Definitely something I would not chance looking up on the company internet even if it was and OK site.

I prefer my shrimp to swim in a dish of melted butter.

I’ve always pictured these in my head, and will continue to do so:

Both with soulless automatics.

Equally, American citizens could mount a symbolic flintlock rifle over their mantelpiece to satisfy the second amendment. That’s what a civilized nation would do to honor a massively outdated clause in a centuries-old manifesto. Then we could own hunting and sporting firearms on a sensible basis, without claiming this…

I would love to see what the protests in hong kong would’ve been like with guns. Half the protesters would shoot each other to death. The other half would immediately get gassed by the government.

I own a gun and I’m anti gun. I will support a national gun buyback if one ever happens.

Incorrect. Even Scalia said reasonable limitations on firearm ownership is not prohibited by the Second Amendment or any other law. That’s why you can’t (easily) own heavy weapons or automatic machine guns and many cities can create their own restrictive laws around their possession. Your precious, designed to only kil…

Hard fucking LOL.

Its a common tactic taken by authoritarian organizations.

You must be real special if you believe that. China, and its’ billion of indoctrinated/nationalist population and largest world military would simply say “oh gee, you’ve got handguns and rifles? Well you can just have your independence then!”

It's funny you mention the clarity of the 2nd amendment, yet everyone ignores the well regulated militia part... 

So you really think civilians with guns would dissuade a Chinese crackdown? Someone has low reality comprehension.

Needs more random capitalization  and maybe a reference or two about Soros to really make it shine.

It is? As far as I can tell, everyone remembers “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, but no one remembers the opening caveat about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

Thanks for the absolutist view. The supreme court is much different: as long as you are able to buy “arms”, it’s constitutional. So, if the country banned everything but muzzle loaders it would still technically not be infringing the right to bear arms.

You have a very odd interpretation of “clearly defined”. Maybe if you go by the truncated version of the 2nd Amendment that the NRA likes to give as their creedo. However, as it is written, it’s not particularly clear.

Nope, a civilian has zero need for assault weapons unless they expect to be defending themselves from fucking Xenomorphs. The fact that a legislature is too stupid or stubborn to alter or remove an archaic line in the constitution no longer functions as an intelligent defense.

I should be the NRA’s wet dream, gun owner (including AR15), have a CCW combat infantry vet, college degree work in IT etc BUT I am all in favor of expanded background checks, red flag holds, making any transfer of firearms go through same process as buying new etc.

Which well-organized militia do you belong to?