Constitutional Rights

[Spasm]

I'll add to Zeros posts of great pictures!

1359094439635.jpg

[Penis シ]

Ehh, I agree with the guy on the left in the first one. In the second one; no hardcore pornography? That seems a bit pervasive. I understand no child or animal, but what I own of what two consenting adults shouldn't be called into question. He also has an issue with profanity? I understand limiting the rights of free speech as far as preventing dangerous situations, but again, a law to make people feel more comfortable is bullshit. I'll say what I want where I want and wont give a shit. As far as the flag burning thing goes; I get it. But at the same time, I wouldn't burn an American flag, I wouldn't associate with someone that has; but I wouldn't say "HEY LET'S SEND THIS GUY TO JAIL FOR EXPRESSING HIMSELF". It's just benign.

And I go back. That motherfucker said to ban "assault weapons". Fuck that made up term. "This gun looks scary, I bet we can ban it if we cause confusion about it". I take it back Spasm. That guy is simply a Contrarian and a dumb one at that.

[StarsMine]

Trying to figure out if Biden agrees that Assault weapons is a bad term or not... Cant tell....

I'm much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine

I have to say spasm that that is a poor comparison in my mind.

Source:http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-changes-minds

[brett friggin favre]

i agree, porno magazines with too many round, rotund women are true american tragedy.

wait what are we talking about again

[Spasm]

It's a joke pic that mocks liberals and its pretty funny, because its true!

And let's remember the 1st Amendment was written when all we had was quill pens and manual printing press. - Epic fucking line lmfao

[acolyte_to_jippity]

Ehh, I agree with the guy on the left in the first one. In the second one; no hardcore pornography? That seems a bit pervasive. I understand no child or animal, but what I own of what two consenting adults shouldn't be called into question. He also has an issue with profanity? I understand limiting the rights of free speech as far as preventing dangerous situations, but again, a law to make people feel more comfortable is bullshit. I'll say what I want where I want and wont give a shit. As far as the flag burning thing goes; I get it. But at the same time, I wouldn't burn an American flag, I wouldn't associate with someone that has; but I wouldn't say "HEY LET'S SEND THIS GUY TO JAIL FOR EXPRESSING HIMSELF". It's just benign.

And I go back. That motherfucker said to ban "assault weapons". Fuck that made up term. "This gun looks scary, I bet we can ban it if we cause confusion about it". I take it back Spasm. That guy is simply a Contrarian and a dumb one at that.

for a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" doesn't it have to be chambered in a certain caliber (or range of calibers) and have automatic fire capability exceeding a certain RPM?

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

for a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" doesn't it have to be chambered in a certain caliber (or range of calibers) and have automatic fire capability exceeding a certain RPM?

no.

an assault weapon is any object used to assault another. therefor making an assault weapons ban, ban things like rocks, pens, bats, milk cartons, plush teddy bears and pillows.

[brett friggin favre]

from wikipedia:

Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

it's ambiguous, so no law can be made about it as an ambiguous law is pointless.

[Penis シ]

What's better is how the word was created. It was created to SOUND like Assault Rifle during a time when assault rifles were already banned. This got people all flustered and now the media uses the two terms ALMOST interchangeably. Pisses me off when Piers Morgan talks about how fast these guns can shoot, etc. Any time I hear someone talk about "assault weapons" I automatically assume they're an idiot.

[ZERO]

Given that the gun is to protect me from the gov I do not think they shoot fast enough...

I want the old days where I could own a ship loaded up with some cannons...

Think for a moment that back when the founders wrote this yes all they had were muskets but individuals that had the money owned armed ships capable of destroying an entire city! If anything I feel like individually we have given up a lot of heavy firepower that we previously did have in the past. I do not think anyone today is allowed a weapon that can take out a city but back then such things could be found on privately owned ships.

Obviously today we do not want people running around with the ability to blow up a city and I do not think anyone is trying to allow for that but it is something to think about as to what sort of firepower the founders were allowing and were already present in their day.