# Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto M4 carbine?



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 28, 2021)

Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?

If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

Gun safety classes should be mandatory in schools


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 28, 2021)

Fuck yeah. And no ridiculous taxes for licenses or ammo either.
As the way it should be. "well regulated" and all


----------



## White 6 (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


No.  Never believed in fairy tale lands.  Frogs would not bump their ass when they hopped, if they had wings.


----------



## Flash (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


I have a M-16.  Legal Class III.

It is not a M-4.  I got it in the 1970s and it is an A-1.

I have taken all the original parts off and using the stripped lower on a M-4 clone for range shooting.

By the way, a M-4 is not full auto.  It is a semi-three burst.  My M-4 is full auto but it is not proper for a military issued M-4.  I am also using a 16 inch barrel while the real M-4s have 14.5 inch barrels.


----------



## White 6 (Sep 28, 2021)

Flash said:


> I have a M-16.  Legal Class III.
> 
> It is not a M-4.  I got it in the 1970s and it is an A-1.
> 
> ...


Nice.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 28, 2021)

Yes.  Owning any weapon isn't a threat to society.  Misuse it and I'd demand very long prison terms with no possibility of parole.  Kill someone with a firearm, Life Without the Possibility of Parole


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 28, 2021)

Flash said:


> I have a M-16.  Legal Class III.
> 
> It is not a M-4.  I got it in the 1970s and it is an A-1.
> 
> ...



Everyone knows it's a 3 round burst.


----------



## Flash (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Everyone knows it's a 3 round burst.


My son is an Iraq War vet.  Cav Scout.  He told me he never fired his M-4 on the burst.  Only semi auto.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?


If you can legally own a gun, there's no reason you should not be able to legally own an M4 carbine.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 28, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you can legally own a gun, there's no reason you should not be able to legally own an M4 carbine.



If you're a responsible person.

If you're not a responsible person, we don't want you anywhere near an M4 Carbine.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If you're a responsible person.


That's a matter of opinion, not law.
Thus, not interested,


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?



STUPID QUESTION.

Would you allow everyone to fly a jet?  Would you allow anyone to operate on your brain?


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If you're a responsible person.



STUPID ANSWER.  

Everyone is responsible until they do something irresponsible!  

Most of the school serial killers / mass shooters had no criminal history or background!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Everyone is responsible until they do something irresponsible
> Most of the school serial killers / mass shooters had no criminal history or background!


And thus, no reason to restrict the exercise of their rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Would you allow everyone to fly a jet?  Would you allow anyone to operate on your brain?


Fallacy:  false equivalence.


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Gun safety classes should be mandatory in schools



They used to be until democrat prog socialists came along.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> They used to be until democrat prog socialists came along.
> 
> 
> View attachment 544931


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 28, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


>


They still had civics when I was in HS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> They still had civics when I was in HS.



I has social studies


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?



Yes


----------



## Flash (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Most of the school serial killers / mass shooters had no criminal history or background!


That is a great reason of why back ground checks are useless.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 28, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> STUPID ANSWER.
> 
> Everyone is responsible until they do something irresponsible!
> 
> Most of the school serial killers / mass shooters had no criminal history or background!


Serial killers, let alone school shooters are such a small fraction of gun owners that they can’t me measured.  Probably something like .00000000000000001%


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 28, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


Doesn't matter what you or I would allow. What the Constitution allows is what is important.


----------



## toobfreak (Sep 28, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Serial killers, let alone school shooters are such a small fraction of gun owners that they can’t me measured.  Probably something like .00000000000000001%



And yet we want to (or at least democrats want to) sculpt all gun law and policy around what these kids do!


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Doesn't matter what you or I would allow. What the Constitution allows is what is important.




The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.

Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.

What happened?


----------



## Desperado (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


Yes by all means, especially active and prior service military  hell they already had the weapon strainng in the basic


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 29, 2021)

White 6 said:


> No.  Never believed in fairy tale lands.  Frogs would not bump their ass when they hopped, if they had wings.



You're the one being unrealistic.
While we would prefer if the government dealt with the "bad guys" for us and we would not have to, the reality is that government itself always also is or turns into the "bad guys".
If you pay for full auto for the government with your taxes, then you have to also ensure enough ordinary citizens have them as well, so that we do not end up like the Weimar Republic. 
And anytime you allow government to get a monopoly on weapons, you eventually always end up like the Weimar Republic.

Sure there are always going to be some people who can not control themselves and can't be trusted with a full auto rifle, but those people also can not be trusted with a car, flammables, explosives, toxins, or anything else that all people have easy access to.
So the only way to deal with those dangerous people is to confine them under supervised conditions. 
To instead try to turn the entire civilian population into a supervised condition that is denied access to full auto rifles, is to ensure a dictatorship.
There is no option.
Gun control does not work, never works, and is inherently in conflict with any democratic republic.
Read any history book, and they all tell you that all governments become corrupt over time and have to be destroyed by force.
It is inevitable, with none lasting longer than about 400 years, and most less than 100 or so.

The US government is no exception, and has been evil to the point is should have been destroyed, over 100 years ago, like the Spanish American War, the Philippine Rebellion, etc.  The only reason we have not already been forced to act is that the corruption has been mostly aimed at people outside this country.  Like Vietnamese, Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, Egyptians, Syrians, etc.  But there are millions being harmed in the US as well, such as those imprisoned by the illegal War on Drugs.

Just read the Bill of Right again.  It is very clear.  There can be no legal federal gun control laws.  Totally impossible.  And yet there are federal gun control laws?  How is that possible, and why did we let that happen?


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.
> 
> Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.
> 
> What happened?


I legally own a M-16 and I won't get arrested for having it in my possession unless I use it in a crime.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 29, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> STUPID ANSWER.
> 
> Everyone is responsible until they do something irresponsible!
> 
> Most of the school serial killers / mass shooters had no criminal history or background!



But they all had obvious medical history problems that should have caused then to have been supervised long before they became a violence problem.
Before Reagan, there were medical facilities in place to catch and deal with problems like that.
We need to replace them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You're the one being unrealistic.
> While we would prefer if the government dealt with the "bad guys" for us and we would not have to, the reality is that government itself always also is or turns into the "bad guys".
> If you pay for full auto for the government with your taxes, then you have to also ensure enough ordinary citizens have them as well, so that we do not end up like the Weimar Republic.
> And anytime you allow government to get a monopoly on weapons, you eventually always end up like the Weimar Republic.
> ...


there cant be any state or federal gun laws,,

you keep leaving the states part out of your comments,,


----------



## Plow Boy (Sep 29, 2021)

No, I would not allow just anyone to own a full auto M-4.
There is a criminal element in society, and there are lunatics and there are men who love to kill.

And your premise is faulty. There are people who have a bloodlust.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Plow Boy said:


> No, I would not allow just anyone to own a full auto M-4.
> There is a criminal element in society, and there are lunatics and there are men who love to kill.
> 
> And your premise is faulty. There are people who have a bloodlust.


an M-4 isnt going to change any of that,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?




Yep.....they do it in Switzerland......we don't have a gun problem in the U.S...we have a political party, the democrat party, that is making war on the police, and then they keep releasing violent gun offenders.

Stop both of those things and our crime rate goes down.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If you're a responsible person.
> 
> If you're not a responsible person, we don't want you anywhere near an M4 Carbine.




If you are a criminal, you should be in prison...the problem is that the democrat party keeps letting violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison no matter how many times they are arrested for illegal guns and shooting people...

Can you explain why they do that?

That would essentially solve your question from the first post.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 29, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Gun safety classes should be mandatory in schools


Libs are opposed to gun safety classes


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


Why?

They can do huge amounts of damage in a very short time, why do you need it?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why?
> 
> They can do huge amounts of damage in a very short time, why do you need it?


because it can do a huge amount of damage in a very short time,,, thats why democrats fear it and all other guns,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why?
> 
> They can do huge amounts of damage in a very short time, why do you need it?



