If it was worth doing it would already be done. If you still think it isn't then you are more than free to spend your own money doing so and take the profit for yourself.
The point is that the EU has no right to make that a requirement on anyone. The people producing the content aren't their slaves or vassals and as such they get to decide what they do (so long as they do not use force upon another).
Try thinking for a change, it will stop you from saying things that monumentally stupid.
1. It is protected by the second amendment.
2. I can kill you with a knife, or a piece of wood, or a rock. Should these be banned? If your answer is not an emphatic yes then you recognize your argument is flawed. If you answer yes the you are irrational and you should be ignored.
Logic for the win.
It was originally justified with the human right to self defense. The protection under the law was justified by the fact government could disarm the people and violate that right.
Except the founding fathers explicitly stated, in writing and verbally, that the second amendment guaranteed the private ownership of arms to protect the people against government. Read the federalist papers, read the debates dureing the ratification of the Constitution, read the writings of the fu*king founding fathers. Your argument is bullsh*t and you are a complete Fu*king retard c*nt. I hope you get cancer and die a slow painful and lingering death...
An armed populace will stop them getting to that stage. Additionally the military won't want to walk through their own country shooting civilians and would, most likely, revolt if ordered to (and definitely do so if ordered to bomb them).
So get your head out of your arse and try thinking for a change.
Germany had multiple laws that prevented the private ownership of firearms. The Nazi party lifted that ban, for those that were 'good Germans'. This meant that all privately owned weapons were in the hands of Nazi party supporters and not owned by many who would disagree.
Study some history...
1. The puckle gun is an example of a firearm that is visually identical to a Gatling gun. It is the device that people regularly mistake as such and explains the erroneous statement that Gatling guns were at Concord.
2. The Belton Flintlocks and the Girandoni air rifles were fully automatic. One squeeze of the trigger resulted in more than one projectile being fired.
3. The Girandoni air rifle had a hopper containing 22 balls which, when fully primed it could expell between 3 and 5 full hoppers before being reprimed.
4. The founding fathers were not on aware of these developments but were fans of them and attempted to buy the Belton Flintlocks long before writing the Second Amendment.
5. They outfitted the Lewis and Clark expedition with Girandoni air rifles...
6. Private peopl owned cannons, artillery, and warships. All of these were vastly note expensive than any of the rifles mentioned.
7. The second amendment does not exclude weapons of any price...
Therefore there were fully automatic weapons available when they wrote the Constitution.
There were weapons that can be described as Gatling guns.
There were weapons that were not 'muzzle loaded'.
There were weapons with an ammo capacity greater than 10 rounds.
So everything I said is true and every such claim of the original poster is false.
Additionally the Founding Fathers understood technology would change and that such weapons would get better and cheaper (as had so many things in their own lifetimes) they made no exclusions...
No run along little troll your lies are exposed.
'Look at me I am so Fing stupid I think nukes is a valid counterexample!'
The point is to have the same weapons the government has, if you can think of an argument as to why a person shouldn't have a bike it applies equally to the government....
Get your head out of your arse you complete fing ftard
Except the entire point is that being armed prevents them from becoming tyrannical due to people being able to shoot any potential Hitler before they get powerful or by making people choose not to join up because of the massive amount of bloodshed necessary to take over.
Get your head out of your arse and stop listening to ignorant braindead leftists
And you clearly don't understand how sentences work. Even forgetting that the meaning of the words excluded your interpretation and also forgetting that the people who wrote the amendment explicitly said, in writing and verbally, that you are wrong. The sentence itself denies your interpretation, the 'well regulated' part is the justification clause of the sentence and bears absolutely no relevance to the content clause which states an individual right that can not be infringed.
Sentence structure for the win!
Well strange that such a gun rich environment netted lower crime rates than immediately after the buyback...
No matter how you break it down all evidence points to restrictions being irrelevant to the crime rate.
The second amendment was written in 1791.
The puckle gun was invented in 1718
The Belton Flintlocks were invented in 1777
The Girandoni air rifles were invented in 1780.
So facts show they did have more things than just muzzle loaded muskets you complete Fu*king retard.
Study some history, there were fully automatic weapons available at the time (like the Belton Flintlocks, Pickle gun, Griandoni air rifles etc) some of which had ammo capacities higher than 20 rounds (like the Girandoni air rifles etc). You are just completely ignorant of historical facts and the entire point of the Second Amendment.
The point being it is there to allow people the means to protect themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. That is to literally say that they should have the same equipment as the agents of the government...
Get your head out of your a##e.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was worth doing it would already be done. If you still think it isn't then you are more than free to spend your own money doing so and take the profit for yourself.
The point is that the EU has no right to make that a requirement on anyone. The people producing the content aren't their slaves or vassals and as such they get to decide what they do (so long as they do not use force upon another). Try thinking for a change, it will stop you from saying things that monumentally stupid.
The market is made up of individuals making trades there is no group to speak of.
