Search results

I saw this I the feed, and was like dammit, I like Joe Walsh.

The more "arms" has been legally defined, the more arms we've lost the right to own and carry. When arms meant what it meant, before the lawyers and politicians got involved, our right to bear arms was only limited by money and imagination.

I took my wife and two kids, spent over $200, and felt like I didn't do anything. I miss the $5 armbands they would give students when I was in school.

Common law along with plain language did, notwithstanding that the right to self defence predates lawyers and the constitution. Legal definitions are whatever the latest group of lawyers, judges, and politicians say they are.

Fuck legal definitions, they're part of the reason why we're in the pickle we're in. The question should be what did the term "arms" broadly refer to in 1776, and what the equivalent weapons would be today. At least until the end of the Spanish American war, civilians were always better arms...

We are living in a legal dictatorship now, being oppressed by the dictionary. If the founders had tried to define what was included in the 2A, it would be used against us now, and nothing not expressly allowed would be forbidden. Personally, I define arms as any weapon available to an enlisted...

Arms is any weapon that can be carried. At least that was the definition of the word in 1776, I believe. It does include knives, swords, etc. The ambiguity of the word is part of its genius. If an actual definition was set down by the founders, our rights would be more eroded than they are now.

That sounds suspiciously like Marx's Labour theory of value.

No, but you should never support those who want further reductions on something you consider so important. I didn'tt vote for McCain because he supported restrictions on free speech, or Romney because I didn't trust him I guns. If I followed your thinking, I may have voted for Romney, because...

Absolutely, that's why I said it would be good enough. But that's a better question, who have you supported that's fought to expand gun rights and roll back the restrictions placed on them?

That's someone editorializing, not a statement from Wal-Mart.

And the mini in stock today looked like it came with a 5 rnd magazine, maybe that makes it ok.

The Conyers Wal-Mart had a mini 14 today, and it wasn't on sale. I asked the clerk if they were still carrying the mini, and he said they were. Maybe he was wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Ricketts The governor is Pete

They're still selling mini-14s too

Who is that? The only Google result is a Nebraska school board member. And like I said, your stance on guns takes a back seat to other things you care about.

There's hundreds of articles about them not selling, I haven't seen anything where they say it's stopping because ARs are used in mass shootings. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/25/wal-mart-abandons-ar-15-shooters-good/ This is as close to a statement from the company that I've seen.

100% rating from the NRA will be good enough.

Link?

Some motivations are more important than others. For once a shooting will be more about the victims than the killers, but only because of who the killer is and why he did it.