Unintelligible.
No purpose, then.
Unintelligible.
Irrelevant to this thread.
No purpose, then.
Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?
How will that correspond to the second amendment?
Old myth, debunked long time ago.
Clinton in particular is seen as an "anti-gun" type. (Odd that little mention is made of Giuliani...)
So did he pop a cap in yer ass? (I hope that's the right expression...)I remember the gun nuts claiming that Clinton was going to outlaw private gun ownership and confiscate all guns. I ran into one gun nut who was still making this claim in October of 2000. I mentioned that Clinton only had 3 months remaining, so he better hurry. I humiliated the gun nut. This did not make the gun nut happy.![]()
Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way.
I don't see any reason for a private citizen to own, for example, a Thompson submachine gun in most cases. A private collector, that's one thing. But when you consider that the Thompson was sold over the counter at hardware stores when it first came out, you can't help but wonder why gun control opponents are so damned dim.
The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.
So did he pop a cap in yer ass? (I hope that's the right expression...)
Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.
Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.
Meanwhile people who can't obtain guns legally (gang members) kill more people with guns than Ted Nugent has.
Go figure.
I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.