# Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress



## Doc7505 (Apr 29, 2021)

*Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​








						Biden demands ban on 'assault weapons,' high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress
					

In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once again




					americanmilitarynews.com
				



29 Apr 2021 ~~ By Liz George

In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once again for “reasonable reforms” on firearms, including a ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
“We need a ban on assault weapons and high—capacity magazines again. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. We’ve done it before … and it worked,” Biden asserted in his speech. “Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters – they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds – 100 bullets – in a weapon. They will tell you that there are too many people today who are able to buy a gun, but who shouldn’t be able to.”
~SNIP~
NRA on Twitter: "Biden just touted the ‘94 Assault Weapons Ban during his #PresidentialAddress. In ‘94, Americans owned 850,000 AR-15s. Even the Clinton DOJ proved this ban to be a failure. Today, the ban is long gone &amp; law-abiding Americans own 20 million AR-15s. Who beat who, Mr. President?" / Twitter​In 2004, the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice issued a report stating that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not actually reduce crime. 


Comment:
I’m sure that law enforcement all across the nation are busy today ridding themselves "Assault Weapons" and Large capacity magazines that hold more than seven rounds ( a very popular New York solution except for NYPD).
Most states with the U.S. have limits on the number of rounds that can be loaded in a rifle or shotgun.
For rifles hunting big game (Deer, boar, elk or bear) rifles are limited to 4 in the magazine/clip, or tube. For shotguns the normally loads are three in the magazine/tube and one round chambered.
Obviously both the president and his handlers know little about hunting laws or what is manufactured within the sporting arms industry of America. 
While the popular AR-15 system is now calibered from .22 cal, 5.56/.223, 6.5mm, 6.8mm .300 Blackout, 7.62x39mm and .308 calibers. 
The system created by Eugene Stoner like Kalashnikov has outlived his name.
Unlike the mlitary M4A1 Carbine is only manufactured for war in one standard caliber 5.56mm NATO and may be fitted with a selective fully automatic trigger assembly where the AR-15 is not. .


----------



## justinacolmena (Apr 29, 2021)

Why is NRA posting on a heavily policed pro-gun-control social media platform? Anything and everything gun-related on Twitter is a law enforcement sting and a gun grab. They are fishing for information on gun owners. Jack Dorsey would never allow them on his platform otherwise.








						Top Facebook, Twitter execs donated tens of thousands of dollars to Biden campaign
					

Top executives at Facebook and Twitter donated tens of thousands of dollars to President-elect Joe Biden's campaign, Federal Election Commission records reviewed by Fox News reveal, as the social media platforms come under fire for limiting the circulation of reports surrounding Hunter Biden’s...




					www.foxnews.com
				



And if you "like" the NRA on facebook and shit, the hackers have your home SWATTED and the cops grab all your guns.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2021)

I say fuck him and the whore he rode in on.


----------



## protectionist (Apr 29, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AR-15 is just an ordinary rifle. Fires ONE shot with each pull of the trigger.

And yes there CAN BE times when you look out your window and see that you DO NEED a high capacity magazine, if not a fully automatic rifle (machine gun) >>


----------



## xband (Apr 30, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ban the public from machine guns, Trump outlawed bump stocks.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Apr 30, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CremeBrulee (Apr 30, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> “Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters – they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds – 100 bullets – in a weapon.


Am I the only one that finds humor in the fact some people think magazine capacity means trying to put that many rounds on target?


----------



## justinacolmena (Apr 30, 2021)

CremeBrulee said:


> Am I the only one that finds humor in the fact some people think magazine capacity means trying to put that many rounds on target?


Use all or some of the capacity, but I don't think most shooters _intend_ to miss the target with any of the rounds in the magazine.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 30, 2021)

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## hadit (May 20, 2021)

CremeBrulee said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> > “Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters – they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds – 100 bullets – in a weapon.
> ...


No one stops to think that having 100 rounds attached to your gun makes for a heavy gun. Much more practical to have 3 or 4 hand guns strapped to you than a single, high capacity rifle.


----------



## hadit (May 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


Do you have anything relevant to the discussion you'd like to share?


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2021)

Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States!


----------



## Resnic (May 20, 2021)

High capacity magazines won't do anything to decrease anything. All you're going to do is piss off legit gun owners that don't like being controlled. That's all it would do.

So what if a shooter has to reload a few extra times, even a rank amateur can do it in a few seconds. Besides criminals will still get after market magazines, saying stores can't sell them just means people average citizens can't buy them at a store.

Again, Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership and just about the lowest gun crime in all of Europe. Because Switzerland also has a incredibly high employment rate, an importance on education and public health. They have a more content and satisfied society. Also being almost all white helps because you don't have a society from all over the world bickering and fighting and trying to turn society into the society they want.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 21, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And, we demand MACHINE GUNS or we will get REALLY VIOLENT!!!

So, what's it gonna be?  Joe?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> > *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> ...


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## hadit (May 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States!


How's that working out for you?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2021)

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States!
> ...


I am not the one getting paid for that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


So who controls that organized militia and why don't the organized militia have a right to keep those firearms they carry?


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...


Insist those who get paid for it, do their job. 

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2021)

Outside of a war zone, does a person REALLY need the ability to throw 30 rounds down range in less than 20 seconds?

Me?  I'm retired U.S. Navy, and on one tour was also a member of the Security Force (basically base police).  And, while we had .45's and then switched to 9mm, which are semi automatic weapons, we never had more than 10 rounds of ammo in the gun at any time.  And, it's really easy to reload a 9mm, which can be done in 2 seconds or less.

But, our Gunny also taught us ammo control, meaning shoot 2 or 3 rounds, stop, reassess the situation, and fire another 2-3 if required.  When we went to the range, we had to fire from several different positions (standing, through a window, through a door, behind a barrier, etc.), and each station required only a certain amount of rounds.  If you got to the last couple of stations and ran out of ammo before completing them, the Gunny had your ass for lunch.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States!



Anything organized by the state means their paycheck is signed by the wealthy elite, so then are suspect.
The whole point of a democracy is to have power integrated in the general population, and rely on citizen soldiers for defense.
A mercenary force, with a paid military or police force, is always highly suspect.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 3, 2021)

Here’s a suppository for him, the whore he rode in with, and them that support him in his endeavors.
View attachment 497069


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States!
> ...


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


You have explained the first part of the 2nd Amendment pretty well. Now what is the last part ?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Since you did not add anything to the quote, it is hard to tell what you meant?
But what the quote means is that the government is allowed to spend tax money on an organized militia.
That says nothing about the unorganized militia, which is what the organized militia is supposed to be drawn from.
The protection of the state and the whole United States are the financial obligation of the legislature.
But in order to maintain freedom and individual rights, you also need an unorganized but armed general population.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...


This is why it matters:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That explains nothing.
The point is the 2nd amendment is implying the feds should not be preventing the general population from being armed because the feds might need some of those armed citizens some day, for national defense.
That does not reduce the fact the state, city and individual homes might also even more likely need armed defense as well.

The organized militia is what a government calls up or maintains, but that in no way implies the unorganized militia is not equally important to be armed and ready.

The whole people can be called up in what we would now call the draft, but their need for arms is not dependent upon being called up.
If you live in bear country, you need arms.
If there is an attempted rape, robbery, or murder, you need arms.
If any level of government becomes illegally corrupt, you need arms.

The heart of any democratic republic is always an armed general population.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2021)

It matters because our Second Amendment is clear as to what body of the People is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria),

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

Criminals of the People are debarred the use of Arms all the time. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jun 5, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dem politicians are paranoid that the military and citizens are going to start shooting them for their corruption.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> > *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> ...


Our legislators should be doing what they get paid to do:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## JWBooth (Jun 5, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


In a perfect world their paranoia would be justified.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 16, 2021)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And?

It doesn't make any difference what Biden demands, only Congress can enact firearm regulatory measures such as an AWB, which isn't going to happen. 

