Usain Bolt can run really fast. So no one needs athletic shoes
The Trace is asking if the AR-15 is a weapon of war. As evidence, the show a youtube of Jerry Miculek breaking a world record with 5 shots, 5 targets in one second.
11 Responses to “Usain Bolt can run really fast. So no one needs athletic shoes”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 23rd, 2017 at 8:21 pm
A shovel can be a weapon of war, so of course any firearm can as well. So? The right to keep and bear shovels in not specifically protected by the constitution (unless we can make a really good case that they are to be treated as weapon of war, which makes them “arms”), whereas fireamrs, i.e. “arms” are specifically protected.
February 23rd, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Obviously, Jerry Miculek should be banned…
February 23rd, 2017 at 8:38 pm
1. The AR-15 is whatever the owner wants it to be.
2. The Trace is a leftist digital rag.
3. The Fourth Circus has evidently just returned from vacation in Colorado.
February 23rd, 2017 at 10:24 pm
What Kasper said.
The AR15 isn’t a weapon of war, Jerry Miculeck is.
February 23rd, 2017 at 11:13 pm
From the linked article:
“But the unequivocal language in Tuesday’s opinion could provide legal cover for other states that want to follow Maryland’s example.”
Keep dreaming, buddy. RKBA has been steadily winning in the legislatures. The courts are riding drag. (Not to be confused with wearing drag except, possibly, in the Ninth Circuit.)
February 24th, 2017 at 3:34 am
Jerry has a very fast finger.. Outlaw fingers, Here I will show them one of Mine.
February 24th, 2017 at 8:42 am
…Doesn’t “Miller…” specifically mention sawed-off shotguns as “not* being covered by the Second Amendment on the basis of their not being suitable as military weapons?
So, not covered if it’s not a suitable military weapon, AND not covered if it is a “weapon of war?” What’s that leave, sharp sticks? Oh, no, wait, those would be lances. Looks like we’re down to brickbats and sharply-worded letters.
February 24th, 2017 at 11:51 am
They turned “best suited for military use” in Heller completely around, as the dissent points out. Heller said that guns best suited for military use are the guns that the Second Amendment most favors. These @$$holes made it “best for military use, not civilian use”.
February 24th, 2017 at 11:52 am
Begging your pardon, ma’am.
February 24th, 2017 at 3:42 pm
The 2nd Amendment protects THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear ( which means carry) milita weapons as explained in the subordinate clause beginning that sentence. The government, elected officials and agents, have NO rights in their positions of delegated power. Additionally, the Federal government only has been delegated power “for governing such part of them (the militia) as may be called into service and EMPLOYED” (Article I, Section 8.16). The idea and rulings of some judges that the right in the 2nd Amendment is conditioned on being an official or agent of the government is utterly ridiculous because, and I say again, the government has no rights! Only the people have rights which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!
February 26th, 2017 at 12:38 pm
Good Gravy! I hope they don’t apply the “Jerry Miculek standard” to other firearms. Revolvers, shotguns, pocket pistols, etc (pretty much everything can be emptied in a second) would all disappear.