I personally don't, but I wouldn't stop people from getting one....that is called freedom....

Why won't you tell the democrats to  stop releasing actual violent gun offenders....the ones doing almost all of the shooting?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> because it can do a huge amount of damage in a very short time,,, thats why democrats fear it and all other guns,,


Why do you feel you need to do a tremendous amount of damage in a very short time?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I personally don't, but I wouldn't stop people from getting one....that is called freedom....
> 
> Why won't you tell the democrats to  stop releasing actual violent gun offenders....the ones doing almost all of the shooting?


How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why do you feel you need to do a tremendous amount of damage in a very short time?


because evil exist,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?


that would be all of humanity that considers government tyranny a bad thing,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?




Nope...not how Rights work........who actually needs to vote?   Why don't we limit voting to those who "need" to vote...you know, people who own property?  Right.....?

Who needs to write books or newspaper articles?   We can just allow the government to do that for us...right?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> because evil exist,,


How often do you encounter evil that requires thirty + rounds of fully automatic fire?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?


Without question.  Yes.

I would allow everyone to own M249s and M60s too.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How often do you encounter evil that requires thirty + rounds of fully automatic fire?


theres been thousands of examples throughout history
I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it,,
if you dont want one then dont get one,,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?


You exist.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope...not how Rights work........who actually needs to vote?   Why don't we limit voting to those who "need" to vote...you know, people who own property?  Right.....?
> 
> Who needs to write books or newspaper articles?   We can just allow the government to do that for us...right?


Everyone needs to vote.  Democracy requires participation.  Automatic weapons don't.

Try again.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Everyone needs to vote.  Democracy requires participation.  Automatic weapons don't.
> 
> Try again.


we arent a democracy,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Everyone needs to vote.  Democracy requires participation.  Automatic weapons don't.
> 
> Try again.


freedom does require weapons of any and all kinds,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Everyone needs to vote.  Democracy requires participation.  Automatic weapons don't.
> 
> Try again.


Not a democracy.  Democracy always leads to tyranny, just like most other forms of government.  The only solution is a heavily armed citizenry where government fears the governed.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> we arent a democracy,,,


BZZZZZT!!!  I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  We are living in a representative democracy.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> freedom does require weapons of any and all kinds,,


It does?  When was the last time you had to defend your freedom at gunpoint?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How often do you encounter evil that requires thirty + rounds of fully automatic fire?




Let's play your game....

Why do you need a car that goes over 30 miles an hour?   Cars kill more people in the United States than all gun deaths combined...accidents, suicides and murder...

So why do you need a car that goes over 25 miles an hour?

How about alcohol?  Why do you need alcohol......alcohol is part of the deaths in cars, it destroys lives and families at far higher rates than guns do...and often causes the gun deaths...

Why do you need alcohol?

Why do you need fast internet?  Sex trafficking of minors, identity theft, drug smuggling...any type of crime you can imagine is made better and faster with the internet........why do you need unlimited access to the internet?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> BZZZZZT!!!  I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  We are living in a representative democracy.


wrong again,,
we are a constitutional republic,,,

difference is we have a constitution,,





__





						Constitutional Republic - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
					

Constitutional Republic defined and explained with examples. Constitutional Republic is a form of government in which representatives are elected by the people.



					legaldictionary.net


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

Why is it against the law to own a fully auto M4 Carbine when the Second Amendment says it's perfectly legal?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It does?  When was the last time you had to defend your freedom at gunpoint?


doing it right now against you and others that would disarm and oppress me,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Everyone needs to vote.  Democracy requires participation.  Automatic weapons don't.
> 
> Try again.




Automatic weapons help keep a representative republic alive...just ask the 12 million Europeans murdered by their governments...they turned in their guns, on the promises people like you made to keep them safe....then they were murdered.....

So....I'll keep allowing people to own guns, even fully automatic guns, and then I will lock up....actually lock up...those who abuse that Right.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Why do you need a car that goes over 30 miles an hour?


Because otherwise it would take all day to get to Lincoln from here.

Next?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Why is it against the law to own a fully auto M4 Carbine when the Second Amendment says it's perfectly legal?




Because people have allowed it to happen....that is why some of us are done "meeting half way," when half way is just one more step to them taking the whole thing...


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> doing it right now against you and others that would disarm and oppress me,,


Really.  They are camped outside of your house aiming at you?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> BZZZZZT!!!  I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  We are living in a representative democracy.


We are living in a Federal Constitutional Republic where where the legislative branch and the top executive branches are democratically elected.  That is NOT a democracy.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Because otherwise it would take all day to get to Lincoln from here.
> 
> Next?




So......with all the damage a car can do....over 39,000 deaths in 2019, more than all gun deaths.......you think you should have access to a high powered automobile?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Automatic weapons help keep a representative republic alive...just ask the 12 million Europeans murdered by their governments...they turned in their guns, on the promises people like you made to keep them safe....then they were murdered.....
> 
> So....I'll keep allowing people to own guns, even fully automatic guns, and then I will lock up....actually lock up...those who abuse that Right.


Objection!

Pure speculation.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Really.  They are camped outside of your house aiming at you?


when did I say that??

we learn from history,, not to mention whats currently happening in other countries like australia,,


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We are living in a Federal Constitutional Republic where where the legislative branch and the top executive branches are democratically elected.  That is NOT a democracy.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Objection!
> 
> Pure speculation.




No....you are the one speculating........and other things.....

A rental Truck in Nice, France was used to murder 86 people...more people killed at one time than any mass public shooting in the United States....

Again, why do you "need," a car that goes over 25 miles an hour?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Because people have allowed it to happen....that is why some of us are done "meeting half way," when half way is just one more step to them taking the whole thing...


In fact, we are doing NOT ONE GODDAMN THING but going the other way.  I will not rest until it is fully lawful for felons who have served their time to own and carry fully-loaded belt-fed machine guns in every school and courthouse in America.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> when did I say that?


You said you were defending yourself right now.  Was that hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  And outright lie?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You said you were defending yourself right now.  Was that hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  And outright lie?


its a fact,, if we werent armed the government would have long ago instituted more draconian measures like we currently see in other countries,,

you not seeing it is your problem not mine,,
try reading some history,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You said you were defending yourself right now.  Was that hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  And outright lie?




The presence of widespread gun ownership prevents violent acts by the government...just as the presence of police prevents widespread crime......

The Germans registered guns in the 1920s, by 1932 when the socialists took power, they used those lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies.......it is always the first step to take tools of resistance away from those you wish to murder.

You understand this, you are simply a left wing, anti-gun extremist troll.......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Objection!
> 
> Pure speculation.


European history is not speculative.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No....you are the one speculating........and other things.....
> 
> A rental Truck in Nice, France was used to murder 86 people...more people killed at one time than any mass public shooting in the United States....
> 
> Again, why do you "need," a car that goes over 25 miles an hour?


Because I drive to Lincoln, KC, and various other places all the time.  I've already answered this question.

Hey, look!  I'm licensed, registered, and insured so the government is reasonably sure I'm responsible enough to own and operate a vehicle that goes faster than 25 mph!!

Weird, huh?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You said you were defending yourself right now.  Was that hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  And outright lie?




Ask the Australians..........they gave up their guns....now they are being beaten in the streets for not wearing masks.....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You said you were defending yourself right now.  Was that hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  And outright lie?


Do you understand the concept of armed presence?

Cops carry around sidearms.  They are constantly protecting themselves by doing so, are they not?  Not waving it around at people, but simply having it.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The presence of widespread gun ownership prevents violent acts by the government


This is, again, pure speculation.  Your ak isn't going to stop the US government if they decide to do bad things to you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Because I drive to Lincoln, KC, and various other places all the time.  I've already answered this question.
> 
> Hey, look!  I'm licensed, registered, and insured so the government is reasonably sure I'm responsible enough to own and operate a vehicle that goes faster than 25 mph!!
> 
> Weird, huh?


drivings not a protected right,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> This is, again, pure speculation.  Your ak isn't going to stop the US government if they decide to do bad things to you.