The thread is just more lies and demogogery from the right.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 16, 2021)

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Fire season is already here.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope you’re just joking. Many  Police departments are licensed to have weapons that civilians need to be licensed for too. It’s laughable how afraid you guys are that you have to make up shit


----------



## hadit (Mar 8, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Fire season is already here.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


Aaaaaand he's back. How many iterations of your 5 talking points will we have to live through this time?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Insist those who get paid for it, do their job.
> 
> That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Our well regulated militia are the guard units. “ well regulated” cannot exist outside of tax payer dollars. You count afford one. There are as many as 7-15 support personel for every soldier. Really, we don’t even have universal healthcare. Where would a militia person go to take care of his little boo boo’s.

it’s hilarious listening to you guys talk about the militia and proposing all you have to do is practice shooting to have an effective one. They need in  depth communication, transportation, healthcare, clothing, food and lodging. Laughable. Go to a guard base and count the support personel


----------



## hadit (Mar 8, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


So, where's my government supplied AR-15?


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I hope you’re just joking. Many  Police departments are licensed to have weapons that civilians need to be licensed for too. It’s laughable how afraid you guys are that you have to make up shit


Really? 
Who is licensing Law enforcement? 
Is it the State or Federal government that allows LEO to carry large capacity pistols and large capacity long arms?


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 8, 2022)

hadit said:


> Aaaaaand he's back. How many iterations of your 5 talking points will we have to live through this time?


You're right, but you left out that "danielpalos" also tries to deflect the issues.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> Really?
> Who is licensing Law enforcement?
> Is it the State or Federal government that allows LEO to carry large capacity pistols and large capacity long arms?


You’re kidding me aren’t you. The training and certification ( usually your police ID) for law Enforcement
, which is sponsored by the FBI through the state police agencies for smaller towns,  allows them to carry side arms and common unregulated federally,  weapons. Major cities that train themselves, do so with state certified instructors, all under FBI guildline mandates in order to receive federal grants and training funding.

 Weapons beyond what civilians carry, also require special training and  licensing. What, are you so uninformed as to think if a federal Reg has mandates for full autos, they don’t also have them for law enforcement ? Even the military will not allow soldiers to carry a full auto without training during basic training and definitly won’t allow you to carry one unless  under orders to do so.

Off duty, depending upon the state, both military and law enforcement must have the same permits to carry as they would for civilians In the state ( or country) they reside.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I hope you’re just joking. Many  Police departments are licensed to have weapons that civilians need to be licensed for too. It’s laughable how afraid you guys are that you have to make up shit



All gun laws are supposed to be by state and local.
Any federal gun laws are prohibited by the 2nd amendment.

If you make federal laws that ban civilian ownership, then you also have to ban local police departments.
It is illegal to discriminate against individuals compared to police departments.
And police departments can not be licensed, only individuals can be.
Nor do police need any weapons at all.
No one attacks police.
But individuals can find themselves under attack easily, such as the Korean grocers during the LA Riots.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Our well regulated militia are the guard units. “ well regulated” cannot exist outside of tax payer dollars. You count afford one. There are as many as 7-15 support personel for every soldier. Really, we don’t even have universal healthcare. Where would a militia person go to take care of his little boo boo’s.
> 
> it’s hilarious listening to you guys talk about the militia and proposing all you have to do is practice shooting to have an effective one. They need in  depth communication, transportation, healthcare, clothing, food and lodging. Laughable. Go to a guard base and count the support personel



The "well regulated militia" is NOT the National Guard.
The National Guard did not even exist until 1913.
The Founders did not want standing military, but citizen soldiers instead.
The National Guard are paid, so then are automatically corruptible, and NOT what the Founders said they wanted.

The amount of support a military unit needs is irrelevant.
Obviously the support needed would come from the community just like the troops would, if we were ever invaded.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> It doesn't make any difference what Biden demands, only Congress can enact firearm regulatory measures such as an AWB, which isn't going to happen.
> 
> The thread is just more lies and demogogery from the right.



Even if a president does not legislate, he can interpret regulations in abusive ways.
And clearly it should be very disconcerting to everyone to have a president essentially proposing treason.
Gun control is absolutely contradictory to the whole concept of a democratic republic.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The "well regulated militia" is NOT the National Guard.
> The National Guard did not even exist until 1913.
> The Founders did not want standing military, but citizen soldiers instead.
> The National Guard are paid, so then are automatically corruptible, and NOT what the Founders said they wanted.
> ...


That’s hilarious. Guess you were never in the military. It doesn’t matter what happened in 1913, it’s what is happening now. The  amount of support  is irrelevant ? Geesus, you can’t be serious.   An activated guard unit by the gov. , can carry weapons under orders ANY WHERE IN THE STATE. If activated by the president, ANYWHERE HE ORDERS. GUARD UNITS ARE UNDER BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY.

Your dufus little militia company can’t legally carry shit if it isn’t allowed and everyone of them are permitted, EVEN BY THE LOCAL TOWNSHIP THEY SET UP CAMP. You’re non Guard militia has NO SUPPORT OUT SIDE OF THE TOWNSHIP THEY RESIDE.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Obviously the support needed would come from the community just like the troops would, if we were ever invaded.


Ha ha. So if the “militia“ crosses your town lines, the community follows them ? WTF are you talking about ? Militia groups you’re talking about are useless dufus bozos waiting for a town to be invaded ? Hilarious.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re kidding me aren’t you. The training and certification ( usually your police ID) for law Enforcement
> , which is sponsored by the FBI through the state police agencies for smaller towns,  allows them to carry side arms and common unregulated federally,  weapons. Major cities that train themselves, do so with state certified instructors, all under FBI guildline mandates in order to receive federal grants and training funding.
> 
> Weapons beyond what civilians carry, also require special training and  licensing. What, are you so uninformed as to think if a federal Reg has mandates for full autos, they don’t also have them for law enforcement ? Even the military will not allow soldiers to carry a full auto without training during basic training and definitly won’t allow you to carry one unless  under orders to do so.
> ...



Wrong.
All anyone needs for a full automatic machinegun permit is to pay the huge price tag.
The license is only $250, but the manufacture is so illegally restricted that you have to pay at least an additional $5k.
It is just money.
Totally corrupt.
There are no additional classes, training, or background checks involved.

And NO, military and law enforcement are totally and illegally exempt.  The do NOT have any permits at all.  Permits are ONLY for individuals, and police and military do not have ANY individual weapons.  For police and military, the weapons are owned by the arsenal and you request them as needed.

And no, off duty police and military are totally exempt from any permit requirement.
You really should have looked up at least some of this.
It is not hard.

Here are the most stringent requirements, which is for police wanting to carry on an airplane, according to TSA rules:
{...
To qualify to fly armed, unless otherwise authorized by TSA, federal regulation states that a law enforcement officer must meet all of the following requirements:

Be a federal law enforcement officer or a full-time municipal, county, state, tribal or territorial law enforcement officer who is a direct government agency employee.
Be sworn and commissioned to enforce criminal or immigration statutes.
Be authorized by the employing agency to have the weapon in connection with assigned duties.
Have completed the TSA Law Enforcement Officer Flying Armed Training Course.
...}
And even the required training course is new.  In the past, that was never required at all.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> And NO, military and law enforcement are totally and illegally exempt.


Wrong buddy. They are not exempt from training and licensing and can only use them when under orders and in active duty. You can’t  be serious making this shit up.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s hilarious. Guess you were never in the military. It doesn’t matter what happened in 1913, it’s what is happening now. The  amount of support  is irrelevant ? Geesus, you can’t be serious.   An activated guard unit by the gov. , can carry weapons under orders ANY WHERE IN THE STATE. If activated by the president, ANYWHERE HE ORDERS. GUARD UNITS ARE UNDER BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY.
> 
> Your dufus little militia company can’t legally carry shit if it isn’t allowed and everyone if them are permitted, EVEN BY THE LOCAL TOWNSHIP THEY SET UP CAMP. You’re non Guard militia has NO SUPPORT OUT SIDE IF THE TOWNSHIP AN$ STATE THEY RESIDE.



That is foolish because there is no such thing a federal or state authority in a democratic republic.
The ONLY legal authority that exists in a democratic republic, is that of defense of the inherent rights of individuals.
Any single individual is the source of the same rights that police and the military are borrowing delegated authority from.

