Threeband
The M1 Does My Talking
But they aren't fully semi automatic.
They can be converted to full auto.
But they aren't fully semi automatic.
Besides that, there is no legal hunting in DC so hunting is irrelevant to the argument.
Actually I believe what I want to say is that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
The full quote you referenced is
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
from District of Columbia vs. Heller.
Besides that, there is no legal hunting in DC so hunting is irrelevant to the argument.
Your wrong.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes" Last time I checked hunting was a lawful purpose for a firearm. I believe what you want to say is that it is not limited to hunting.
Your still wrong. I am aware of the quote. It should be noted that I left off the example portion because this discussion is about the scope of the amendment with respect to hunting. Are you saying that hunting is not a lawful purpose? It certainly was mentioned as a lawful purpose in Heller.
Are you trying to say that the 2A only applies to DC and the federal government? McDonald and SCOTUS would disagree with you.
I believe your not correct. At the time the BOR was written, you could hunt with a bow and arrow. Which are arms also. The 2a purpose was to clearly state that the right to arms was already given. And not to be infringed. Sardines is a moron. He is trying to act like he knows what he's talking about.
Your getting lost in the weeds. Saying we are wrong is being unnecessarily combative with your allies.
Your now posturing that the Founders wanted to clarify that arms were for hunting. Not for defense. I won't add a question mark.
You say that I am not correct, but then contradict yourself by giving examples that support what I am saying. I don't see pointing out deficiencies in an argument as being combative. Letting people make mistakes seems much more counterproductive.
I am posturing that the 2A covers an individuals right to ALL traditional lawful uses. While Heller was primarily about the core right to self defense, there are other traditional lawful uses that apply to the 2A. Hunting is one such traditional lawful use that is protected by the 2A. To say that the 2A has NOTHING to do with other traditional lawful uses (hunting) is to ignore portions of the 2A. Isn't a threat to one portion a threat to it all?
I contend that you could outlaw hunting and still not violate the 2A.
The Democratic Socialism of the Sarbanes' Democratic Party will send us all back to the stone age, which will make the rocks in front of my house weapons of war. Of course, not having guns will make it easier for the likes of Ocasio-Cortez and Jealous to take private property.
What problem are we solving by banning semi-automatic rifles? Oh wait - it's not about solving any particular problem, we just don't think anyone should own a firearm.
LOL. But Jeeps weren’t designed to kill people!