need to be protected against the coming fairfax zombie libtard apocolypse

Whichever is easiest for you to blow your head off with

So is all the ammmo your check is only half of what they cost then Dems will take it away and give you 250 for it

Just give it up and head to MGM and shove the hundreds in and pull the handle on the 100 dollar slot

He is right. There is np ammo left to buy. Snooze ya lose dumbass. Better start making your own spears or a home made flame thrower because you are screwed.

NERF

5 rounds 100 dollars for corroded misfiring WW I surplus for old rusty Mosin Nagants made in Egypt, is that what you have ? Or go to a Wal Mart and ask the fatty's who hang around in the morning to sell you some, they are scalpers and their price is even higher . One super fat guy told me he wanted one million dollars for a box of 25 Speer 9mm Gold Dots, he said if he sells only one he's got it made, hope Bill Gates is not into guns or there will be nothing at all but that fatty will be on cloud nine

After you drive thousands of miles looking just remember only one box a day and sales are final
Attachments:

They are going to ban ammo sales on the internet too, sorry your just SOL

Spend a little extra and go for the penis enlargement surgery. In the long run you will save money.

get a $900-1K AK or AR and spend the rest on ammo, you can get it here https://ammoseek.com/ Ignore the dipshits on this thread who don't realize you can buy it online. Yes it's a ripoff, for that you should punch a democrat in the face.

Where in NoVa can I purchase retail 9mm-FMJ ammunition at the counter?

Wanting to do simple plinking-target practice at friend's property on Sunday.

When you get it, be sure to carry this libtard explanation guide to your weapon.
Attachments:

Still asking where to buy ammo when the answer is its all gone, Democrats did not even have to pass a law to do it !

The reality is places get some ammo in and as soon as it goes on the shelf it's sold , Greentop still has some ARs but how long will they be legal until the Supremes rule Dems ban is unconstitutional , what good is a gun you can't be shooting and enjoy, you better be looking for 10" PVC pipe and a shovel cuz they will be out soon too

Tell us when was the last time a US political party passed a unconstitutional law affecting 25 million Americans infringing on a individual basic US constitutional right that was in the original Bill Of Rights , only the Democrats can think to do that which is truly sick in a land of supposed freedom and liberty which does have a US constitution where the 2nd has the very strongest words not to try to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the entire US constitution "Shall Not Be Infriged"

Don't want the 2nd amend the constitution and ratify it Democrats until that happens OBEY The constitution

Reasonable regulations , NOT BANS OF ANY GUNS OR MAGAZINES

WE HAVE A US CONSTITUTION OBEY IT !

nguwf233223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> get a $900-1K AK or AR and spend the rest on ammo,
> you can get it here https://ammoseek.com/ Ignore
> the dipshits on this thread who don't realize you
> can buy it online. Yes it's a ripoff, for that you
> should punch a democrat in the face.


So please explain how the ammunition shortage is due to Democrats?
Where they part of the apx 10 million new shooters? Probably, so that's scary
Did they close ammunition factories?
Did the forbid them from producing more rounds?
Did they tell guntards to stock up/hord ammunition?



We await your answers

Some Have Thick Skulls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still asking where to buy ammo when the answer is
> its all gone, Democrats did not even have to pass
> a law to do it !
>
> The reality is places get some ammo in and as soon
> as it goes on the shelf it's sold , Greentop still
> has some ARs but how long will they be legal until
> the Supremes rule Dems ban is unconstitutional ,
> what good is a gun you can't be shooting and
> enjoy, you better be looking for 10" PVC pipe and
> a shovel cuz they will be out soon too
>
> Tell us when was the last time a US political
> party passed a unconstitutional law affecting 25
> million Americans infringing on a individual basic
> US constitutional right that was in the original
> Bill Of Rights , only the Democrats can think to
> do that which is truly sick in a land of supposed
> freedom and liberty which does have a US
> constitution where the 2nd has the very strongest
> words not to try to infringe on the right to keep
> and bear arms in the entire US constitution "Shall
> Not Be Infriged"
>
> Don't want the 2nd amend the constitution and
> ratify it Democrats until that happens OBEY The
> constitution

What well regulated malitia are you in?
That's part of those strong words you mention

Gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What well regulated malitia are you in?
> That's part of those strong words you mention


Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

> What well regulated malitia are you in?
> That's part of those strong words you mention

When the U.S. Constitution was written, the term "well regulated" referred to a group of men who were "well equipped" and "well disciplined".