Standing military are NOT supported by the Constitution and are actually totally illegal, a threat to the republic.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> All anyone needs for a full automatic machinegun permit is to pay the huge price tag.
> The license is only $250, but the manufacture is so illegally restricted that you have to pay at least an additional $5k.
> It is just money.
> ...


Oh, now you’re making up shit for carrying weapons on a plane.  First you say law enforcemen5 is totally exempt, then you say they have to be qualified to carry in a plane by the TSA.
You’re all over the place.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong buddy. They are not exempt from training and licensing and can only use them when under orders and in active duty. You can’t  be serious making this shit up.



No soldier ever fills out and pays for a class III license when handed a full auto M4A1.
That is illegal, but that is what the US military does.
If you claim the military and police follow the laws imposed on everyone else, you are lying.
They do not pay the additional $5k extortion civilians have to pay, for example.
Their gun makers are exempt from that charge.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is foolish because there is no such thing a federal or state authority in a democratic republic.
> The ONLY legal authority that exists in a democratic republic, is that of defense of the inherent rights of individuals.
> Any single individual is the source of the same rights that police and the military are borrowing delegated authority from.
> 
> Standing military are NOT supported by the Constitution and are actually totally illegal, a threat to the republic.


Where do you live ? In Ethiopia ?

You’re posting to someone who was a cop for ten years and in the military for ten years.
The  guard units are under both  federal and state control and there is no such thing as a militia with any innate rights outside if a municipality.

When  the gov or president activated me, if I refused, I was going to prison while in the service. Tell me now there is no federal or state authority.

You NEVER SERVED YOUR COUNTRY DID YOU ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No soldier ever fills out and pays for a class III license when handed a full auto M4A1.
> That is illegal, but that is what the US military does.
> If you claim the military and police follow the laws imposed on everyone else, you are lying.
> They do not pay the additional $5k extortion civilians have to pay, for example.
> Their gun makers are exempt from that charge.


You’re struggling  reading the written word aren’t you. The military has federal regs it follows, local  law enforcement has both state, local  and federal regs. A local  cop still needs to abide by federal regs to carry a full auto….,fool.

 Military soldiers can’t carry full autos when not under orders. They can only carry their personal side arms under civilian permit laws when off duty and not under orders.

You are really struggling to read aren’t you.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong buddy. They are not exempt from training and licensing and can only use them when under orders and in active duty. You can’t  be serious making this shit up.



Wrong. You totally miss the point.  Of course the ranking police and military tell the low level police if, when, and how they can use weapons.  But the POINT is that the ranking police and military do NOT at all follow the regulations and burdens places upon average citizens, and they essentially do what ever they want.  Which is inherently illegal.  The source of all legal authority comes from the bottom up in a democratic republic, NOT from the top down.  You can not have police and military with any advantages as they have now.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, now you’re making up shit for carrying weapons on a plane.  First you say law enforcemen5 is totally exempt, then you say they have to be qualified to carry in a plane by the TSA.
> You’re all over the place.



Wrong.
I said that in general, the police and military do not have to follow the same rules, restrictions, and costs that individuals do.
I used the TSA example to show the MOST stringent possible situation, and it is just 1 minor class.
There is no cost, license, or training.
I was trying to help you make your point for you, but it still obviously is not at all like ordinary citizens, and that is illegal.
No one can have additional legal authority above that of ordinary people, in a democratic republic.
In a democratic republic, government can NOT be the source of any legal authority, because the whole population is supposed to be the only source of all legal authority, the defense of their own inherent individual rights.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Where do you live ? In Ethiopia ?
> 
> You’re posting to someone who was a cop for ten years and in the military for ten years.
> The  guard units are under both  federal and state control and there is no such thing as a militia with any innate rights outside if a municipality.
> ...



I am NOT referring to the illegal way it is NOW.
I am referring to how it was the first 100 years of the US democratic republic, and how we no longer are a democratic republic, and that federal government has usurped authority they do not legally or originally have.

Just think back over history a bit.
Consider why troops from each state wore different uniforms in the Civil War?










The reason for these variances is that the troops were owned, uniformed, supplied, and trained by the states, not the federal government.
There is NOT supposed to be a standing federal military.
The current standing federal military is ILLEGAL.
Read what Founders like Jefferson say about it.
There is no question the democratic republic is under siege by an abusive federal government.
And that corruption has lead to dozens of illegal wars the US had no legal authority to be involved in.
Like the Spanish American war, WWI, Vietnam, the invasion of Panama, the invasion of Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re struggling  reading the written word aren’t you. The military has federal regs it follows, local  law enforcement has both state, local  and federal regs. A local  cop still needs to abide by federal regs to carry a full auto….,fool.
> 
> Military soldiers can’t carry full autos when not under orders. They can only carry their personal side arms under civilian permit laws when off duty and not under orders.
> 
> You are really struggling to read aren’t you.



Wrong.
Local cops follow no federal regs, and there are not supposed to even be any federal regs.
When the military does not carry full auto, it is NOT under BATF regs.  
It is under military regs that are not legal.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I am NOT referring to the illegal way it is NOW.
> I am referring to how it was the first 100 years of the US democratic republic, and how we no longer are a democratic republic, and that federal government has usurped authority they do not legally or originally have.
> 
> Just think back over history a bit.
> ...


I don’t give a shit how it was 100 years ago. This is way it’s been. Just you thinking something is illegal, doesn’t make it illegal. You need to get a degree and get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court. Really, if think the way our military is funded and managed all over the world, you need to move to a non democrat society and out of here. We haven’t had a militia that was worth shit for hundreds of years, other then what we have now.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Local cops follow no federal regs, and there are not supposed to even be any federal regs.
> When the military does not carry full auto, it is NOT under BATF regs.
> It is under military regs that are not legal.


Ha ha 
Hilarious. It’s turned into an incoherent   babble on both sides of the fence. I have no idea what your point is. Move somewhere else then.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There is NOT supposed to be a standing federal military.
> The current standing federal military is ILLEGAL.


Ha ha
Obviously not. Maybe you’d like keeping a militia close to home and hiring mercenaries to fight elsewhere. It has never worked. It’s a fast way to bring us to a third world country. They tend to have militia and not standing armies.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I don’t give a shit how it was 100 years ago. This is way it’s been. Just you thinking something is illegal, doesn’t make it illegal. You need to get a degree and get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court. Really, if think the way our military is funded and managed all over the world, you need to move to a non democrat society and out of here. We haven’t had a militia that was worth shit for hundreds of years, other then what we have now.



Wrong.
The whole point of a democratic republic is to be restrained by a constitution that prevents executive or legislative corruption, which we now obviously have.
What we have now is in totally violation of the US constitution, and that should anger anyone who believes in a democratic republic.
Whether we have a useful militia now or not, is irrelevant.
The point is the US government and military now is totally criminal.
The federal government lied in order to get us into the Spanish American war, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.
By allowing these crimes, we are all complicit in the millions we have murdered.
We need to stop this.
We need to go back to Constitutional basics and figure out how to prevent corruption like this from taking over.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Biden is just pandering to the extreme loony tunes in his party


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> Hilarious. It’s turned into an incoherent   babble on both sides of the fence. I have no idea what your point is. Move somewhere else then.



The point is you are wrong.
According to the Constitution, all people are supposed to be under the same law, based on inherent individual rights.
And when the military and police make up their own laws just for them, that violates the principles of a democratic republic.
I do not see why you do not understand that simple principle?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The whole point of a democratic republic is to be restrained by a constitution that prevents executive or legislative corruption, which we now obviously have.
> What we have now is in totally violation of the US constitution, and that should anger anyone who believes in a democratic republic.
> Whether we have a useful militia now or not, is irrelevant.
> ...


Well, do they have a party  you can belong to ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Biden is just pandering to the extreme loony tunes in his party


Like a majority of people in the US including repos.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Biden is just pandering to the extreme loony tunes in his party


Sure…

84 percent of voters, including 77 percent of Republicans, support requiring a background check for all gun purchases
Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> Obviously not. Maybe you’d like keeping a militia close to home and hiring mercenaries to fight elsewhere. It has never worked. It’s a fast way to bring us to a third world country. They tend to have militia and not standing armies.



