Judge Says 2nd Amendment Doesnt Exist in New York

The serial numbers don’t match. It must be invisible.

1 Like

Also, the more privately made firearms in the country, the better.



For real. There’s already guy who turns civilian G36s into full blown XM8s for a ton of money. Maybe one day replicas of that cool ass gun will be made in larger numbers and actually be affordable.

The regulations say you don’t have to register or serialize them as long as they are not sold for for the purposes of profit.

Remember in Washington DC when it was legal to sell someone a candy bar for $200 bucks and then “gift” them an ounce of weed? :wink:


They did the same thing here with fake weed for a while. You bought something else and they gave you a bag of fake to go along with it.

Next thing you know you’re me in the corner in someone’s house in the fetal position crying. Never again. That ■■■■ is for the birds.


The K2/Spice days? Man, that was the only way to “safely” get stoned in the Army for years. :rofl:


I’ve always loved the XM8 for some reason. Well it was the big gun in video games back when I was in high school and Ghost Recon had me fully convinced that we would be going to war in Mexico in like 2010 and I’d be a draftee carrying a XM8.

I had one incident with some crap called “train wreck” and that was the last time I smoked a whole bowl of that stuff to the face.

At least their advertising was accurate. Cause it was a total train wreck.

1 Like

You also don’t have to report, as a congesscritter, meals you eat standing up as coming from lobbyist.


And I’m sure Lockheed provides only the finest Filet Minion and Lobster.

Well, if it is eaten standing at the bar…

1 Like

Nope. Read it. There’s nothing in the 2nd that mentions any part of centgov.

Now add in the supremacy clause.


“Ghost guns” :rofl:

1 Like


1 Like

By the media

I should note I am NOT talking about the CORRECT interpretation of anything.

Ultimately, interpretation exactly what the Supreme Court SAYS the interpretation is.

We don’t know what the composition of the Supreme Court might be 10, 15, 25, 50 years down the road.

It may flip ideologically at any point and a liberal majority is likely to blow Heller/MacDonald/Bruen out of the water with the same nonchalance that this court blew Roe/Casey out of the water.

I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong for them to do so. I am just saying that it is something that could happen.

LOTS of attorneys and law students that support the pre-2008 interpretation of the Second Amendment and it is possible that there could be five on the Supreme Court in the intermediate or distant future.

As we have seen, just WINNING is not enough. You have to PRESERVE that win for eternity.

Unincorporate it? :rofl:

1 Like

Leave it to the intellectuals. :rofl:


The courts turned themselves into Gods.

All hail the men and women in black robes.

And what, pray may tell, would prevent a court from unincorporating.

Just in the same way they removed the right to abortion up to viability.

Five Justices can do any ■■■■■■■ thing they like.


For any reason they like.

What the Supreme Court gives in one breath, it can take away in literally the next breath.

Unless you can figure out how to confer eternal life on Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett, you going to have to accept the reality that the courts lineup will eventually change.