There was no concept of "regulation" in the form of a central government controlling everything. The notion of a central government imposing its power to control everything came mostly from Karl Marx and his "Communist Manifesto", which was published in 1848.

Now a lot of people still think that Karl Marx was German but the truth of the matter is that both of his grandfathers were rabbis. I think most people would agree that an anti-Christian religion as foul as socialism/communism could only arise from a mind as sick and twisted and evil as a Jew's.

Never sure whether libtards are trolling or just ignorant,
but "well regulated" means "well functioning",
meaning "well practiced". Very much like the phrase
"well oiled machine". "Well tuned". All the parts working
correctly.

Maybe the best translation is "Well performing".
There is a connotation of "practical".

Like Bach describing certain music as "well regulated".


As for "militia", take it from the guy who wrote
the 2nd Amendment (taken from Virginia's own Constitution):

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." ---- George Mason



MODERN TRANSLATION:

"Since the People have the right and responsibility to be able to defend themselves and the country, and must be able to present a credible implicit threat to a corruptible government and the danger of tyrrany, they need to be armed and practiced --- and while some rights can be infringed when they conflict with other rights that we specially recognize here -- you SHALL NOT INFRINGE on this most crucial right to keep and bear arms."

ALL gun regulation is un-Constitutional.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2021 10:37PM by Spacy.

>What well regulated malitia are you in?
>That's part of those strong words you mention

The supreme court has ruled militia membership has no connection with the individual right to keep and bear arms,( District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.) there are two different statements within the 2nd amendment , the first pertaining to militias and the second to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms but for your amusement I am a member of the unorganized militia of the United States and so probably are you .

This the unorganized militia of "THE PEOPLE" is the US militia that will be disarmed by Democrats unconstitutional gun bans not reasonable regulation with great loss of US National Defense Capabilities , Why do you think The US National Defense Highway System Was authorized by congress and built with federal funds, SO US Armed Forces war materials and all US militias can travel quickly to any point of the US in the lower 48 and part of Alaska in case of a national emergency or war ! Thats a long set of words for our US interstate highway system.

Your trying to take the peoples rights away to lessen our US national and our personal self defense without any possible knowledge of what the hell your even talking about

READ THE US CODE REGULATING THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA OF THE UNITED STATES ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND

USC 246 Unorganized militia described : The President of The US and only the president has the authority to call the unorganized militia to arms as Commander In Chief of The United States Military which under the constitution is the "navy and the militias of the United States" read the constitution where it authorizes congress to establish and fund the "Navy and Militias". The terms US Navy US Marine Corps US Army US Air Force US Coast Guard are not in the constitution they are referred to in the acts congress passed establishing them as the branches of the US Armed Forces and in many other codes within the US code. The Unorganized Militia Of The United States Was established by an act of Congress .There are no formal rules or regulations governing the unorganized militia of the United States , The President and the congress have authority to authorize any and all rules and orders as necessary if the unorganized US militia is called to arms. One vital need of the unorganized militia is the right to keep and bear arms that the people be armed in their homes and have the knowledge of how to operate and use their weapons by firing them and training themselves in their use to be able to respond in a national emergency if called to arms by the president. Banning firearms drastically reduces the ability of the citizen to respond thus greatly reducing the US national defense .

Switzerland has a similar armed citizenry where Swiss citizens keep military full auto weapons in their homes, these Swiss are trained by their military

Democrats for the last 50 years have resisted every effort to train civilians with firearms in this country to the detriment to our national defense . The US Dept of Defense Civilian Marksmanship Program that is being defunded and suppressed by Democrats is a perfect example . A vote for the (D) is a vote for a much weaker US National defense overall.