The point is we now have a mercenary military that is no longer under public control.
We need to NOT do that, so that we return to a democratic republic, before it is too late and irrevocable.
Surely you have to agree that the Pentagon deliberately lied to us about Iraqi WMD, leading to the murder of half a million innocent people, massive Pentagon waste of over $5 trillion, and future destabilization of the whole Mideast.
This is getting worse, not better, so are you willing to be responsible for all these murders?

Again, there are NOT supposed to be any US troops deployed over seas.  That is illegal except under UN operations.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Sure…
> 
> 84 percent of voters, including 77 percent of Republicans, support requiring a background check for all gun purchases
> Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.



Wrong.
The gun violence is entirely due to the illegal War on Drugs, so this is all just propaganda intent on disarming the public, in order to totally end any pretense of a democratic republic.


----------



## LaDairis (Mar 8, 2022)

The Fascist Zionist wants all Americans

1. masked
2. spied on cellphone to home PC to auto
3. without gun
4. pumped up over and over with murderous pseudo vax
5. believing every lie the media tells them
6. without rights
7. without truth
8. enslaved to serve, fund, defend, and expand ISRAEL


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Like a majority of people in the US including repos.



Due to false propaganda, like the way the Pentagon claimed Iraq has stockpiles of WMD.


----------



## LaDairis (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Due to false propaganda, like the way the Pentagon claimed Iraq has stockpiles of WMD.




Actually, that was the CIA under George Tenet, who then won the ADL's "highest award" in 2005 when it was clear he lied about Iraqi WMD and everything else...


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Whether we have a useful militia now or not, is irrelevant.


Kind of silly. It’s totally relevant and has worked well for decades. You want to have the country go in peril because “ you know better? “ Sounds like you think you’re smarter then literally…..everyone else who isn’t a gunaholic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Well, do they have a party  you can belong to ?



That is part of the problem.
The 2 main parties are illegal, have no constitutional basis, and are illegally blocking open elections that would allow a real choice.
I would vastly prefer people like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, or any honest person.
Hillary, Trump, and Biden are all the lowest crooks.


----------



## LaDairis (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is part of the problem.
> The 2 main parties are illegal, have no constitutional basis, and are illegally blocking open elections that would allow a real choice.
> I would vastly prefer people like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, or any honest person.
> Hillary, Trump, and Biden are all the lowest crooks.





In both parties, the CRAP floats straight to the top....

W
Romney
Hillary
Biden
Kenyan Cocksucker

We have had nothing but crap from both for decades...


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

LaDairis said:


> Actually, that was the CIA under George Tenet, who then won the ADL's "highest award" in 2005 when it was clear he lied about Iraqi WMD and everything else...



The Pentagon was in on it too though, like they claimed to show images of Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border, when actual satellite photos showed none.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Kind of silly. It’s totally relevant and has worked well for decades. You want to have the country go in peril because “ you know better? “ Sounds like you think you’re smarter then literally…..everyone else who isn’t a gunaholic.



That is the talk that is silly.
The US has NEVER been "in peril" since 1812.
No one has ever tried to invade us since then, and likely no one ever would.
So our MAIN threat has NEVER invasion, but internal corruption instead.
And yes, anyone who realizes the Constitution has to be followed, is smarter than anyone who instead wants to trust corrupt wealthy politicians who want to gut the constitution.
This is no rocket science.
The constitution has a purpose, and it is the best plan anyone could come up with.
Throwing it away is deliberate political suicide, similar to what the Germans did in 1933.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 8, 2022)

CremeBrulee said:


> Am I the only one that finds humor in the fact some people think magazine capacity means trying to put that many rounds on target?


Yep.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 8, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Insist those who get paid for it, do their job.
> 
> That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Well regulated militia. 

That does not say a country full of gun nuts who relive the wild west days and old episodes of rambo.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Like a majority of people in the US including repos.


I dont think so

most of us do not want to pay a fortune for gasoline

greenie hate for fossil fuel can drag the entire economy down


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Sure…
> 
> 84 percent of voters, including 77 percent of Republicans, support requiring a background check for all gun purchases
> Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.


Sez who?

Americans are buying guns at a record pace

and yet they want their gun rights taken away?

that would be insane


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Well regulated militia.
> 
> That does not say a country full of gun nuts who relive the wild west days and old episodes of rambo.



Actually it does.
A democratic republic does have to be a country full of gun nuts instead of a mercenary elite military that takes orders only from a dictatorship.

And "well regulated" just means they are practiced and good at it, not that there is some sort of central control.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Sez who?
> 
> Americans are buying guns at a record pace
> 
> ...


Universal  background checks don’t  take my gun rights  away. I’m not a convicted felon. Are you ? Or, do you want to retain your right to sell in private sale a firearm to a minor ? Which is it ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The US has NEVER been "in peril" since 1812.


We are everytime a repo takes office. From major recessions to pandemics. Their record is a is all.
Oh you forgot the civil war. You wanted to retain slavery……???


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Universal  background checks don’t  take my gun rights  away. I’m not a convicted felon. Are you ? Or, do you want to retain your right to sell in private sale a firearm to a minor ? Which is it ?


You underestimate the imagination of the gun control crowd

if the gun control crowd can assure us this is the last new law they will EVER demand it might might be a small price to pay for never having to hear from them again 

but I know it wont be

and what are we getting in return for our loss of rights?

how about mandatory 1 year on jail just for being caught with procession of a firearm illegally

2nd offense 3 years 

and 10 years for use of a firearm in a crime?


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Universal  background checks don’t  take my gun rights  away. I’m not a convicted felon. Are you ? Or, do you want to retain your right to sell in private sale a firearm to a minor ? Which is it ?



Bouncing a $100 check can be a felony.
So that is arbitrary and inherently illegal abuse of the rights of citizens who have done their time.
We can not have a 2 tiered society and still pretend this is a democratic republic.
And YES, it is and should remain legal to transfer a firearm ownership to a juvenile who is a relative or properly supervised.
It is illegal to try to prevent it.

You could easily become a convicted felon, depending on what fake laws someone comes up with to redefine sedition or treason, like being anti war.  How many people were illegally jailed over speaking out against WWI?

Universal background checks do take away the rights of everyone because it makes the federal government into a self authorizing dictatorship.
How long they then take to start badly abusing people, is not relevant.
The point then is that they can no longer be stopped, so it is a matter of time only.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> We are everytime a repo takes office. From major recessions to pandemics. Their record is a is all.
> Oh you forgot the civil war. You wanted to retain slavery……???



I have no idea what a "repo" is?
But presidents have nothing to do with recessions or pandemics.
And no, the Civil War was not defensive.
The North invaded the South if you remember.
Nor was a war likely the best way or necessary.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But presidents have nothing to do with recessions or pandemics.


Gee, when Bush had his whoper conservatives were blaming Clinton, 8 years earlier.


Mac-7 said:


> You underestimate the imagination of the gun control crowd
> 
> if the gun control crowd can assure us this is the last new law they will EVER demand it might might be a small price to pay for never having to hear from them again
> 
> ...


Again , why are your rights in jeopardy if you’re not a criminal ? Nothing you said has anything to do with universal background checks. It only applies to the rights of a felon you want to protect. You‘re just throwing out totally unrelated babble.You have a BC when you buy a firearm from a Licensed dealer. Why do you want to be able to sell your guns to anyone without asking them for an ID or perform a BC. How does selling your gun to a felon help you keep your rights ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Universal background checks do take away the rights of everyone because it makes the federal government into a self authorizing dictatorship.


Huh ? I guess you’re arguing for the unrestricted right of felons and underaged to buy any full auto firearm from anyone on a street corner in plane sight of everyone. While we’re at it, let’s do away with interstate highway and the TSA controlling carrying guns on planes. Let’s just not bother people there either. Those hyjackers have rights…..and the feds would be dictators.