Mine alone?  No....Over 20 million AR-15s, then you throw in AK-47 rifles, and all the others......that keeps the government from filling mass graves...which is why you want to register then confiscate them.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Ask the Australians..........they gave up their guns....now they are being beaten in the streets for not wearing masks.....


And now you've cleverly segued into outright lies.  

Was speculation just not enough?

Anyway, we're done here.

Have a nice day.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Because I drive to Lincoln, KC, and various other places all the time.  I've already answered this question.
> 
> Hey, look!  I'm licensed, registered, and insured so the government is reasonably sure I'm responsible enough to own and operate a vehicle that goes faster than 25 mph!!
> 
> Weird, huh?




Yeah...Progressive Hunter in post #78 is correct.....driving isn't a Right, and you still failed to answer the question...why do you need to drive a "high powered," vehicle capable of speeds of over 25 miles an hours considering cars and trucks kill more people every single year than guns do?

A rental truck in Nice, France, driving over 25 miles an hour was used to murder 86people...more people than in any mass  shooting in the U.S.....


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> drivings not a protected right,,


M4s aren't either.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> And now you've cleverly segued into outright lies.
> 
> Was speculation just not enough?
> 
> ...




And you can't answer the questions....so you run away.....

Your reasoning falls apart with the slightest scrutiny, the mildest interrogation....

And like left wingers do, you run away.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s aren't either.




Yes...actually, they are.....see Miller v U.S.....Supreme Court ruling...


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you can't answer the questions....so you run away.....
> 
> Your reasoning falls apart with the slightest scrutiny, the mildest interrogation....
> 
> And like left wingers do, you run away.....


I did answer.  At least twice.  You responded with speculation, hyperbole, and lies.

Have a nice day.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s aren't either.


the 2nd A says they are,,


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> I did answer.  At least twice.  You responded with speculation, hyperbole, and lies.
> 
> Have a nice day.




Nope....you said you had to get to Lincoln faster...that is not a "need," that is a want.   25 mph is more than fast enough to get anywhere you want to go...

But thanks for confirming you have nothing....


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.
> 
> Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.
> 
> What happened?


Actually the federal government allows private ownership of many full-auto weapons although the process of getting the proper credentials can be expensive and lengthy. State and local governments are the major infringers of the 2nd Amendment. I have experience with the things and consider them just a really quick way to waste ammo. Running out of ammo in the middle of a serious social engagement is  a major fax pas,


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why do you feel you need to do a tremendous amount of damage in a very short time?


Why do you feel the need to ask? Any of your business? Paranoid much?


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Actually the federal government allows private ownership of many full-auto weapons although the process of getting the proper credentials can be expensive and lengthy. State and local governments are the major infringers of the 2nd Amendment. I have experience with the things and consider them just a really quick way to waste ammo. Running out of ammo in the middle of a serious social engagement is  a major fax pas,




Only full auto weapons older than a certain year. I think it was 1980 something. M16 would be okay, an M4 wouldn't because the M4 is newish.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Doesn't matter what you or I would allow. What the Constitution allows is what is important.




Winner, winner, chicken dinner.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.
> 
> Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.
> 
> What happened?





Our Rights have been abrogated.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Plow Boy said:


> No, I would not allow just anyone to own a full auto M-4.
> There is a criminal element in society, and there are lunatics and there are men who love to kill.
> 
> And your premise is faulty. There are people who have a bloodlust.


Gun laws only affect the law abiding.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> BZZZZZT!!!  I'm sorry, that's incorrect.  We are living in a representative democracy.






BZZZZZT, I hate to break it to ya, but we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

You fail.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Really.  They are camped outside of your house aiming at you?





We don't know where you fascists are.


----------



## White 6 (Sep 29, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You're the one being unrealistic.
> While we would prefer if the government dealt with the "bad guys" for us and we would not have to, the reality is that government itself always also is or turns into the "bad guys".
> If you pay for full auto for the government with your taxes, then you have to also ensure enough ordinary citizens have them as well, so that we do not end up like the Weimar Republic.
> And anytime you allow government to get a monopoly on weapons, you eventually always end up like the Weimar Republic.
> ...


You proposed an unrealistic scenario and accused me of being unrealistic, because I would not even consider your "what if" fairy tale world in which you wished people to consider your proposition realisitically?  Who you zoomin', man?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the 2nd A says they are,,



Lol, no.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Why do you feel the need to ask? Any of your business? Paranoid much?


See, that's the kinda answer that would make anyone wonder.


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s aren't either.


You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a hellvea time not understanding what the words "shall not infringe" means, don't you?

Machines guns are legal in the US.  I know because I have one.

All machine guns would be more available if it wasn't for that goddamn NFA law.

There has only been one case where the NFA has been challenged and brought before the Supreme Court.  In that case (_Miller)_ the Court said that firearms in general use by the military are protected under the Second Amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> This is, again, pure speculation.  Your ak isn't going to stop the US government if they decide to do bad things to you.


We just lost a 20-year war to fucking Afghanistan.  

It proves the time-tested truth about war.  You can dominate the air but you can never control the ground without boots on it.  They will never have even close to the numbers we have.

I like my chances.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a hellvea time not understanding what the words "shall not infringe" means, don't you?
> 
> Machines guns are legal in the US.  I know because I have one.
> 
> ...


M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.

BTW, for training purposes I have 4 bushmaster M4s with the happy fun switch.  They stay down at the sheriff's lockup and they let us use their range.  Plus they think it's great fun because we let them play too.

We cannot carry them domestically but the guys need to be exposed to them for when we escort someone outside the US.  Mostly south America.

But I am intimately familiar with the amount of damage you can do with select fire weapon, even if you don't go to full rock and roll.

And yes, I have both an FFL and an SOT.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We just lost a 20-year war to fucking Afghanistan.
> 
> It proves the time-tested truth about war.  You can dominate the air but you can never control the ground without boots on it.  They will never have even close to the numbers we have.
> 
> I like my chances.


We had no clear goals in Afghanistan.  Mission creep killed any victory we might have had.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a hellvea time not understanding what the words "shall not infringe" means, don't you?
> 
> Machines guns are legal in the US.  I know because I have one.
> 
> ...


In fact, they said that the Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.  The Court made it even further clear by holding that the Court cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument in absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.  The Court further held that it is not within judicial notice that such a weapon is any part of the *ordinary military equipment*, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

But, what is ordinary military equipment?  What weapons could contribute to the common defense?

M4, M249s, M203 grenade launchers, etc.

Any weapon a soldier uses, we get, so that we can provide for the common defense.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.
> 
> BTW, for training purposes I have 4 bushmaster M4s with the happy fun switch.  They stay down at the sheriff's lockup and they let us use their range.  Plus they think it's great fun because we let them play too.
> 
> ...






The 2nd Amendment stipulates that the PEOPLE be armed with the most current weapons available.  It doesn't stop with the technology that was in effect when it was written.

We Know this because cannons, real big guns were owned by citizens from the very beginning.  But, fascists, like you, try and bury the real history, and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which was, and is, and will soon be again....

"What country can preserve its liberties* if their rulers are not warned* from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."*
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, *even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."*
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833_


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> The 2nd Amendment stipulates that the PEOPLE be armed with the most current weapons available


Can you show me that text?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.


Computers were around in 1791?  

Fuck your first amendment.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Can you show me that text?







Yes, it is in the quotes I presented.  The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow an illegitimate government.  Thus the Founders rightfully stated "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  

So simple a moron can understand.  

And there is no way you are a Class III.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Can you show me that text?


"shall not be infringed" pretty much says it all, ass clown.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> And there is no way you are a Class III.




If he's a class III, I have all the nuke codes.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yes, it is in the quotes I presented.  The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow an illegitimate government.  Thus the Founders rightfully stated "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".


Those are not part of the text of the amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Those are not part of the text of the amendment.


