'Defending' Gun Ownership - something FOOLS do...

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 34169
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland

'Defending' Gun Ownership - something FOOLS do...

Post by AJMD429 »

.

https://fullmagnews.com/2021/02/12/barr ... ent-rs-bb/

There is no 'need' required for ANY firearms ownership (or any OTHER item, even those lacking enumerated recognition in the Bill of Rights).

The tyrants/statists/prohibitionists are the ones who have to demonstrate 'need'.... what is their 'need' to ban bump-stocks, or whatever the latest 'bad' item is...??? Unless they can convincingly demonstrate 'need' to ban the item, AND demonstrate an actual benefit that would be guaranteed, they have ZERO claim of authority. EVEN THEN, if they demonstrated a 'need' to ban a type of firearm, and a 'benefit' from doing so, it is STILL prohibited, because (...duhh...) it is 'infringing'.... The Second Amendment doesn't say that ".....shall not be infringed, except if it might save lives...." Sorry, but that just isn't the reality... :|
It's 2025 - "Cutesy Time is OVER....!" [Dan Bongino]
mickbr
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: 'Defending' Gun Ownership - something FOOLS do...

Post by mickbr »

Doc, good post. Defining their own version of 'need' is how they banned a lot of Australias guns and possibly the UK from memory.
User avatar
gamekeeper
Spambot Zapper
Posts: 18391
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:32 pm
Location: Englandistan twinned with the third world.

Re: 'Defending' Gun Ownership - something FOOLS do...

Post by gamekeeper »

mickbr wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:15 pm Doc, good post. Defining their own version of 'need' is how they banned a lot of Australias guns and possibly the UK from memory.
Yup, when merry old England had self defense as a "need" for handguns there was little crime requiring handguns to be actually used, SO the government assumed that there was no "need" for handguns for self defense..... :shock: A bit like saying, your house hasn't caught fire so there's no "need" for a fire extinguisher..... :roll:
In Northern Ireland self defense is still a valid "need" for a handgun, strange how a government can treat it's citizens so differently... :?

As i understand it, your second amendment requires you to be adequately armed with firearms of current military use, in 1700s there was no talk of you being limited to matchlocks because flintlocks were only for the military. Today the technology has changed but not the principal.
Whatever you do always give 100%........... unless you are donating blood.
piller
Posting leader...
Posts: 15535
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: 'Defending' Gun Ownership - something FOOLS do...

Post by piller »

Need? Nope! The Government is PROHIBITED in plain language from preventing us from having firearms as we want and can obtain.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Post Reply