You want to sell your guns to kids, right ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> how about mandatory 1 year on jail just for being caught with procession of a firearm illegally


And your solution to finding them is to what ? Stop them on the street and ask them ? How about posting signs that give felons a special phone number they can use to report their crimes. After all, we don’t need regs for firearms. Just the idea knowing they are guilty is enough to scare the begesus out them, enough to turn themselves in.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Gee, when Bush had his whoper conservatives were blaming Clinton, 8 years earlier.
> 
> Again , why are your rights in jeopardy if you’re not a criminal ? Nothing you said has anything to do with universal background checks. It only applies to the rights of a felon you want to protect. You‘re just throwing out totally unrelated babble.You have a BC when you buy a firearm from a Licensed dealer. Why do you want to be able to sell your guns to anyone without asking them for an ID or perform a BC. How does selling your gun to a felon help you keep your rights ?



Bush did not create his recession alone, but had the full backing of congress, borrowing over $5 trillion to invade Iraq.
Clinton has no recession I can remember, and instead did well?

And wrong,  being a criminal has NOTHING at all to do with your rights when the regime is criminal.
For example, if you believe in individual rights, but live in Russia.
And my point is the US is getting to be even worse than Russia.
For example, the War on Drugs is totally illegal.

Background checks really make no sense because those intent on crimes with guns, will not be deterred by more minor laws about background checks.  They will just get them illegally instead.
Felons are humans so have identical human rights, which no one can take away.
If a person is that dangerous, then they need to be confined, because a firearm is one of the least dangerous pieces of technology they can get their hands on.
Background checks just add more money and a federal database to honest gun ownership.
I want neither of those.
I don't want to sell to felons, but I want to be able to buy from anyone, at the lowest price.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? I guess you’re arguing for the unrestricted right of felons and underaged to buy any full auto firearm from anyone on a street corner in plane sight of everyone. While we’re at it, let’s do away with interstate highway and the TSA controlling carrying guns on planes. Let’s just not bother people there either. Those hyjackers have rights…..and the feds would be dictators.
> 
> You want to sell your guns to kids, right ?



The federal government only has the explicit authority listed in the Constitution.
Federally mandated background checks are not authorized, so then totally invalidate the limitations and constraints on a dictatorship that the constitution is supposed to restrain.  
And yes, states are supposed to run airports, highways, etc.
TSA is illegal and should not exist.
One either believes in a constitutional republic or a unrestrained dictatorship?
You pick.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And your solution to finding them is to what ? Stop them on the street and ask them ? How about posting signs that give felons a special phone number they can use to report their crimes. After all, we don’t need regs for firearms. Just the idea knowing they are guilty is enough to scare the begesus out them, enough to turn themselves in.



That is stupid because the people intent on using guns illegally are already deliberately risking far greater penalties than that over a new mandatory background check.
So you accomplish NOTHING at all positive.
But to honest sales, you intimidate, add costs, illegally database, and allow easy government abuse of entrapment.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Again , why are your rights in jeopardy if you’re not a criminal ?


Because gun grabbers are never satisfied

they always want more


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Because gun grabbers are never satisfied
> 
> they always want more


So the solution is to, keep pumping guns into the hands of criminals. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

And this thread is mostly about the high capacity magazine ban, which is inherently illegal as ex post facto.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So the solution is to, keep pumping guns into the hands of criminals. Sounds like a plan.



Wrong.
As already explained, criminals do not buy their guns legally.
They buy them from drug dealers, since the War on Drugs makes it so that all drug dealers have to only use cash, so then have to be armed, or they steal them.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> As already explained, criminals do not buy their guns legally.


Oh yes. You explained because they do it illegally, they feel guilty and turn themselves in. No need to bother the guy selling them the gun;  convicted felons, kids and the mentally impaired all have a conscience and will voluntarily run to the nearest Fed and confess. Gotcha. Matter of fact, just knowing  the universal background law won’t pass, has cause a mass confessional for all convicted felons carrying guns. The police stations are overwhelmed with criminals turning their guns in cause…..gee, they know they’re illegal. Right.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> As already explained, criminals do not buy their guns legally.
> They buy them from drug dealers, since the War on Drugs makes it so that all drug dealers have to only use cash, so then have to be armed, or they steal them.


Oh, the drug dealers sell them to other criminals. So they manufacture them ? Or, do they grow them on trees. I heat there’s a gun tree in every state that druggies go to get their guns to sell to other felons. Amazing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> As already explained, criminals do not buy their guns legally.


Having nothing to do with the appropriateness, efficacy, or Constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.

Criminals violate all manner of laws – from speed limits to murder; that criminals don’t obey laws doesn’t mean we should get rid of speed limits or not prosecute murderers.

No firearm regulatory measure is intended to act as a ‘panacea’ to all gun crime and violence.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh yes. You explained because they do it illegally, they feel guilty and turn themselves in. No need to bother the guy selling them the gun;  convicted felons, kids and the mentally impaired all have a conscience and will voluntarily run to the nearest Fed and confess. Gotcha. Matter of fact, just knowing  the universal background law won’t pass, has cause a mass confessional for all convicted felons carrying guns. The police stations are overwhelmed with criminals turning their guns in cause…..gee, they know they’re illegal. Right.



That is stupid.
All people have an inherent right of self defense, so have the right to be armed.
There is no legal means of stopping them.
Even kids traditionally could and did grab the shotgun over the mantel when necessary.
The feds need to butt out.
They have ZERO jurisdiction.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, the drug dealers sell them to other criminals. So they manufacture them ? Or, do they grow them on trees. I heat there’s a gun tree in every state that druggies go to get their guns to sell to other felons. Amazing.



The guns come from the same places as the drugs.
There are hundreds of gun makers in South America.
And it is easy to get illegal Chinese or Pakistani arms as well.
Where do you think illegal drugs come from, some farmer in Illinois?


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having nothing to do with the appropriateness, efficacy, or Constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> Criminals violate all manner of laws – from speed limits to murder; that criminals don’t obey laws doesn’t mean we should get rid of speed limits or not prosecute murderers.
> 
> No firearm regulatory measure is intended to act as a ‘panacea’ to all gun crime and violence.



Wrong.
Speed limits are not intended to cause fines or jail time, but to advise people how to be safe.
Murder is inherently wrong.
Gun ownership is an inherent right of self defense.
So gun control is inherently wrong, corrupt, and in violation of legal principles.
If a person is so dangerous they should not be allowed to be armed, then they should not be out on the street at all.
Thinking convoluted gun control laws that violate inherent principles will help, is insane.
Instead, it makes honest people realize the government is out of control and needs to be destroyed.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> All people have an inherent right of self defense, so have the right to be armed.


Of course, you do understand that every Supreme Court decision concerning firearm regulations say….  People don’t have the “inherent“ right  to  possess a firearm or any of the Bill of Rights. You’re wrong conflating self defense with right to possess a firearm.. You just made up shit to conflate one with the other.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So the solution is to, keep pumping guns into the hands of criminals.


Thats a bad idea

if criminals even touch a gun lock thrm up and throw away the key

you want to punish good people instead of the bums who are causing the trouble


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course, you do understand that every Supreme Court decision concerning firearm regulations say….  People don’t have the “inherent“ right  to  possess a firearm or any of the Bill of Rights. You’re wrong conflating self defense with right to possess a firearm.. You just made up shit to conflate one with the other.



And obviously the SCOTUS should be strung up on light poles, ever since the Dred Scott Decision.
The 2nd Amendment is VERY clear in that there is to never be ANY federal firearm laws.
Obviously all individuals have the inherent right of defense.
How do you propose anyone defense themselves without a firearm?
Were there any frontier homes without a firearm over the mantel?
If you were to claim that police make self defense no longer necessary, that would obviously be wrong now, and much more so in the future when police become as abusive as the KGB, Stasi, Tonton Macaque, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Thats a bad idea
> 
> if criminals even touch a gun lock thrm up and throw away the key
> 
> you want to punish good people instead of the bums who are causing the trouble



Labeling people as substandard less than citizens, after they have served their sentence, is not legal and is totally corrupt.
Either all people have inherent rights or not.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Labeling people as substandard less than citizens, after they have served their sentence, is not legal and is totally corrupt.
> Either all people have inherent rights or not.