"shall not be infringed" is not in the text?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> And there is no way you are a Class III


Reality doesn't care about your opinion.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "shall not be infringed" is not in the text?


"Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify.  Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Those are not part of the text of the amendment.






"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed."*


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed."*





Crepitus said:


> Reality doesn't care about your opinion.






Based on your uneducated claims you are too stupid to be a Class III.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> "Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify.  Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?






Were you born this stupid or did you have to work on it?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed."*


On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> "Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify.  Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?


Ah, the nuclear bomb red herring.  

WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES cannot get nukes.  Not even a problem.

Besides, given the _Miller _case, a nuke is not a weapon with any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of service in a well-regulated militia, so your strawman can go fuck itself.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> Based on your uneducated claims you are too stupid to be a Class III.


Again, reality doesn't care about your opinion.

Alternate reply:. Go measure your dick somewhere else.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Ah, the nuclear bomb red herring.
> 
> WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRIES cannot get nukes.  Not even a problem.
> 
> Besides, given the _Miller _case, a nuke is not a weapon with any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of service in a well-regulated militia, so your strawman can go fuck itself.


On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> Were you born this stupid or did you have to work on it?


Ah, your surrender is accepted.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?


Not a requirement.  All people are militia.  You're fucking stupid.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> a nuke is not a weapon with any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of service in a well-regulated militia


So, a judge ruled this about something that doesn't exist?


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> M4s were around in 1791? I don't think so.
> 
> BTW, for training purposes I have 4 bushmaster M4s with the happy fun switch.  They stay down at the sheriff's lockup and they let us use their range.  Plus they think it's great fun because we let them play too.
> 
> ...


You don't know jackshit about anything.

Nobody has ever been harmed with my machine gun and I have had it since the 1970s.

So in1791 only White land owning men could vote.  Do you really want to use that as the baseline for rights?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> See, that's the kinda answer that would make anyone wonder.


Nothing to wonder. Reality is that what is written in the Constitution is important and your opinion is not.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?


where does it say you have to be in a militia??


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Flash said:


> You don't know jackshit about anything.
> 
> Nobody has ever been harmed with my machine gun and I have had it since the 1970s.
> 
> So in1791 only White land owning men could vote.  Do you really want to use that as the baseline for rights?


There have been amendments to rectify that.

DERP


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> There have been amendments to rectify that.
> 
> DERP


So, you do know the process.   I am surprised.  

Get an amendment draft started for the 2A. Otherwise, fuck off.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Nothing to wonder. Reality is that what is written in the Constitution is important and your opinion is not.


Then why was the Constitution not reinterpreted that way until the mid 1980s?


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why was the Constitution not reinterpreted that way until the mid 1980s?


the constitution is very clear and doesnt need interpretation,,


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> where does it say you have to be in a militia??


Right there in the text of the amendment, right next to where it doesn't say you can have everything the military does.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the constitution is very clear and doesnt need interpretation,,


It was interpreted differently before that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Right there in the text of the amendment, right next to where it doesn't say you can have everything the military does.


it doesnt say you have to be in one,, and because it says militia which is a civilian military that means THE PEOPLE need military arms,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It was interpreted differently before that.


that is an attempt to usurp it,,


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


If?
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
If there were such a thing as a "responsible" gun owner you wouldn't need ask the question.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Right there in the text of the amendment, right next to where it doesn't say you can have everything the military does.


Nothing in there says anything about the right being conditioned on actual membership in a particular militia.  All it says is that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.  And, because it is necessary, FedGov will not infringe on the right of the people.

We can have everything the military has because "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions of any kind.  

You can dick suck your way around the words all you want.  Any other way you try to spin it is nonsense and deviates from the plain meaning of the text.

You don't like it?  AMEND, YOU BUTTFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> If?
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
> If there were such a thing as a "responsible" gun owner you wouldn't need ask the question.


considering there are 100's of millions of guns in this country and only a few illegal shootings a year says there are a lot of responsible gun owners,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> If?
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
> If there were such a thing as a "responsible" gun owner you wouldn't need ask the question.


Yeah, you can go ahead and shut your fucking cake hole.  You have already proved the point about leftists being gun-grabbing shits.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It was interpreted differently before that.


No it was not.  
 

We had over 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence before a single 2nd Amendment case even went before the Court.  It was NEVER even questioned or doubted until you socialists kuuunts decided that the only way to get your fucked up ideology to take hold is by force, and that will never happen as long as we have guns.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "shall not be infringed" is not in the text?




The Second Amendment has been infringed.

You can't own a fully auto M4 Carbine. The army's rifle of choice.

The M4 Carbine is the perfect militia gun.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Nothing in there says anything about the right being conditioned on actual membership in a particular militia.  All it says is that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.  And, because it is necessary, FedGov will not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> We can have everything the military has because "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions of any kind.
> 
> ...


It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.  

Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years?  Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?





The GENERAL militia.  That which is made up of every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 65.

Though I am now 75.  I am in good shape.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It was NEVER even questioned


Because it was understood.   Nobody had reason to change it, everyone knew what it meant.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> The GENERAL militia.  That which is made up of every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 65.
> 
> Though I am now 75.  I am in good shape.


Ah, this thing you made up in your head.

Cool, I guess.  Don't forget to wear your helmet.


----------



## Colin norris (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?



There is no test for everyone being responsible. It's an assumption. It cannot be anything else when they all say they need a gun to protect themselves when that scenario never happens. 

Filtering is a form  of gun control.   Isn't that what you all protest against? 
Do you ever read what you write? 
It's people like you and your idiotic statements which is why you should have nnohing other than a water pistol.


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)




----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.
> 
> Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years?  Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?


how does,, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" mean militia members???

wouldnt it say  "right of militia members" instead??


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


Yes


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why?
> 
> They can do huge amounts of damage in a very short time, why do you need it?


You obviously have never shot an automatic weapon.  On full auto the first round goes where you are aiming. the second, a foot or so higher, the third a foot or so higher than that and the rest of the rounds go above the target.  So a fully automatic weapon (a machine gun or Assault Weapon/Rifle) actually does less damage than a semi automatic one.  That's why the military got rid of full auto on it's rifles and went to three round bursts.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Because otherwise it would take all day to get to Lincoln from here.
> 
> Next?


Why do you NEED to go to Lincoln?  I'm sure a text, phone call or email would accomplish your ends as well as wasting valuable resources and putting yourself and other people in danger by actually driving there.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Ah, this thing you made up in your head.
> 
> Cool, I guess.  Don't forget to wear your helmet.




Nope, it's codified.  Not that you would ever admit to it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> "Shall not be infringed" doesn't specify.  Do you want your neighbor to have a nuclear bomb?


You know, I honestly don't care what my neighbor owns as long as he uses it in a legal manner.  Jet fighter, fine, B-52 bomber, fine, M-1 Tank, go for it.  Personally I can't see where anyone would want to own any of them, but it's a free country, so go for it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> On that note, which well regulated militia are you a member of?"


"The whole of the people"


----------



## fncceo (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?



ONLY ... if it came with the grenade launcher.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.
> 
> Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years?  Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?


No it doesn't.  The framers saw the entire body of white adult males to be the militia. read their letters. or the Federalist Papers some time.  They specifically address the point multiple times.


----------



## Pete7469 (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


If a person can not be trusted to be free among the population with an M4, then they should not be loose in public.

If we never began trying to disarm criminals, and instead encouraged or even armed the population en masse we would not have an abundance of criminals in the first place. We would also not have so many leftist lunatics. We may have had a lot more killing going on 100 years ago, but it would have resulted in a lot less people being born generations ago that are causing more problems than they're worth today.


.


----------



## Pete7469 (Sep 29, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> No it doesn't.  The framers saw the entire body of white adult males to be the militia. read their letters. or the Federalist Papers some time.  They specifically address the point multiple times.


Crappyass is far too stupid to grasp anything written by the founders.


.