The US CODE

"246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=unorganized+militia&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim

The part of Joes "Biden Plan" for gun control where it will ban educators from providing any firearms training to students

WHY DO DEMOCRATS HATE THE US NATIONAL DEFENSE ? WHY DO THEY WANT THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE TO BE AS WEAK AS THEY ARE ?

JUST LAY DOWN JOE AND YOU DEMOCRATS AND KEEP YOUR WEAK HEADS COVERED STAY OUT OF OUR WAY , WE THE PEOPLE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT

Is a Qweak a Democrat

Yes

Try reading all of the majority opinion in Heller, including the footnotes. The Supreme Court that recognized that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to possess firearms also recognized that the government could regulate who could own certain types of firearms.

One that goes bang when you pull the trigger...

>Try reading all of the majority opinion in Heller, including the footnotes. The Supreme Court that recognized that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to possess firearms also recognized that the government could regulate who could own certain types of firearms.

YES Reasonable regulations NEVER Bans are constitutional , that was what both Heller Vs DC and McDonald Vs Chicago ruled

There is no constitutional reasonable regulation with any type of possession of firearm registration taxes or insurance policies or "smart guns" or law enforcement officers not being required under registration laws to preform service when applicants submit applications for firearm registration as there is no type of government taxation that is constitutional to pay to worship at a Mosque or Church nor any taxes insurance or "smart" forms of protesting and speaking your mind under the 1st amendment or failure to preform service on applications

ITS NOT THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE ATTACKING THE BASIC CORNERSTONE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS , ITS THE DEMOCRATS AND IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE AND LIAR ON THIS PLANET OR YOUR SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO EXIST ON EARTH WITHOUT IMMENSE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

ATTACK THE CONSTITUTION- DESTROY IT WITH OUT AMENDING AND RATIFYING IT AND WHEN WE FALL AS A NATION WHOS FAULT WILL IT BE ? ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION AND DON"T TRY TO LIE AND SAY ITS THE REPUBLICANS OR TRUMP'S FAULT !

Re: what kind of assault rifle should i buy with my stimulus check ?
Posted by: How To Obey The Constitution ()
Date: March 19, 2021 04:59PM

Reasonable regulations , NOT BANS OF ANY GUNS OR MAGAZINES

WE HAVE A US CONSTITUTION OBEY IT !

Can not constitutionally ban firearms ownership from the law abiding American citizen.

Constitutional Reasonable Regulations can never allow retired police officers who are NO LONGER SWORN AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT to be exempt from firearm bans that apply to all other American citizens as the 2019 Democrat House passed "Assault Weapons Bill" did IN A CLASSIC CASE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRAT PANDERING AND ACTION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE !


READ

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296/text

SEC-3 (4-C) Retired police exempted from the assault weapons bill = UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRAT PANDERING

Reasonable Regulations NOT BANS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YES Reasonable regulations NEVER Bans are
> constitutional , that was what both Heller Vs DC
> and McDonald Vs Chicago ruled

That is not what the Court said in either Heller or McDonald. Again read the footnotes. Read the cases they relied on. They didn't say you had a right to whatever firearms you wanted to own.

SEE WHAT THEY WILL RULE WITH THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT BY DEMOCRATS IN 2019 WITH THEIR "ASSAULT WEAPONS BILL"

YOU WILL HAVE TO ADD MANY NEW LEFTIST JUSTICES TO THE COURT FIRST TO GET YOUR WAY DEMOCRATS

For example Scalia wrote in Heller:

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.[Footnote 25]"

>They didn't say you had a right to whatever firearms you wanted to own.

They made no ruling on other firearms nor did they issue any final rule on concealed carry despite Scali's opinion . That was left to future court cases as the cases of Heller Vs DC and McDonald Vs Chicago were about handguns, the decisions were not as broad as they should have been as swing vote Justice Kennedy was still on the court so it could not be a broad decision .

Today the court is solidly 5-4 or possibly 6-3 depending on the way Chief Justice Roberts sees the any 2A case however he did allow the first 2A cases to be heard on the high court since Miller VS US in 1939 which was very bad decision as Miller who had died in federal prison when the case was heard , sawed off shotgun was not deemed worthy of being used by a militia , a fact disproven by the USMC's use of shotguns in the trenches of France in WW1 and short barreled firearms in all of Americans wars since the revolution .