Convicted felons still have some rights

but voting or owning firearms are not among those rights


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I dont think so
> 
> most of us do not want to pay a fortune for gasoline
> 
> greenie hate for fossil fuel can drag the entire economy down


*That's the point. The KGB and agents of international marxism promoted the environutjob movement for no other reason than to crush the US Economy and paralyze our industries. Now there was certainly some concern about the effects industry had on our environment as it was developing, it was getting addressed and efforts were made to stop pollution and clean up the damage.*

*The same can not be said about the USSR or the CHI-Com despotic shit hole. Some of the most god forsaken environments still exist in countries and places the soviets controlled. The CHI-Coms exist with constant grey skies and toxic shit all over the place. Try and protest in China and see what happens to you. Yet here in the US protesters, unions, the media, and other apparatchiks were allowed to destroy massive industries while communist regimes struggled to establish production and made huge swaths of land entirely uninhabitable to this day. The soviets destroyed an entire inland sea. There are lakes as larges as the Finger Lakes of NY that are so toxic and radioactive that nothing can live in them. There was no soviet Ira Einhorn creating an "Earth Day" in the USSR while his girlfriend's corpse rotted in some luggage in his attic.

The US has the cleanest, nicest environment on all of the first world dirt BECAUSE of the free market and ability of people to protest and drag large corporations into courts.*

*I suppose an argument could be made that the USSR and spies HELPED us in a way, and that the neo-green turds have some good ideas, but to destroy our entire economy before these changes can be made is as stupid as not knowing why that switch near your sink just makes noise rather than turning on a light.


.








						Guys, AOC Doesn't Know What a Garbage Disposal Is
					

Inside baseball moment: we have an unofficial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez policy around this here website -- only mock AOC when she truly deserves it, but let the little stuff go. The problem is Alexandria is a brazen idiot. We all make mistakes, we all do and say stupid things. But most of us take...




					www.louderwithcrowder.com
				



*


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 8, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Convicted felons still have some rights
> 
> but voting or owning firearms are not among those rights


*I would actually side with the bed wetter, although I doubt he agrees with me, because of course bed wetting leftist parasites are deliberately ignorant and will contradict themselves when they have to acknowledge reality. If a person is a released felon, he should be able to carry a gun. Voting isn't even an issue, I don't care if the original crime was stuffing ballot boxes.*

*If the individual is allowed on the street again as a matter of law because the legal system releases people into the public then they're full blown citizens if they were in the first place. The bigger problem is we have hordes of NON-citizens in prison getting out, committing crimes and being released rather than stuffed into green energy methods of returning them across our border.*







*It is my argument, one that I have been vehemently hollering from rooftops and all over the internet is that the solution to criminal behavior is the arming of potential victims will keep order, not divisions of local government commissioned soldiers who just might happen to be close by when an emergency happens to you, but may take several minutes or longer to assist you.*

*

.*


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Actually it does.
> A democratic republic does have to be a country full of gun nuts instead of a mercenary elite military that takes orders only from a dictatorship.
> 
> And "well regulated" just means they are practiced and good at it, not that there is some sort of central control.


Its not my problem you misinterprete it. The problem is you think it gives permission for an army of ratbag rednecks to prance around expanding their egos. Waving guns around like rambo. Tough guys that have never fired a shot in anger. Go away you fool.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 8, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Outside of a war zone, does a person REALLY need the ability to throw 30 rounds down range in less than 20 seconds?
> 
> Me?  I'm retired U.S. Navy, and on one tour was also a member of the Security Force (basically base police).  And, while we had .45's and then switched to 9mm, which are semi automatic weapons, we never had more than 10 rounds of ammo in the gun at any time.  And, it's really easy to reload a 9mm, which can be done in 2 seconds or less.
> 
> But, our Gunny also taught us ammo control, meaning shoot 2 or 3 rounds, stop, reassess the situation, and fire another 2-3 if required.  When we went to the range, we had to fire from several different positions (standing, through a window, through a door, behind a barrier, etc.), and each station required only a certain amount of rounds.  If you got to the last couple of stations and ran out of ammo before completing them, the Gunny had your ass for lunch.


If you had a home invasion involving multiple invaders a 30 round magazine might come in handy. 

I remember a gun store owner tell a story about a home invasion involving his teen aged daughter. 

Some fool tried to break into his home while his daughter was there alone. He was trying to break the door down so she grabbed an M1 carbine and emptied a 30 magazine through the door. 

That discouraged the intruder but apparently he escaped without injury. 

Of course I am not recommending shooting through doors. I would calmly wait until the intruder broke the door down and made entry before I would open fire. 

I still wonder what the intruder thought when bullet holes started to appear in the door.

The gun store owner was glad his daughter survived but pissed that he had to replace the door.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The guns come from the same places as the drugs.
> There are hundreds of gun makers in South America.
> And it is easy to get illegal Chinese or Pakistani arms as well.
> Where do you think illegal drugs come from, some farmer in Illinois?


Oh, now you’re claiming that every gun felons use in the US is a Taurus ? Really ?
Here is a list of guns used by felons. Gee, no Taurus. Glocks are made in Smyrna USA as well as Ruger colts etc. Now we know you’re full of shot. It’s been fun. Now spread you BS elsewhere.

Glock 19. ity. ...
Glock 22. ...
Smith & Wesson M&P 9. ...
Beretta Model 92. ...
Sig Sauer P226. ...
Heckler and Koch HK45. ...
Ruger LC9. ...
Colt M1911.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Thats a bad idea
> 
> if criminals even touch a gun lock thrm up and throw away the key
> 
> you want to punish good people instead of the bums who are causing the trouble


So, now you’re claiming that criminals turn themselves in whenever they touch a gun ? Amazing. Maybe their moms do.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Either all people have inherent rights or not.


They don’t. There are no inherent rights in the bill of rights. Nine, nada nix. 
Every Supreme Court decision had said so. No exceptions. I guess the Supreme Court has been wrong since the constitution was written. Of course the constitution GIVES the power to the judiciary to make those decisions.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Batcat said:


> If you had a home invasion involving multiple invaders a 30 round magazine might come in handy.
> 
> I remember a gun store owner tell a story about a home invasion involving his teen aged daughter.
> 
> ...


This happens all the time. Gun store owners have no reason to make up shit to sell guns. Neither do car salesmen. It must be fact. Home invasions are running ramped. 

But gee, no ones reporting them. Let’s just use the official stats from the nra gun store owners. Oh, and they’re all little girls shooting back.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The guns come from the same places as the drugs.
> There are hundreds of gun makers in South America.
> And it is easy to get illegal Chinese or Pakistani arms as well.
> Where do you think illegal drugs come from, some farmer in Illinois?


In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.








						American guns are flooding into Mexico and wreaking havoc | Robert Reich
					

Mexico has tried almost everything to stop US-made guns from fueling cartel violence. So now it’s doing what any litigious American would do: suing




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having nothing to do with the appropriateness, efficacy, or Constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> Criminals violate all manner of laws – from speed limits to murder; that criminals don’t obey laws doesn’t mean we should get rid of speed limits or not prosecute murderers.
> 
> No firearm regulatory measure is intended to act as a ‘panacea’ to all gun crime and violence.


Though I agree in general, felons do bend over backwards not to be stopped for traffic violations. Having a stolen car registration run through a computer for a traffic violation is a bad day for any crook. All the tv and movie shows showing felons hot rodding around town is fake news. Car registration are a major crime prevention “weapon.”


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IOW Biden wants a few cosmetic doodads that have absolutely no effect on a rifle's performance to be banned again


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> IOW Biden wants a few cosmetic doodads that have absolutely no effect on a rifle's performance to be banned again


It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations. It’s not up to Biden to actually write the laws.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations. It’s not up to Biden to actually write the laws. He makes proposals and the houses have to agree then go before him for final signature. Watering down regs often occurs between the houses of congress, not with the president.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations.


The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic  things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic  things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.


There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated ir banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .


Show me a single definition that isn't solely banning cosmetic doodads or limiting magazine size and that have to do with the round fired, the loading mechanism or any other aspect of the actual function of the weapon.

The 94 AWB was nothing but a ban of cosmetic additions to a rifle that had absolutely no effect on the performance of the rifle at all


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So, now you’re claiming that criminals turn themselves in whenever they touch a gun ? Amazing. Maybe their moms do.


