ADVERTISEMENT

Harris Commits to Violating the 2nd and 4th Amendments

You don't get it, the goal is to keep the government in check, should that situation arise, not give them a huge advantage because youe dad never taught you proper firearm safety.
Correct. The 2nd ammendment was not written with hunting animals in mind.
 
Yeah, that’s not what we presently define as a machine gun. It’s not an automatic weapon. Nothing about the design is currently illegal or requires a tax stamp. You can go buy a gatling gun today.

I thought that you were at least going to come back with something interesting like the Chambers Roman Candle design, but even that wasn’t produced until the 19th Century.
 
Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing for you because it kinda sounds like you want a police state.

Yeah FISA court rubber stamps like a banana republic.

We lampoon Russia for their 99.99% conviction rate. Well guess what the FISA court approval rate is?




“Responding to a letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court says, yes, it's true, we do approve 99% of all wiretap applications.”
 
Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing for you because it kinda sounds like you want a police state.
It's neither good nor bad. Someone earlier commented that her remark is in violation of 2A. It's not. The government already has the ability to enter your house to make sure you're acting responsible. Obtaining a warrant is the first step.
 
Yeah, that’s not what we presently define as a machine gun. It’s not an automatic weapon. Nothing about the design is currently illegal. You can go buy a gatling gun today.
It gave the ability to fire multiple rounds within seconds and you only have to have a simple u deratandinf of artillery tech to know they all knew that would immediatly be beat.


If memory serves the buckle gun was created to beat another repeating arm bwing developed in France.

Also, within "1700s" you have all these, multiple round fired with a single trigger pull type firearms. ( aka the definition of machine gun today)

Chambers Flintlock Machine Gun
Developed in the 1790s by Pennsylvania farmer Joseph Chambers, this gun was a full-automatic volley fire machine gun that could fire 224 rounds at a rate of about 120 rounds per minute.

William Wilson Wright's machine
Invented in 1779, this machine was made up of 21 musket barrels and was operated by three men.

Swiss soldier's machine
Invented in 1788, this machine was operated by 10 men and could fire 300 balls in three minutes.

Prussian officer's gun
Invented in 1788, this gun could fire 400 balls in a row.

Joseph-François-Louis Grobert's ballistic machine
Invented in 1790, this machine had multiple barrels and could fire 360 rifle shots per minute.

Renard's ordnance
Invented in 1792, this gun could be operated by one man and fire 90 shots per minute.

Garnier's musket battery
Invented in 1792, this gun was made up of 15 barrels and could fire 300 shots in two
 
Please spare me! Kamala is not going to confiscate your precious guns with a search and seizure edict. It's not going to happen, period. That's almost as idiotic as Trump's contention that Haitians are eating people's pets in Springfield, Ohio. Here's one thing Kamala is committed to though: if she loses the election she won't attempt to overturn the results!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
"The law in question, requiring sensible gun storage in homes, was upheld by Republican appointed judges in the ninth circuit and declined to be reviewed by the Supreme Court,"
You'll notice that OP and the rest of the MAGA warriors ignored this.
 
Should this be illegal?

Okay, I'll bite.

We have a clown:

GXxchoeaYAADOnH


Vs

A self-interest, vengeful, narcissistic, felon.

4ee2070d-5f0a-4495-ad3c-4e1b46277a23



Why are you so excited about your guy?
 
Please spare me! Kamala is not going to confiscate your precious guns with a search and seizure edict. It's not going to happen, period. That's almost as idiotic as Trump's contention that Haitians are eating people's pets in Springfield, Ohio. Here's one thing Kamala is committed to though: if she loses the election she won't attempt to overturn the results!

Of she would say that, everything is rigged in her favor.
 
Okay, I'll bite.

We have a clown:

GXxchoeaYAADOnH


Vs

A self-interest, vengeful, narcissistic, felon.

4ee2070d-5f0a-4495-ad3c-4e1b46277a23



Why are you so excited about your guy?
Because I know how to play my hand for the betterment of my family with the felon as my partner not the puppet for a hidden regime.




Also, you really going to vote for a stolen valor guy?


"nobody should have the guns I carried in combat"


- a guy who never saw combat.
 
Okay, I'll bite.

We have a clown:

GXxchoeaYAADOnH


Vs

A self-interest, vengeful, narcissistic, felon.

4ee2070d-5f0a-4495-ad3c-4e1b46277a23



Why are you so excited about your guy?

I’m not excited about Trump, as I have stated repeatedly.

I am contrarian by nature and likely to a fault.

Kamala Harris is dangerous to our Republic simply in another way.

the fact that the media can manufacture her “likability” out of thin air despite her atrocious record is alarming. Her “ideas” motivated by a marxist upbringing are moronic.

She is a Pied Piper and a Puppet of the WEF agenda.
 
Sure, but you need reasonable cause, not just "we would like to talk and look around".



And reasonable cause takes time, time foe me to tell them to **** off.

You're confusing reasonable suspicion, which is needed to stop and detain someone to investigate a potential crime with probable cause; what is needed to make a warrantless arrest based on the totality of the facts.

To get a warrant a judge would have to be shown proof of a crime (probable cause). Search warrants aren't broad in most cases and don't allow the cops to ransack your house and turn over everything. They must provide what they are looking for and even possibly where they think it is located and the search is limited to that.

If the cops show up at your door with a valid search warrant they already have the evidence they believe they need, so you can tell them to "**** off" but they'll just cuff you and search your house anyways.
 
You're confusing reasonable suspicion, which is needed to stop someone to investigate said potential crime with probable cause; what is needed to make a warrantless arrest based on the totality of the facts.

To get a warrant a judge would have to be shown proof of a crime (probably cause). Search warrants aren't broad in most cases and don't allow the cops to ransack your house and turn over everything. They must provide what they are looking for and even possibly where they think it is located and the search is limited to that.

If the cops show up at your door with a valid search warrant they already have the evidence they believe they need, so you can tell them to "**** off" but they'll just cuff you and search your house anyways.
Yes.


I'd like to continue to separate any excuse the government has for coming into out homes.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT