of that particular court is no longer in play, thus making past precedent invalid for predicting future developments.

 

Rural folks in my state pay 40% more in taxes per person than urban dwellers. Cities would not exist here without rural support.

 

What state is that?

 

The really red one that splits electoral votes, has a non partisan state legislature, and is a net contributor to the federal budget.

 

Nebraska?

 

Yep. That’s the one.

 

1. Where did I say that a need must be expressed? I was simply asking what some may need such a gun for. If you don't have a logical reason outside of military use, just say so.

2. https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/#axzz6CZ9xCzYH

"Seeing possibility in the AR-10 design, the Army asks ArmaLite to work on a smaller caliber version to be named the AR 15 Rifle."

Military use was at the heart of the design. Go ahead and google the phrase "history of the ar-15" -- there are many sites telling the same history.

 

We accept your concession of the point.

 

Never, not once, did I claim that need should be a requirement. I was asking a question in earnest. Defense? Why would that require 30 round mags, unless one is a really bad shot? Maybe the Zombie Apocalypse is finally upon us? It IS inevitable.



Double tap!

 

and I pointed out I have no obligation to demonstrate a need to you or anyone else in order to exercise my right.

right. As I pointed out, the AR is not built for, intended for or suitable for military use. It’s why no military on earth uses them.

And then reality sets in. The AR is not built for, intended for or suitable for military use. Which is why no military on earth uses them.

 

Pray tell, exactly what is the legitimate need on the part of yourself for possessing a computer and having access to the internet?

Meaningless and irrelevant. The AR-15 that is sold on the private market, is not in any way the same thing as the current production M16 rifle, or even the Armalite AR-15 prototype that became the M16. One is semi-automatic exclusively, the others are not. Legally that is the only difference that needs to be made between a civilian rifle and a military rifle.

 

Why do law enforcement officers need magazines capable of holding thirty rounds of ammunition? What possible threat could the average law enforcement officer come across that would require so much ammunition, that the general population will never encounter?

 

They have to face the risk of crazy people who think they have the right to have hundreds of rounds of ammo and semi automatic weapons, if we didn't have guns, we could be like the UK and Norway with police that are not armed.