Now you are making a weak attempt at mocking to cover your retreat


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 9, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


banana clips have a tendency to jam at the elbow. That's why i never use one.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This happens all the time. Gun store owners have no reason to make up shit to sell guns. Neither do car salesmen. It must be fact. Home invasions are running ramped.
> 
> But gee, no ones reporting them. Let’s just use the official stats from the nra gun store owners. Oh, and they’re all little girls shooting back.


The incident I described was back in the 1970s. I was a friend of one of the owners of the store. I never bought anything there. I should have.

I missed the opportunity to buy two Colt Python revolvers with sequential serial numbers. If I could have convinced my wife at the time to allow me to purchase the pair and I had put them in a safety deposit box they would be worth a small fortune. An unfired Colt Python goes for around $6000 tp $7000 today.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Convicted felons still have some rights
> 
> but voting or owning firearms are not among those rights



Not being allowed to vote but still having to pay taxes, is illegal based on the principle of taxation without representation.
Not being allowed to own firearms violates the 4th and 2nd amendments.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Its not my problem you misinterprete it. The problem is you think it gives permission for an army of ratbag rednecks to prance around expanding their egos. Waving guns around like rambo. Tough guys that have never fired a shot in anger. Go away you fool.



The people are who are supposed to have all power and authority, not some corrupt politicians who hire a bunch of mercenaries with our money.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Not being allowed to vote but still having to pay taxes, is illegal based on the principle of taxation without representation.


Not according to the all-knowing unelected demigods on the high court


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, now you’re claiming that every gun felons use in the US is a Taurus ? Really ?
> Here is a list of guns used by felons. Gee, no Taurus. Glocks are made in Smyrna USA as well as Ruger colts etc. Now we know you’re full of shot. It’s been fun. Now spread you BS elsewhere.
> 
> Glock 19. ity. ...
> ...



Wrong.
It is equally easy to buy stolen guns as to import them.
What guns happened to have been used in the past is not relevant.
We are talking about the false claim that you can prevent future illegal gun use by more purchase restrictions.
It is obvious you are lying.
For example, the police use Glocks more than any other pistol, but clearly when a cop murders someone, the federal gun laws did not help the murdered victim at all.
More stringent background checks don't help if the buyer is not yet a convicted felon.
And what authority is there to prevent a convicted felon from defending himself after he has served his sentence?
Your claims are false, hypocritical, and unethical.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> They don’t. There are no inherent rights in the bill of rights. Nine, nada nix.
> Every Supreme Court decision had said so. No exceptions. I guess the Supreme Court has been wrong since the constitution was written. Of course the constitution GIVES the power to the judiciary to make those decisions.



Wrong.
No one ever said that the Bill of Rights created rights.
The Bill of Rights instead are restrictions on the federal government mostly.
All law in democratic republics can ONLY be based on inherent rights, not anything arbitrary.
And no one can "give" any power to the judiciary.
That would be a circular fallacy, since you can not give that which you do not already have yourself.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong.
You are lying because you are implying those Mexican cartels are getting guns through legal purchases in the US, when in reality they are more likely stolen.
But the fact there are no gun factories in Mexico, does not at all prevent guns from being imported from South America, China, Pakistan, etc.
It is just that stolen guns are cheaper.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It all depends upon how the law is written. In some states and countries that do restrict assault weapons, the regulation is revisited regularly and a new list is published of violating firearms as the makers, as they usually do, try to circumvent the regulations. It’s not up to Biden to actually write the laws.



Except that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" and any attempt to retro actively criminalize, violates the ex post facto legal principle.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture .



There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
With WWII, it was a carbine, because it fired a weak recoil, pistol bullet.
With Vietnam, they just went alloy on the frame and made the magazine larger.
But any pair of pistols can still be used as an assault weapon as effective as anything made.
Maybe even more so, since with 2 pistols, you can reload one while the other remain in use.
And there also will never be a way to prevent someone from cutting down a shotgun barrel.

The idea one has to buy a firearm already set as an "assault weapon", so that it can be controlled by legislation, is totally insane, and ignorant.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 9, 2022)




----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 9, 2022)

Likkmee said:


>



Not to mention that it is illegal to make people criminals for something they bought legally.
It violates the legal principle of ex post facto.
Meaning you can not criminalize after the fact.
And there are hundreds of millions of assault rifles and high capacity magazines out there already.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
> For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
> During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
> During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
> ...


It's a political bastardization of the term "Assault Rifle" which got its name from the Strumgewehr 44 (literally "Storm Rifle" means assault rifle).




Assault Rifle parameters include select fire, a mid-sized round, and a detachable magazine.

Select fire means being able to shoot semi-auto and full-auto or burst.

"Assault Weapons" means anything congress decides to ban, including grandpa's single fire shot gun.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The people are who are supposed to have all power and authority, not some corrupt politicians who hire a bunch of mercenaries with our money.


Thats what you think. 
I know different.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 10, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
> For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
> During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
> During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
> ...



Humpers are all in a tizzy cause their desire  to play toy soldier is threatened. You guys are hilarious.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It's a political bastardization of the term "Assault Rifle" which got its name from the Strumgewehr 44 (literally "Storm Rifle" means assault rifle).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That all sounds like fear mongering. In the military, even a weapon that’s not used in the semi auto mode, is still called an assault weapon. 90% of the military trading is in the semi auto mode. It’s still an assault weapon.


----------



## Flash (Mar 10, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> No one ever said that the Bill of Rights created rights.
> The Bill of Rights instead are restrictions on the federal government mostly.
> All law in democratic republics can ONLY be based on inherent rights, not anything arbitrary.
> ...


Let me 'splain this to you since you are confused.

The Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is settled law that the States and Locals have to adhere to the Bill of Rights.  That was established a long time ago.

Therefore if the Federal, State or Local government infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms then it is illegal.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


No it does not. Post the entire 2@ . That post is fraudulent.
There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS  maintained  the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.

I have proof.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 10, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There can NEVER be a definition of an "assault weapon" because that is a method of use of any firearm, and not the firearm itself.
> For example, in the Revolutionary war period, the Blunderbuss was the main assault weapon, used for boarding parties.
> During the Civil War, it was a pair of revolvers for cavalry.
> During WWI, it was a short barreled pump shotgun for trenches.
> ...


You’re rational as with all gunaholics, revolves around what happened 200 years ago. When the biggest “ claim to fame “ for use of a weapon, is the efficiency it can be used to mow elementary children down; that’s enough reason to question the gunaholic motivation. There is no reason for a non military people to have one, other then to commit crimes and kill numbers of people more efficiently.

Its the reason we already have federal laws that try to regulate  these weapons and the gunaholics who support the easy access to all firearms to anyone.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 10, 2022)

Pete7469 said:


> I say fuck him and the whore he rode in on.



Does Kamela carry him standing, or on all fours?


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 10, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Does Kamela carry him standing, or on all fours?


*All fours, but still belly up.*


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress


Biden is pretty goofy.  Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.




xband said:


> Ban the public from machine guns,


That ban was implemented 88 years ago.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> So who controls that organized militia and why don't the organized militia have a right to keep those firearms they carry?


At the moment there is no organized militia.  This lack of a militia violates the Second Amendment if anyone cares.




ABikerSailor said:


> Outside of a war zone, does a person REALLY need the ability to throw 30 rounds down range in less than 20 seconds?


It seems like it would be hard to fire a semi-auto that fast and still aim usefully.

But anyway, the police seem to think they need 30 round rifle magazines in civilized society.  Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police have.

Maybe if one day the police decide that they no longer need 30 round rifle magazines for self defense, then there will be an argument that civilians don't need them either.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Our well regulated militia are the guard units.


Actually no.  The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army.  That makes them the exact opposite of a militia.

An actual well regulated militia would only serve inside US territory.  Militiamen would also have the right to take their military weapons home with them.




Dagosa said:


> Universal background checks don’t take my gun rights away.


Don't be so sure.  All the government needs to do is say that everyone with a certain eye color or hair color (or skin color) fails the background check.  Then, if you have the wrong pigmentation, that means you start failing background checks.




Dagosa said:


> In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it is Robert Reich who is throwing BS out there.

America is the cartels' main source of FN-57 handguns.  But the cartels get plenty of full-auto rifles from Venezuela and from the Mexican Army.