1. It is protected by the second amendment. 2. I can kill you with a knife, or a piece of wood, or a rock. Should these be banned? If your answer is not an emphatic yes then you recognize your argument is flawed. If you answer yes the you are irrational and you should be ignored. Logic for the win.
It was originally justified with the human right to self defense. The protection under the law was justified by the fact government could disarm the people and violate that right.
Except the founding fathers explicitly stated, in writing and verbally, that the second amendment guaranteed the private ownership of arms to protect the people against government. Read the federalist papers, read the debates dureing the ratification of the Constitution, read the writings of the fu*king founding fathers. Your argument is bullsh*t and you are a complete Fu*king retard c*nt. I hope you get cancer and die a slow painful and lingering death...
Yes, that is exactly what they wanted. Hence the second amendment...
How is he a wannabe tyrant? So far he has reduced government power, wouldn't he be doing to opposite of he wanted to be a tyrant?
An armed populace will stop them getting to that stage. Additionally the military won't want to walk through their own country shooting civilians and would, most likely, revolt if ordered to (and definitely do so if ordered to bomb them). So get your head out of your arse and try thinking for a change.
Germany had multiple laws that prevented the private ownership of firearms. The Nazi party lifted that ban, for those that were 'good Germans'. This meant that all privately owned weapons were in the hands of Nazi party supporters and not owned by many who would disagree. Study some history...
Everything but a revolver (which can still act like a semi-automatic), bolt or lever action firearm is semi-automatic. Get your head out of your arse.
Freedom of speech does not exist in Australia. Freedom to defend yourself does not exist in Australia. Do you want me to continue?
1. The puckle gun is an example of a firearm that is visually identical to a Gatling gun. It is the device that people regularly mistake as such and explains the erroneous statement that Gatling guns were at Concord. 2. The Belton Flintlocks and the Girandoni air rifles were fully automatic. One squeeze of the trigger resulted in more than one projectile being fired. 3. The Girandoni air rifle had a hopper containing 22 balls which, when fully primed it could expell between 3 and 5 full hoppers before being reprimed. 4. The founding fathers were not on aware of these developments but were fans of them and attempted to buy the Belton Flintlocks long before writing the Second Amendment. 5. They outfitted the Lewis and Clark expedition with Girandoni air rifles... 6. Private peopl owned cannons, artillery, and warships. All of these were vastly note expensive than any of the rifles mentioned. 7. The second amendment does not exclude weapons of any price... Therefore there were fully automatic weapons available when they wrote the Constitution. There were weapons that can be described as Gatling guns. There were weapons that were not 'muzzle loaded'. There were weapons with an ammo capacity greater than 10 rounds. So everything I said is true and every such claim of the original poster is false. Additionally the Founding Fathers understood technology would change and that such weapons would get better and cheaper (as had so many things in their own lifetimes) they made no exclusions... No run along little troll your lies are exposed.
It's doing better than your country, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
'Look at me I am so Fing stupid I think nukes is a valid counterexample!' The point is to have the same weapons the government has, if you can think of an argument as to why a person shouldn't have a bike it applies equally to the government.... Get your head out of your arse you complete fing ftard
Except the entire point is that being armed prevents them from becoming tyrannical due to people being able to shoot any potential Hitler before they get powerful or by making people choose not to join up because of the massive amount of bloodshed necessary to take over. Get your head out of your arse and stop listening to ignorant braindead leftists
And you clearly don't understand how sentences work. Even forgetting that the meaning of the words excluded your interpretation and also forgetting that the people who wrote the amendment explicitly said, in writing and verbally, that you are wrong. The sentence itself denies your interpretation, the 'well regulated' part is the justification clause of the sentence and bears absolutely no relevance to the content clause which states an individual right that can not be infringed. Sentence structure for the win!
Well strange that such a gun rich environment netted lower crime rates than immediately after the buyback... No matter how you break it down all evidence points to restrictions being irrelevant to the crime rate.
You should be able to, at the time people were allowed to own warships which would at least be equivalent to a few rocket launchers.
Which had increased as a result of the stricter gun laws...
The Australians would cover in fear because their government made them sell their guns to them....
The second amendment was written in 1791. The puckle gun was invented in 1718 The Belton Flintlocks were invented in 1777 The Girandoni air rifles were invented in 1780. So facts show they did have more things than just muzzle loaded muskets you complete Fu*king retard.
Study some history, there were fully automatic weapons available at the time (like the Belton Flintlocks, Pickle gun, Griandoni air rifles etc) some of which had ammo capacities higher than 20 rounds (like the Girandoni air rifles etc). You are just completely ignorant of historical facts and the entire point of the Second Amendment. The point being it is there to allow people the means to protect themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. That is to literally say that they should have the same equipment as the agents of the government... Get your head out of your a##e.
Actually the Democratic party brought us the KKK and still has active members of the KKK in their ranks. Robert Byrd is a great example of that...
Usually your greatest competition is from on of your own kind, so it makes sense.