Guns Because

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're stupid.

I chose the laws I wish to ignore carefully. There's nothing wrong with registering my guns, despite the ravings of paranoiac cretins to the contrary.

Criminals and potential terrorists would certainly not register their guns...

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... tatut.html

An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens' now-enhanced right to gun possession.

[Coito ergo sum]

That decision sounds faulty to begin with. Felons can be denied free speech rights, so why not gun rights -- as punishment for a crime. Indentured servitude is rendered unconstitutional, except as punishment for a crime.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That decision sounds faulty to begin with. Felons can be denied free speech rights, so why not gun rights -- as punishment for a crime. Indentured servitude is rendered unconstitutional, except as punishment for a crime.

Felons are routinely denied the right of peaceful assembly, especially when they meet for breakfast and get color-coded nicknames.

[Jason]

Like Mr. Black

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Like Mr. Black

Or Mr. Fag Pink.

[Jason]

Just keep on.. truckin'

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Heard that for the first time on a Cambodian radio station.

[Seth]

Ammunition restrictions would indeed violate the 2nd Amendment because of the purpose of the restriction on government authority is to protect both the possession of arms and their utility. A firearm without ammunition is not an "arm" as contemplated by the Founders. The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How much ammo you be needin' to shoot them there Revenooers?

[Jason]

Ammunition restrictions would indeed violate the 2nd Amendment because of the purpose of the restriction on government authority is to protect both the possession of arms and their utility. A firearm without ammunition is not an "arm" as contemplated by the Founders. The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

And I presume you can cite precedent to support this heap of supposition?

[Seth]

How much ammo you be needin' to shoot them there Revenooers?

More than I have, and as much as I want.

[Blind groper]

The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

The original second amendment gave only one purpose, to provide a militia for national defence. In peace time, restricting ammunition will not violate that purpose.

[Collector1337]

The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

The original second amendment gave only one purpose, to provide a militia for national defence. In peace time, restricting ammunition will not violate that purpose.

You are incorrect on both your statements.

[aspire1670]

The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

The original second amendment gave only one purpose, to provide a militia for national defence. In peace time, restricting ammunition will not violate that purpose.

You are incorrect on both your statements.

Oh dear, noob fail.

[Collector1337]

The purposes include militia duty, personal security, hunting, etc., none of which can be accomplished without ammunition.

The original second amendment gave only one purpose, to provide a militia for national defence. In peace time, restricting ammunition will not violate that purpose.

You are incorrect on both your statements.

Oh dear, noob fail.

?