Civilian ownership of "Weapons of war"

OP:

firearms

lol

.

 

most of these guns are not currently standard issue to soldiers, to be used on the battlefield

 

What good did those laws do in preventing the Copenhagen attacks. Here is a hint don't use am example that was just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing attacked!!!

P.S. I believe the fixed magazine SKS used in Dallas is perfectly legal in Denmark with a sports shooting license.

 

how many murders are there in Denmark each year?

 

I would say not one of them are current issue...
The 1911 was replaced with the M9 correct?

 

And so... you don't have a meaningful response to the OP.
So noted.

 

None of them are, which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the topic. He knows this.
That said, some, if not all, were indeed issue weapons and were used in wartime combat - thus, weapons of war.

 

IMO, all explanations essentially boil down to the following; That no free person should be allowed to possess an object that I cannot trust myself to possess.

This is but one mantra of the pseudo-benevolent.

- - - Updated - - -

Not so fast chief, I'm on your side.

 

Roger. Your response was, well, ambiguous.

 

I like to make light of those who have trouble with clear instructions. Often the humor is all mine.

 

How much gang activity does denmark have? Let's round up all our Chicago gangs and ship them off to Denmark. Watch Denmark's murder rate explode.

I'm not particularly worried about getting shot here in because I don't live in thr (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hood.

 

People should be allowed to own those weapons. After a thorough criminal back round check on a federal database, registering the firearm with their local police office, and a waiting period. Also, if not a veteran they should be required to take a safety course on the operation and maintenance of the firearm.

 

Why should the right to keep and bear arms be subjected to these restrictions, and how do they not create an infringement that violates the constitution?

 

If they ever took the guns, people would just start making them.

 

Registration is a horrible, horrible suggestion. Did I say horrible? Good, because it's a horrible idea.

Authoritative bodies have no business knowing what a free person legally owns or doesn't own.

Aside from that, why not conscription?

 

They tell us 11,000,000 illegal aliens are "too many" to deport.
Confiscate 357,000,000 guns? Piece of cake.
Especially after universal registration.
Which is necessary to enforce universal background checks.
See the connection?

 

Is it your opinion that charged or convicted felons, terrorists, the mentally ill, and the underaged should be able to possess a firearm? I ask because it seems you are questioning criminal background checks and waiting periods (used to check for those limitations) as being a restriction, if not an infringement.

 

But the weapon used in Dallas was an SKS which is basically the Russian WWII equivalent of the M1 but with far less power.

 

Because people should be trained in the safety and operation of these weapons. We do it for a lot of the everyday things we use. It's not infringement on someone's rights to have to learn how to operate a deadly piece of machinery.

- - - Updated - - -

If people intend to use their weapons for legal purposes, what's the problem? All you are doing is protecting criminals.

 

Hate to be negative, but it's not going to matter shortly. The powers that be have been caught. They are scrambling at the bits to kickoff their New World Order. War must happen soon, or they will be hung, and they know it.

 

Do you have a post of mine that says this? If you do, please post a link.

That's exactly what I did. I don't see an answer from you.
I'll ask again:
Why should the right to keep and bear arms be subjected to these restrictions - a thorough criminal back round check on a federal database, registering the firearm with their local police office, and a waiting period.- and how do those restrictions not create an infringement that violates the constitution?

 

Explain how a "thorough criminal back round check on a federal database, registering the firearm with their local police office, and a waiting period" are in any way related to training.

Prove this to be true, when the right to do so is specifically protected by the constitution.

 

See DC v Heller. Bring the opinion up and into your find bar type, some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous

Read from there. OK bud?

 

From that post I asked if your opinion is that convicted felons, terrorists, mentally ill, and underaged should be able to possess a firearm. Do you? It's a simple yes or no answer. Until you answer that simple question, there's nothing more to discuss.

I never mentioned a federal database or registering with the police… just background checks and waiting periods.

 

You'll have to define what you mean by "mentally ill", "terrorists" and 'possess". Until you do, I cannot present an opinion.

Pity, as my question asks about his requirement for all three - a thorough criminal back round check on a federal database, registering the firearm with their local police office, and a waiting period. As my question revolved around his statement, you'll have to address them all =- else there's nothing to discuss.

You can, of course, simply note that you do not believe the right to keep and bear arms should be subject to a federal data base and registration and/or that said restrictions are constitutional.