I 100% agree with you that the court did not provide a comprehensive list either of which weapons were covered by the Second Amendment or which ones were not. What Scalia did do though by relying on and talking about the Miller decision was to affirm the principal that certain weapons could be banned.

The Miller decision was not awful. It was a decision that was a product of its time, just as Heller was. When Miller was handed down there was over 150 years of precedent of state, local and even U.S. territorial regulation of what weapons could be owned and carried by whom and where. the U.S. had even regulated the types of weapons that U.S. merchant ships could be armed with.
The Supreme Court was trying to run with that precedent on the national level. The concern at the time the law was enacted was violence by criminals. Exotic weapons were mostly owned by criminals.

The death of the appellant in Miller had no impact on the ultimate result. However his death made it easier for the court to rule on the more narrow grounds that the weapons were not of the type protected by the Second Amendment, without having to reach the broader question of whether Miller possessed a protected right to own firearms generally under the Second Amendment. This probably did Heller a favor. The Supreme Court did not have to overrule existing precedent to find the DC law unconstitutional.

Have to overturn existing precedents to overturn any Democrat congressional gun bans when the Democrats jump straight to a ban without any attempt to reasonably regulate first.

President Biden's gun control plan which he campaigned upon, states he will ask to have semi auto assault weapons moved into the highly regulated NFA 1934 act with federal background checks to be completed upon those who currently own these firearms when they register them if the Biden plan becomes law.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ Registering Assault Weapons That Will Be Grandfathered

"Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act."

That in itself is constitutional however the NFA act has a tax imposed of 200 dollars on each class III firearm registered and none presently upon magazines .

The tax is a transfer tax of the firearms ownership that is actually a special occupational tax upon the transferring federal firearms dealer, all NFA firearms must have ownership transferred by federal firearms license dealers with a NFA act license .This tax is passed on to the owner of the firearm and the tax stamp must be affixed to their ownership document.

Thus the right to keep and bear arms is taxed as a unconstitutional infringement. The Biden plan also requires the same 200 dollar tax to be paid for each magazine of high capacity which renders the firearm fundamentally unusable and only capable of firing single shots without a magazine

Then the NFA act requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer in the area the new owner lives to sign a document attesting that the applicant is the person applying for the transfer ownership and not a stand in , and that the Chief LEO has no information that the applicant has committed any crimes that disallows the ownership of the firearm or under indictment for any crimes. The problem is Democrat Chief LEO's may now simply tell the applicants ," I'm not signing that I don't have to the law does not require me to preform this service". Such political inspired refusal to sign the application is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms .

If these two infringements , the 200 tax and the issue of the Chief LEO are changed to eliminate the tax and require the chief LEO to preform service under the law then the Biden plan will be constitutional .

It must be noted that the NFA act only affected a small number of machine gun owners , sawed off shotgun and short barrel rifle owners simply discarded those firearms as they were not worth the cost of the tax after the NFA 134 took place.

Today any attempt to require 20 million Americans plus to pay a 200 dollar tax and much more for their magazines will be a huge national issue that will result in the Democrats Assault Weapons Biden Plan act being overturned by the US Supreme Court unless the Biden plans two unconstitutional actions are fixed as I have stated

If a pure ban is passed that will enrage the American people and make Joe Biden into a national liar as he ran on the Biden Plan which allows existing assault weapons to be grandfathered and kept if registered under the 1934 NFA which would be expanded to semi auto firearms. Such a pure ban shall be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court once it is heard with instructions to reasonably regulate . Which is where the case will be going immediately

There are other unconstitutional actions within the BIDEN Plan which will be heard by the US Supreme Court one at a time and found to be unconstitutional infringements against the right to keep and bear arms. Once again 20 million plus Americans rights will be at stake as well as American fireams makers.

.
Attachments:

Just buy something that goes pew, pew, pew, and identify as any kind of rifle you like. Think of all the money i just saved you , your welcome!
Attachments: