Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?" video.

@bubba200874426 Except you don’t know the rules. There were no true laws about abortions on the federal level until Roe v. Wade which isn’t a law but a ruling. It was legislating from the bench per the constitution, it is a matter for the states to decide not the federal government which is why it got overturned. You don’t anything about law or how the government of this nation actually works or what the 13th and 14th Amendment actually say. You are also wrong about the Constitution having no laws that is what the Amendments explicitly are. And abortion being legal or not is a matter for state governments not federal ones.
4
@HellbirdIV Yeah that is all BS the militias were not part of the regular army and you forget it never said the right of the milita but the right of the people.
3
I think they might have thought everyone would be using Obrez rifles when they got home but I seriously doubt that as if you cut down the barrel and stock that much the accuracy means you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.
2
@c3bhm The answer is loopholes my friend. The reason the Tavor isn't regulated is that is long enough to not count as an SBR. An SBR is defined by the ATF having a barrel less than 16 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches while a Tavor has an 18.1 inch barrel and an 28.3 inch overall length. The shockwaves are regulated but they are regulated as Any Other Weapon or AOWs instead of an SBS because it is fitted with a grip instead of a buttstock at the factory. The ATF definition of shotgun requires it have a buttstock which the shockwave lacks. AOWs are still regulated but the red tape is significantly reduced with for one thing a $2 tax stamp for purchase instead of a $200 dollar one they have for every other form of regulated firearm.
2
@jussayinmipeece1069 There wouldn't need to be a loophole if it wasn't for keeping the SBR restriction after they removed the thing they really wanted to regulate
2
@HellbirdIV But it says the right of the people you keep missing that part because you are dense. W e the people are the militia.
2
@HellbirdIV Except not it wasn't conscription. Militias were volunteer organizations because the Militias were ultimately the people as past Supreme Court cases have dictated.
2
@HellbirdIV No the Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the founding fathers were clear on later documents they meant the people
2
@HellbirdIV Really where is your evidence the founding fathers weren't okay to have the people to keep and bear arms including cannons. Even the mainstream understands people could and did own cannons in the early days and that was legal under the Second Amendment.
2
@hobbitronic Except no the types of cars that are regulated aren't because of matters of they could kill the people if you get hit by one. It is either about driver and passenger safety, or clinging onto an and long outdated legal dispute with Europeans that has so many holes in it you can call it Swiss Cheese (The Chicken Tax)
1
@nehcrum Except you are ignoring that boar aren't the only thing you need to hunt. There are also deer, bear, etc. And that is why five rounds is a stupid restriction.
1
@nehcrum Except the thing about hunting is you tend to need follow up shots just in case. Lets say you are hunting a deer in the woods and accidentally end up facing a bear, you will need a lot of follow up shots as that bear will take more rounds than a deer.
1
@HellbirdIV Except that is not the militia. The US Army is the successor to the Continental Army while the Milita was a separate organization during the Revolution.
1
@jackcr3937 A car door is a thin piece of metal. I would like to introduce you to the animal known as the bear which could easily shrug off a .30-06
1
@nehcrum That is called a strawman argument. Besides Spitsbergen is in Norway which has gun control meaning five rounds is all that is legal which is another problem.
1
@nehcrum .44 Magnum is a different beast altogether from .30-06. And keep in mind .44 magnum isn't limited to five rounds or bolt action.
1
@HellbirdIV You are still clinging to this absurd argument? The right is for the people to keep and bear arms not the government.
1
 @nehcrum If you know anything about guns you would know that most people don't carry one in the chamber due to safety concerns.
1
@bubba200874426 No we do know what the Second Amendment means because we have documents from the founding fathers that it permitted private ownership of everything including cannons.
1
@ErikLosLobos No because someone who is against firearms is always terrible misinformed about them.
1
@bubba200874426 No the overturning of Roe v. Wade was overturning a bad ruling that set a bad precedent. It was legislating from the bench.
1
@ErikLosLobos This video isn't a debate.
1
@ErikLosLobos No it is true. Every anti-gunner that has tried to ban guns has shown they know nothing about of what they are trying to ban. And Ian is only explaining the legal history and nothing more.
1
@ErikLosLobos It is not an assumption. I know this is the case as every single anti-gun politician knows nothing about the stuff they want to ban. One of the minds behind the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban became a meme in gun enthusiast circles for saying a barrel shroud (one of the features that could get a gun banned by that law) is "the shoulder thing that goes up" which is nothing at all what a barrel shroud is and even today nobody has any clue what the hell she was talking about because it was nonsense. Or Joe Biden who suggested that you should fire a shotgun through a door in the event of a home invasion which is illegal nationwide or more recently he claimed a 9mm can blow a persons lung out which complete nonsense.
1
@bubba200874426 Only rulings that don't follow the constitution like Roe v Wade which was based on an implied right within an implied right.
1
@bubba200874426 Except you don't seem to understand. The Supreme Court's job is uphold the Constitution not legislate from the bench.
1
@bubba200874426 No legislating from the bench is what Roe v. Wade did as it set the laws for abortion without actually requiring legislation. Overturning that decision or saying a specific law is a constitutional violation or it isn't is not legislating from the bench.
1
@bubba200874426 Except striking down bad laws is the Supreme Court’s job description making laws is not.
1
@bubba200874426 The separation of powers is in Constitution and the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.
1
@bubba200874426 Except if the law is in violation of the constitution, the law can be struck down by the Supreme Court as that is the reason they exist. And Roe v. Wade was never a law it was decision that was treated as law without being an actual which is why it was so easy to overturn.
1
@bubba200874426 Except that is not a 13th Amendment violation it isn't involuntary servitude to carry a child you choose to accept the risk of conceiving.
1
@bubba200874426 They are forcing anything just telling you not to commit murder.
1
@bubba200874426 And the rules say that utlimately it isn't in the Constitution so it is up to the states which is also in the Constitution incidentally.
1
@bubba200874426 Neither are explicitly said in those Amendments and what states are doing are implementing laws they had prepared for when that Supreme Court ruling was overturned and just because You can’t kill a child anymore doesn’t mean it is literally 1984 like you want to scaremonger.
1