----------



## Ordinary Guy (Sep 29, 2021)

who needs a M4 when they have a Barret 50 and Armalite 308


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You obviously have never shot an automatic weapon.  On full auto the first round goes where you are aiming. the second, a foot or so higher, the third a foot or so higher than that and the rest of the rounds go above the target.  So a fully automatic weapon (a machine gun or Assault Weapon/Rifle) actually does less damage than a semi automatic one.  That's why the military got rid of full auto on it's rifles and went to three round bursts.



Some of the submachineguns are very accurate on full auto.


----------



## Pete7469 (Sep 29, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You obviously have never shot an automatic weapon.  On full auto the first round goes where you are aiming. the second, a foot or so higher, the third a foot or so higher than that and the rest of the rounds go above the target.  So a fully automatic weapon (a machine gun or Assault Weapon/Rifle) actually does less damage than a semi automatic one.  That's why the military got rid of full auto on it's rifles and went to three round bursts.


Although for the most part you're correct, some of us had the ammo budget and training required that at 25m we could put a full 30rnd mag of 5.56mm into a man sized target in a single trigger pull.

Still, the best results are semi-auto fire on target. Auto fire is just for suppressing return fire. Besides that, the 3 shot burst triggers sucked. That's why the M4A1 is now the standard.


.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> considering there are 100's of millions of guns in this country and only a few illegal shootings a year says there are a lot of responsible gun owners,,


Each and every gun used in a crime started out in the possession of a "responsible gun owner."

So much for responsibility.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yeah, you can go ahead and shut your fucking cake hole.  You have already proved the point about leftists being gun-grabbing shits.


Looks like rational discussion is beyond your mental capability my Tiny Minded Querdeken.
Not surprising.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 29, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> There is no test for everyone being responsible. It's an assumption. It cannot be anything else when they all say they need a gun to protect themselves when that scenario never happens.


That's how freedom works - you are presumed responible until you demonstrate otherwise.
Give the microscopic percentage of guns used to commit murder the US, its a pretty good presumption.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Each and every gun used in a crime started out in the possession of a "responsible gun owner."
> 
> So much for responsibility.







Yeah, then they were STOLEN by criminals.  Criminals that you constantly let free from prison.

STOP IT!


----------



## whitehall (Sep 29, 2021)

Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper documentation, background check and enormous fee. Is the poster asking whether we would allow a person to possess an illegal weapon? The problem with the anti-2nd Amendment (anti-Bill of Rights) crowd is that they aren't familiar with the law or the freaking Constitution. Thank you U.S. Dept. Ed. for fifty years of teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper documentation, background check and enormous fee. Is the poster asking whether we would allow a person to possess an illegal weapon? The problem with the anti-2nd Amendment (anti-Bill of Rights) crowd is that they aren't familiar with the law or the freaking Constitution. Thank you U.S. Dept. Ed. for fifty years of teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana.



The fully auto weapon has to be made before 1981 for it to be legal with documentation.

An M4 Carbine was made well after 1981.


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)




----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Who cares?  Militia service has nothing to do with owning guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.
> 
> Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years?  Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?



Wrong.  Not even close.  Only after
People like you began to pretend that the simple text didnt mean what it said was it necessary for Scalia to explain it to you…..he goes through the entire history of the Right in the Heller opinion from the Right in England to the right here feom the colonies to the founding.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Because it was understood.   Nobody had reason to change it, everyone knew what it meant.



Yes they did and do…..it means we have the Right to keep and bear arma and has nothing to with the militia… try reading Heller.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> how does,, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" mean militia members???
> 
> wouldnt it say  "right of militia members" instead??



Yep, Scalia goes through it in Heller


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Each and every gun used in a crime started out in the possession of a "responsible gun owner."
> 
> So much for responsibility.



Are you really this dumb?


----------



## whitehall (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The fully auto weapon has to be made before 1981 for it to be legal with documentation.
> 
> An M4 Carbine was made well after 1981.


From what I understand any citizen can apply for a FFL license and posses a fully automatic forearm made post 1981.


----------



## Borillar (Sep 29, 2021)

Sure. What could go wrong?


----------



## Flash (Sep 29, 2021)




----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Each and every gun used in a crime started out in the possession of a "responsible gun owner."
> 
> So much for responsibility.


not sure what  crazy conspiracy youre trying to concoct,, but you sound like an idiot,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this dumb?


hes dumber,,


----------



## JGalt (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?



Full-auto is over-rated and too expensive. Just get a rubber band if you want to waste some ammunition...


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 29, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Full-auto is over-rated and too expensive. Just get a rubber band if you want to waste some ammunition...



Full auto is way faster than bump stock.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto capable M4 carbine?
> 
> If everyone was a responsible gun owner who never committed crimes? If somehow we could filter out the irresponsible gun owners?


Sure.....the person kills, and if they want to they'll find a tool......Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun, neither did Bin Laden


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Sep 29, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Full-auto is over-rated and too expensive. Just get a rubber band if you want to waste some ammunition...


Tru, but it's scary to people who have never held a gun. Well guns are scary to those people.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why was the Constitution not reinterpreted that way until the mid 1980s?


Factions have agendas and vested interests in misinterpreting the Constitution. Including (and especially) State, local, and even the federal governments. A great many unconstitutional laws are passed and remain on the books until ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter except for the People. The only thing that changes the Constitution is the amendment process which is difficult and rare. Supreme court decisions are also frequently misinterpreted. I don't recall any amendments being passed since 1980 and if that is the case the Constitution reads exactly the same now as it did then.


----------



## JGalt (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Full auto is way faster than bump stock.



That isn't a bumpfire stock. The rubber band does all the work and gives you the same 600 rounds per minute cyclic rate of fire as full-auto on an AK-47. Trust me, I've done that. The Pro-Mag 50-round drum mags work best when doing that, but the steel Korean-made 75-rounders are shit.

Like I said, it's ammunition waster. I can do 5" groups at 100 yards with the AK from a rest. Why would I need a bullet hose?


----------



## whitehall (Sep 29, 2021)

Most anti-2nd Amendment activists probably never fired a weapon and they ain't got a clue about what the concept entails outside of the violent vids they grew up in front of.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> how does,, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" mean militia members???
> 
> wouldnt it say  "right of militia members" instead??


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..


the right of *THE PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*,,,

your reference only shows its about military grade weapons the people should have


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You obviously have never shot an automatic weapon.  On full auto the first round goes where you are aiming. the second, a foot or so higher, the third a foot or so higher than that and the rest of the rounds go above the target.  So a fully automatic weapon (a machine gun or Assault Weapon/Rifle) actually does less damage than a semi automatic one.  That's why the military got rid of full auto on it's rifles and went to three round bursts.


You lack upper body strength.

That said you cannot really aim at full throttle.  However if you can keep the barrel down you can spray an area.

If your claim were true you'd be wasting 2 out of every three round burst.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Factions have agendas and vested interests in misinterpreting the Constitution. Including (and especially) State, local, and even the federal governments. A great many unconstitutional laws are passed and remain on the books until ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter except for the People. The only thing that changes the Constitution is the amendment process which is difficult and rare. Supreme court decisions are also frequently misinterpreted. I don't recall any amendments being passed since 1980 and if that is the case the Constitution reads exactly the same now as it did then.


And they got away with it for like 220 years, huh Scoob?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 29, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the right of *THE PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*,,,
> 
> your reference only shows its about military grade weapons the people should have


No, it sets the context of being in a Militia.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No, it sets the context of being in a Militia.


no It doesnt,, it sets the context for why THE PEOPLE need to be armed with military grade weapons,,

or it would have said militia members and not THE PEOPLE,,


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The fully auto weapon has to be made before 1981 for it to be legal with documentation.
> 
> An M4 Carbine was made well after 1981.



1986.  Not 1981.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No, it sets the context of being in a Militia.





No, it doesn't.   You have no understanding of the English language.

You must be Chinese.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 29, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> And they got away with it for like 220 years, huh Scoob?


I have no clue what it is you think changed. Who do you think got away with what? The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't change just because you want it to say something else or because you can't read plain English.


----------



## Pete7469 (Sep 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this dumb?


Dumber.....

Dumber than whatever idiot first posted  that asinine idea on whatever bed wetter agitprop site he lifted it from. You give these moonbats the benefit of doubt, that they actually "think" this shit up themselves and aren't just repeating it like the vacuous, servile parrots they are.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 30, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> no It doesnt,, it sets the context for why THE PEOPLE need to be armed with military grade weapons,,
> 
> or it would have said militia members and not THE PEOPLE,,


Then why mention Militia at all?


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> No, it doesn't.   You have no understanding of the English language.
> 
> You must be Chinese.


You're a moron.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.


Where?  What words specify that the right applies to militia membership?  Cite your caselaw interpreting the 2A that way.  You got NOTHING.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Looks like rational discussion is beyond your mental capability my Tiny Minded Querdeken.
> Not surprising.


You said there are no responsible gun owners, so go fuck yourself.  We know what you want.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why mention Militia at all?


To state their purpose for completely removing any and all authority from this newly-created federal government.  The context at the time is what you seem to miss or ignore.  The British Crown attempted to disarm the colonists.  They were afraid that this new FedGov would do the same to usurp power.  

Regardless, it could have said "a well-regulated colon being necessary for a quick poop," and it still would have had the same operation -- to strip the newly-created FedGov of any authority to take any action limiting the right.

Your leftist collogues are trying desperately to erase the historical context and the original intent of the 2A, rather than attempting to amend the constitution.  They know that they will never fully control the people and implement a full-blown Socialist state while there are more than 300 million guns to stop them.  They also know that an amendment to remove the 2A protections will never pass, so they MUST make the 2A mean something it does not.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why mention Militia at all?



Scalia explained it in Heller.  Read Heller. Educateyourself.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Scalia explained it in Heller.  Read Heller. Educateyourself.




Scalia is dead.

Heller was a 5 to 4 decision.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why mention Militia at all?


it sets the context for why THE PEOPLE need weapons of war as opposed to hunting weapons,,

example,,
a good hunting rifle being necessary to get meat for the family,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The fully auto weapon has to be made before 1981 for it to be legal with documentation.
> An M4 Carbine was made well after 1981.


1986.   Registered w/ the BATF before may 1986.
A M16 lower receiver can made into M4 Carbine, so it is perfectly possible to legally have one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Scalia is dead.
> Heller was a 5 to 4 decision.


Given the courrent composition of the court, why do you think this is relevant?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Scalia is dead.
> 
> Heller was a 5 to 4 decision.




So.......that doesn't end the decision....


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Then why mention Militia at all?





Because everyone was the militia you retard.  Fuck, crack open a history book!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> Because everyone was the militia you retard.  Fuck, crack open a history book!


You know he chooses to be wrong- right?


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know he chooses to be wrong- right?





of course, he's a chinese stooge.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> of course, he's a chinese stooge.


Wow.  You're kind.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wow.  You're kind.






Not really, a chinese stooge is a target in the coming war.  The stupid will die on their own.


----------



## Crepitus (Sep 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Scalia explained it in Heller.  Read Heller. Educateyourself.


No, Scalia rationalized it in the he Heller decision.  There's a difference.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, then they were STOLEN by criminals.  Criminals that you constantly let free from prison.
> 
> STOP IT!


The operative word here is "responsible."
If gun owners were "responsible" guns would not be stolen, meaning the criminal has no gun to commit a crime and go to prison from which they are released.

See?
"Responsible" gun owners are the single source for all gun crime in the US.

Truth's a bitch ain't it?


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The operative word here is "responsible."
> If gun owners were "responsible" guns would not be stolen, meaning the criminal has no gun to commit a crime and go to prison from which they are released.
> 
> See?
> ...








Less than one tenth, of one percent of gun owners commit crimes with them.  Seems pretty responsible to me.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this dumb?


Please show me the gun that was NEVER EVER EVER in the hands of a "Responsible" gun owner.
UNLESS, of course, you're repeating the clam that there are companies that manufacture guns only for criminals.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 30, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> not sure what  crazy conspiracy youre trying to concoct,, but you sound like an idiot,,


ALL guns come from "responsible" gun owners.
ALL, 100%
All gun crime originates with "responsible" gun owners.
Unless, of course, you're making the claim that the gun industry is a criminal enterprise?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 30, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You said there are no responsible gun owners, so go fuck yourself.  We know what you want.


Prove me wrong.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> ALL guns come from "responsible" gun owners.
> ALL, 100%
> All gun crime originates with "responsible" gun owners.
> Unless, of course, you're making the claim that the gun industry is a criminal enterprise?


good to see youve seen the mistake you made in your claim,,,


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Prove me wrong.






Your claim is so absurd that you have placed yourself into the classification of extremist lunatic.  You ain't worth wasting any more time on.

Goodbye mr. troll.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> ALL guns come from "responsible" gun owners.
> ALL, 100%
> All gun crime originates with "responsible" gun owners.
> Unless, of course, you're making the claim that the gun industry is a criminal enterprise?



What?

Why can't an irresponsible person buy a gun? They buy guns all the time.

There are crazy people who buy guns at noon and murder a dozen people at 3PM. How are they responsible in any way?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 30, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The operative word here is "responsible."
> If gun owners were "responsible" guns would not be stolen, meaning the criminal has no gun to commit a crime and go to prison from which they are released.
> 
> See?
> ...


That’s the most twisted “logic” I’ve ever heard.  That’s like saying if people didn’t “let” their cars get stolen, they wouldn’t be used on crimes.  When I was a teenager, I remember seeing and hearing PSAs saying “don’t let a good kid go bad, lock your car”.  Even then I thought that was stupid.  A “good” kid isn’t going to steal you car even if you leave the keys in it, the doors open and the engine running.  Anyone who takes anything that doesn’t belong to them is a criminal, period dot.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2021)

There are acknowledged legitimate restrictions in 2nd Amendment freedom. Why are we having this conversation?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 1, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Please show me the gun that was NEVER EVER EVER in the hands of a "Responsible" gun owner.
> UNLESS, of course, you're repeating the clam that there are companies that manufacture guns only for criminals.
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Oh, I see.  You're just a fucking dumb ass.

I'll be sure to use your retarded "logic" against you.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 2, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> good to see youve seen the mistake you made in your claim,,,


So you're saying the gun industry is a criminal enterprise?


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 2, 2021)

westwall said:


> Your claim is so absurd that you have placed yourself into the classification of extremist lunatic.  You ain't worth wasting any more time on.
> 
> Goodbye mr. troll.


Prove me wrong.

If it's absurd, it should be easy to prove the statement false.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> What?
> 
> Why can't an irresponsible person buy a gun? They buy guns all the time.
> 
> There are crazy people who buy guns at noon and murder a dozen people at 3PM. How are they responsible in any way?


Look at the OP.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 2, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> That’s the most twisted “logic” I’ve ever heard.  That’s like saying if people didn’t “let” their cars get stolen, they wouldn’t be used on crimes.  When I was a teenager, I remember seeing and hearing PSAs saying “don’t let a good kid go bad, lock your car”.  Even then I thought that was stupid.  A “good” kid isn’t going to steal you car even if you leave the keys in it, the doors open and the engine running.  Anyone who takes anything that doesn’t belong to them is a criminal, period dot.


Cars have another purpose beyond killing.
Guns do not.
Therefore the culpability in allowing a firearm to be used in a crime lies with the "responsible owner."

The logic is clear, the denial is just a lie.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 2, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Oh, I see.  You're just a fucking dumb ass.
> 
> I'll be sure to use your retarded "logic" against you.


It takes a fool to own a gun.
It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.

Strike three!  You're a fool!


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Cars have another purpose beyond killing.
> Guns do not.
> Therefore the culpability in allowing a firearm to be used in a crime lies with the "responsible owner."
> 
> The logic is clear, the denial is just a lie.



You are really dumb.

Guns, you idiot, are used 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies and murders.  That number is more than the criminals murdered by other criminals with guns…..you doofus.  Lives saved with guns


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> It takes a fool to own a gun.
> It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
> It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.
> 
> Strike three!  You're a fool!



Do your parents know you are on the internet again?  They grounded  you for a month.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Prove me wrong.
> 
> If it's absurd, it should be easy to prove the statement false.






You can't disprove a negative, dumbass.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The 2nd Amendment says you can legally own a full auto M4.
> 
> Yet you'd get arrested if the police found one in your possession.
> 
> What happened?


Nonsense.

The Second Amendment says no such thing.

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – including a full-auto M4.

And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> How about we limit them to those who can show a need for them?


Or for those who can find or afford one – think of it as economic regulation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> doing it right now against you and others that would disarm and oppress me,,


This is a lie and delusional idiocy.

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

westwall said:


> The 2nd Amendment stipulates that the PEOPLE be armed with the most current weapons available.


This is a lie – it ‘stipulates’ no such thing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> It actually specifies that the right applies to militia membership and was interpreted that way until activist judges got ahold of it in 2008.
> 
> Do you think the meaning changed after being interpreted one way for well over 200 years?  Or do you think the supreme court and many other courts at all levels were wrong for over 200 years?


It actually says it’s an individual right unconnected with militia service.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Scalia explained it in Heller.  Read Heller. Educateyourself.


You first.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment says no such thing.
> 
> ...









It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".  

But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Or for those who can find or afford one – think of it as economic regulation.






So, the rich and powerful are OKAY to have them, but no one else.  Our little fascist lifts his head up.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie and delusional idiocy.
> 
> No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.
> 
> ...







Factually untrue.  The dumbocrap fascists need to disarm us before they can institute their fascist clown show.  Morons, like you, continuously misinterpret the 2nd for the simple reason that you want it to happen.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It actually says it’s an individual right unconnected with militia service.


No.  Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie – it ‘stipulates’ no such thing.






It is not a lie.  The PEOPLE WERE the army back then.  Thus the Founders wanted them to have access to the best possible.  The 2nd is worded exactly correct for a person who understands ENGLISH.  According to your warped interpretation the ownership of cannons by individuals would be outlawed, yet the very first artillery unit in the US was the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.  Private people owning cannons that the Federal government couldn't afford.  

As usual you lie to make a ridiculous and unfounded point.  One that is not supported by the writings of the Founders, nor by factual history.

Now crawl back under your rock.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No.  Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.







Wrong.  Anyone who understands the English language as it was written at that time KNOWS that the individual is referenced.  Only a retard like you can fecklessly make the claim that a list of individual Rights would somehow have a collective Right inserted.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

westwall said:


> It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".
> 
> But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.


‘Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose*: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. _Miller’s_ holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the *historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*_.’_






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

westwall said:


> Factually untrue.  The dumbocrap fascists need to disarm us before they can institute their fascist clown show.  Morons, like you, continuously misinterpret the 2nd for the simple reason that you want it to happen.


No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No.  Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.



no, they disnt.  Read Heller.  The Right goes back in history and they dollow it feom Wngland ro the colonies.

And to further correct you, until the last few decades no one needed the court to interpret the Right because normal people understand it.   You guys started to pretend the Right, plainly written, didnt  exist.  So it had to be taken through the courts to fifhr your attempt to end the Right.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose*: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. _Miller’s_ holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the *historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*_.’_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You morons always forget this part of Heller......in your eagerness to say that Scalia gives you permission to ban every gun you want banned......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 

*the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Then Alito goes on in Caetano v Massachusetts to deny you asshats the "Dangerous and Unusual," excuse to ban guns...*



> And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....
> 
> ....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...
> 
> ...




Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. 



*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

*Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. *

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 

-----

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

*Then....Scalia explains Heller further in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park*

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.*

*A more detailed quote from Friedman...*

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “_f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing._


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.
> 
> No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.
> 
> Grow up.




They state, in public, that they want to take guns away....the leadership of the democrat party tells us this openly and now proudly....you lying asshole.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No.  Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.


Be that as it may…

Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.

The collective right argument held that because military-type weapons were the sole purview of the armed forces, their prohibition by civilians was lawful and Constitutional.

By recognizing an individual right, Scalia laid the groundwork for future cases challenging AWBs, allowing civilians to possess semi-auto AR 15s and the like.

Civilians could own semi-auto AR 15s not because of possible ‘militia service,’ but because they have an individual right to do so pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But citizens were not entitled to the _same _weapons as the military, such as a full-auto M4, just because they declare themselves a ‘militia.’


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie and delusional idiocy.
> 
> No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.
> 
> ...


your premise is a lie,,


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Be that as it may…
> 
> Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.
> 
> ...




He didn't disconnect the Right, the Right was never conditioned on militia service you dumbass...

From Heller.....you idiot...

*1. Operative Clause.*

* a. “Right of the People.” 

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5*
-----------
*Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):*
----
*The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.*
--------
*Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.*
-----
*But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “*

------

*Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
--------
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
---*
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
----
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
----
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 3, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> It takes a fool to own a gun.
> It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
> It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.
> 
> Strike three!  You're a fool!


Shut the fuck up.  You're a goddamn idiot.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.


Where?


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


True.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> – including a full-auto M4.


False.

An M4 absolutely fits within the _Miller _holding, which was upheld by _Heller_.  In fact, that is the precise weapon the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect--weapons used by a common soldier, for service in a militia.

The weapon used by the average soldier in the U.S. standing military is?????  EXACTLY.  The M4.

An M4 is not an unusual weapon.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.


An M4 is dangerous, but not also unusual.  Dangerous AND unusual both are required to be regulated, under _Heller_.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.


WRONG.  They are precisely the weapons the 2A intended to protect.

Just because you want your interpretation to be true, does not mean that it is.

REGARDLESS!!!  NOBODY can argue that the Federal Government has ANY authority whatsoever, BECAUSE of the 2A.

The fact that Scalia tap danced around that very obvious point was the most disappointing display by a man who always presented himself as a textualist or strict constructionist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.


This is a lie and delusional idiocy.
The Second Amendment says no such thing.
And thus, another statement by you, proven to be a lie.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Oct 3, 2021)

M4 is what the army has, it's what the National Guard has, the militia should have it too.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are really dumb.
> 
> Guns, you idiot, are used 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies and murders.  That number is more than the criminals murdered by other criminals with guns…..you doofus.  Lives saved with guns


Proof?
Or just wild claims from your fellow gun idiots?

I'll pick the latter since you have no proof.

Much like you haven't the intellect to know that claims are not proof, fool


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Do your parents know you are on the internet again?  They grounded  you for a month.


Do your parents know you beat your meat thibnking about me?

You really should try something of your own species, like


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> You can't disprove a negative, dumbass.




What was the negative shitbrain?
I said all guns started life in the hands of "responsible" gun owners.  A claim I can prove.
What you're doing is admitting you made a claim that you know was false.
That means you called yourself a liar.


You can't prove that every gun was "born" in the hands of a "responsible law abiding" gun owner?

Then you should be on board with my suggestions which WILL keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 3, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Shut the fuck up.  You're a goddamn idiot.


Ohh.
Looks like I twisted somebody's panties a little to tight.
Wassamatta...Undies up the butt crack further than usual?
Truth hurts don't it Nancy?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 3, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Proof?
> Or just wild claims from your fellow gun idiots?
> 
> I'll pick the latter since you have no proof.
> ...


There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights).  They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year.  Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights).  They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year.  Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.




And here they are, the most recent on 2020....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 4, 2021)

absolutely.

of course,  anyone can own one now if they want.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 4, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> M4 is what the army has, it's what the National Guard has, the militia should have it too.


Agreed.

That, and the state of the art Squad Automatic Weapon or S.A.W. (currently the m249 or the M60E4/Mk43mod0).  If militia are to operate like a military unit, they should have the same equipment of a military unit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights).  They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year.  Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.


That dude comes in here and insists on throwing flame bombs with no other purpose than to stir up shit.


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights).  They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year.  Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.


The CDC has been forbidden to perform gun research since 2006.
So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The CDC has been forbidden to performthe gun research since 2006.
> So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.





That's a lie.  Many links have been provided to studies they did in 2010/2011time frame


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> The CDC has been forbidden to perform gun research since 2006.
> So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.




That is just dumb....they haven't been banned from doing gun research.......do you even think to do basic research before you post?

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.*


*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*
_


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 5, 2021)

westwall said:


> That's a lie.  Many links have been provided to studies they did in 2010/2011time frame


Provide the CDC links, please.

The more appropriate title would be the Dickish amendment. but, for your non-perusal...





__





						Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Provide the CDC links, please.
> 
> The more appropriate title would be the Dickish amendment. but, for your non-perusal...
> 
> ...





2aGuy already did.  Learn to read


----------



## Dadoalex (Oct 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That is just dumb....they haven't been banned from doing gun research.......do you even think to do basic research before you post?
> 
> This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....
> 
> ...


Cap'n Copy-Paste strikes again with loads of demonstrably false crap.





__





						Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Not repealed till 2019.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Cap'n Copy-Paste strikes again with loads of demonstrably false crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Look at the dates of the linked papers.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> And they got away with it for like 220 years, huh Scoob?



Regurgitating MoveOn, DailyKos and Salon opinion pieces is not a proxy for knowledge.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Scalia is dead.
> 
> Heller was a 5 to 4 decision.



5-4 on the question of whether the DC statutes should stand or be invalidated.

On the larger question, on whether the 2nd Amendment secures a "collective right" or "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for the individual right.  

The dissents all agreed that whatever the debate has been over that question, that debate is now dead.

The dissents all agreed that the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right has always been the interpretation represented in the Court's precedent, it is the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day in June 2008 by the Court, and is the interpretation that the entire _Heller_ Court subscribes.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Provide the CDC links, please.
> 
> The more appropriate title would be the Dickish amendment. but, for your non-perusal...
> 
> ...




Asked, now answered...

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

*The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)*
*------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.
*
*Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..*

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

*Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.*
*
Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.
*


Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.*


*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*
*------*
_


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Cap'n Copy-Paste strikes again with loads of demonstrably false crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron....that was a short list of the actual gun research.....

You really are a moron......


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment says no such thing.
> 
> ...



The 2nd Amendment says none of that, what you recite are various statements of the Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment, but you fail to include the most permanent maxim of the 2nd Amendment . . .   That the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence. 

The very discussion of what the 2nd Amendment "says" the right is, is of little consequence and is a diversion as the right can not be defined or conditioned or qualified by words upon which the right does not depend.

The right to arms is not possesed by the people because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says.  The people possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constiution _doesn't_ say -- no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen . . . That silence is what defines the right to keep and bear arms.



.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 6, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> M4 is what the army has, it's what the National Guard has, the militia should have it too.


Difference  is, meatheads have no ammo
The militia does, temporarily.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The 2nd Amendment says none of that, what you recite are various statements of the Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment, but you fail to include the most permanent maxim of the 2nd Amendment . . .   That the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> The very discussion of what the 2nd Amendment "says" the right is, is of little consequence and is a diversion as the right can not be defined or conditioned or qualified by words upon which the right does not depend.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

westwall said:


> It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".
> 
> But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.



A comment on the first statement: The origin of "unusual" in the Court's "dangerous and unusual" determination of arms _not_ protected by the 2ndA, is derived from and actually refers to the idea that legislatures can restrict the possession and use of arms that are "dangerous and not usual in civilized warfare" . . .  See _Aymete v State_, which the _Miller_ Court used to decide how to treat Miller's sawed-off shotgun.

On the second sentiment: Absolutely true.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No.  Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.



Do you have anything to support this opinion, well, besides articles on DailyKos or ThinkProgress?


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Be that as it may…
> 
> Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.
> 
> The collective right argument held that because military-type weapons were the sole purview of the armed forces, their prohibition by civilians was lawful and Constitutional.



The "collective right" interpretations in the federal courts was of 20th Century origin, entirely limited to the lower federal courts  (_Cases v US_ and _Tot v US_, both from 1942).

SCOTUS never entertained that foolishness.  It is a travesty that the collective right theories were allowed to pollute the lower federal courts and state courts for 66 years until _Heller_ invalided those perversions.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Provide the CDC links, please.
> 
> The more appropriate title would be the Dickish amendment. but, for your non-perusal...
> 
> ...



Where did that law bar the CDC from doing gun related research?

All the law did was forbid the CDC to use public funds to advocate for gun control.

That the CDC decided to play it safe and roll back gun studies because it felt it was not capable of being impartial and detached and not act like politically driven shitbirds, is not the fault of the law or the NRA or the Republicans that wrote the law.

It is sad that the agency just couldn't leave the anti-gun activism to anti-gun political activists.  Sad especially because the impartial reporting on gun crime the CDC does, always reflects badly on leftist policies and works against the gun control narrative. 

In my gun control opposition I rely heavily on the gun death stats reported by the CDC because the data is garnered from death certificates which all jurisdictions are required to report to the CDC.  One can really *drill down in the stats, manner of death, age, race, ethnicity* . . .   The CDC's murder stats are far superior the FBI UCR which is a voluntary reporting system, many jurisdictions do not supply data so the UCR is not a complete statistic of crime.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Do you have anything to support this opinion, well, besides articles on DailyKos or ThinkProgress?


Well, there's the fact that it wasn't reinterpreted until 2008.

DeRP


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Well, there's the fact that it wasn't reinterpreted until 2008.
> 
> DeRP



So the answer is no.

OK.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> So the answer is no.
> 
> OK.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> View attachment 548107



If you were correct you would be able to quote and cite specific instances where _Heller_ deviated or disturbed or "reinterpreted" previous Supreme Court explanations on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment.

At a minimum, the fact that both _Heller_ dissents stand in complete opposition to your position should inform you that your belief is incorrect.

As I said in *post 272*:

On the larger question, on whether the 2nd Amendment secures a "collective right" or "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for the individual right.​​The dissents all agreed that whatever the debate has been over that question, that debate is now dead.​​The dissents all agreed that the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right has always been the interpretation represented in the Court's precedent, it is the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day in June 2008 by the Court, and is the interpretation that the entire _Heller_ Court subscribes.​
That's why I asked you that question, your position is only represented in the mutterings of leftist goofballs who either have not read _Heller,_ or are just content in lying and misrepresenting it and knowing that know-nothings will eagerly parrot it.

DeRP indeed!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> No. Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.


Fuckin' LINK?????

You don't know cocksucking shit, you idiot.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Oct 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Well, there's the fact that it wasn't reinterpreted until 2008.
> 
> DeRP


LINK?????

Give us a link or SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNIE.  You're out of your fucking element.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 19, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Well, there's the fact that it wasn't reinterpreted until 2008.


^^^^
This is a lie.
_Heller _did not overturn -any- previous ruling from the USSC.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> This is a lie.
> _Heller _did not overturn -any- previous ruling tom the USSC.






It's crapitus.  All he does is lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> It's crapitus.  All he does is lie.


I know.  That's why I have him on ignore.
I was just curious.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 21, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> DeRP



So, where did you go?

Why is it the poster's who are the most prolific being obnoxious and wrong and careless tracking their crap across the board, *always* abandon the thread when they receive on-point rebuttal to their idiocy?

Don't get me wrong, I'll take the easy win but it just disgusts me that you and your ilk have such low self-respect and integrity that you just run away and do not defend statements you made repeatedly and with great enthusiasm.  

.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> So, where did you go?
> 
> Why is it the poster's who are the most prolific being obnoxious and wrong and careless tracking their crap across the board, *always* abandon the thread when they receive on-point rebuttal to their idiocy?
> 
> ...


I didn't go anywhere.  I made my points, and after a certain amount of repetition there's no reason to keep going.


----------