Dagosa said:


> There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS maintained the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.


Regulation of fundamental rights is allowed only if the regulation can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

There is no compelling government interest in outlawing harmless features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.




Dagosa said:


> There is no one definition of “ assault weapon” that’s common in all states. Some are, some aren’t. It would be a mistake to think so. Law enforcement and the military has a definition. Some state laws differ in what they want to accomplish. It would be a mistake to think a military or dictionary definition would be used for a. Proposed law. Like I said before, and I’ll repeat it. The workable ones are revisited and revised to list the firearms that are regulated or banned. Debate all you want. Until a law is actually written and a glossary for the law is decided, its all just conjecture.


When states concoct fraudulent definitions for the term "assault weapon" that doesn't mean that the true definition has changed.  It merely means that those states have concocted fraudulent definitions.




Dagosa said:


> Humpers are all in a tizzy cause their desire  to play toy soldier is threatened. You guys are hilarious.


Not at all.  People just don't want the Freedom Haters to steal their guns.

This whole militia nonsense started because the Freedom Haters were falsely saying that people only have the right to have guns if they are members of a militia.

Without that initial falsehood there would never have been a militia movement in the US.




Dagosa said:


> You’re rational as with all gunaholics, revolves around what happened 200 years ago. When the biggest “ claim to fame “ for use of a weapon, is the efficiency it can be used to mow elementary children down; that’s enough reason to question the gunaholic motivation. There is no reason for a non military people to have one, other then to commit crimes and kill numbers of people more efficiently.
> Its the reason we already have federal laws that try to regulate these weapons and the gunaholics who support the easy access to all firearms to anyone.


It's hard to tell what type of guns you are talking about here??

But regardless, people don't need to have a reason in order to have a given kind of gun.  If there is no compelling government interest in restricting a given type of weapon, then people have the right to have it.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The definition of an "assault weapon" does not mention anything about the rifle's round, accuracy, loading mechanism etc instead it concentrates on cosmetic  things like pistol grips, flash suppressors and folding stocks.


Those aren't assault weapons.  Don't let the Freedom Haters get away with pretending that they are.

Assault weapons were restricted from the general public 88 years ago.




Blues Man said:


> Show me a single definition that isn't solely banning cosmetic doodads or limiting magazine size and that have to do with the round fired, the loading mechanism or any other aspect of the actual function of the weapon.


I can do that.  But my definition will not make the Freedom Haters happy, since such weapons were already restricted from the general public 88 years ago.

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Biden is pretty goofy.  Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.
> 
> Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.
> 
> ...



~~~~~~
Indeed, you mention the FDR National Firearms Act of 1934.
See:




__





						National Firearms Act of 1934 | Encyclopedia.com
					

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on...




					www.encyclopedia.com
				



Yet, each year since Democrats scream for total control of firearms in America regardless of the fact that it violates the U.S. Constitution and it Amendments, and what total control of firearms has done in Europe.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Biden is pretty goofy.  Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.
> 
> Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.
> 
> ...


Actually there is an unorganized militia. Which has no connection to the regular military or the national guard.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Mar 16, 2022)

People in the Ukraine need fully automatic assault rifles with 30 round magazines. They have been invaded by Russian throops.There is no way they should be banned.!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Mar 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is stupid.
> All people have an inherent right of self defense, so have the right to be armed.
> There is no legal means of stopping them.
> Even kids traditionally could and did grab the shotgun over the mantel when necessary.
> ...


Any fed, from the president on down, even suggesting any infringment should be publicly executed with the very weapons they propose to ban.  

And I am bloodthirsty serious too.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually no.  The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army.  That makes them the exact opposite of a militia.
> 
> An actual well regulated militia would only serve inside US territory.  Militiamen would also have the right to take their military weapons home with them.
> 
> ...


*National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.*

You don’t seem to know much about how the national guard is set up nor how it’s allowed by the constitution.  You really don’t have a clue what their mission is. Any “militia” that has authority to act anywhere within the US, also has authority to work out side the the US. Why ? Because only the federal govt. can have that authority and also have the responsibility to protect all enemies BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Let’s get a clue. Your wish list has nothing to do with what is actually allowed by our constitution. THERE IS NO MILITIA other then guard units, with the authority to operate out side of TOWN LINES, let alone out side of a state. The guard units are under dual control; by the feds and each governor. Lets stop making foolish remarks.





Image: thenewamerican.com
All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.








						National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Biden is pretty goofy.  Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.
> 
> Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.
> 
> ...


Really, you are amazingly uninformed about the militia. You never served did you ? Look it up instead of  making  up sht.
National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Biden is pretty goofy.  Assault weapons were outlawed for the general public 88 years ago.
> 
> Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.
> 
> ...


----------



## scruffy (Mar 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No it does not. Post the entire 2@ . That post is fraudulent.
> There is one authority that is endowed with the authority by the constitution to be the final authority on the constitution, the SC. They have ALWAYS  maintained  the 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and the rights in the bill of rights are ALL SUBJECT TO REGULATION.
> 
> I have proof.


You have nothing.

Who cares what the robed idiots say? They think buildings are people and money is speech. They're stupid.

Defense of self and family is a natural right. Heller even said so. They're not going to take that away from me, no matter how many idiotic laws they pass.

You can bleat about regulation all you want, I'm just going to ignore you.

You need to go after the gang bangers FIRST, before you come after ordinary American citizens.

Don't like it? Tough. Too bad. Your bleating isn't going to change a single thing.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 16, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Who cares what the robed idiots say?


Typical of gunaholics. They completely dismiss the constitution they brag about. Hilarious. Can’t tell if you guys are ignorant or arrogant. Both…..


----------



## Abatis (Mar 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course, you do understand that every Supreme Court decision concerning firearm regulations say….  People don’t have the “inherent“ right  to  possess a firearm or any of the Bill of Rights. You’re wrong conflating self defense with right to possess a firearm.. You just made up shit to conflate one with the other.





Dagosa said:


> They don’t. There are no inherent rights in the bill of rights. Nine, nada nix.
> Every Supreme Court decision had said so. No exceptions. I guess the Supreme Court has been wrong since the constitution was written.



What specifically are you arguing, saying "there are no inherent rights in the Bill of Rights"?

Are you saying that SCOTUS is silent on the origin of our rights, or that SCOTUS has consistently ruled that our rights were non-existent before the Constitution and are established / granted by government (e.g., the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights)?

Explain please, and feel free to offer some citations to specific SCOTUS decisons on this point, especially referencing the right to arms / 2nd Amendment!


----------



## scruffy (Mar 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Typical of gunaholics. They completely dismiss the constitution they brag about. Hilarious. Can’t tell if you guys are ignorant or arrogant. Both…..


You miss the point. Entirely.

(Which is not at all surprising).

Our Constitution is exceedingly clear. It's written in plain, simple English.

It says: "shall not be infringed".

Now, you tell me - how hard is that to "interpret"?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?


----------



## Abatis (Mar 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> In reality, the opposite occurs. American gun makers are arming the cartels. So you really are just throwing BS out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't for one minute think US sourced guns only flow to cartels from illicit sources . . .  Tens of thousands flow from diversion of guns (and other _*real *_military hardware) the government of the USA sells to the Government of Mexico in US State Department approved direct sales.

I'm having deja vu all over again!  This was a thing in the news back in Obama's time, right after he got in he was jawboning the same thing as Reich is now . . .  That was when Obama's spouted the lie that “*[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States*” . . .

For 2009 the State Department suddenly jacked Mexico's direct sales of AR-15's ten-fold from previous years when the State Department's own audits showed a 26% diversion rate of government sales to the cartels.  People noticed that jump and in response the State Department shut down all public reporting in 2010, never to be mentioned again . . .









						Legal U.S. gun sales to Mexico arming cartels
					

Direct commercial sales of U.S. firearms - skirting Pentagon approval - may be worse than "Fast and Furious" for diverting weapons to criminals




					www.cbsnews.com
				




A distrusting person might think that the idea was to flood Mexico with US sourced guns from direct sales *and* Fast and Furious (_wink, wink_) then be shocked and horrified when cartel violence explodes, which could then be used to propagandize support in the US to enact new gun laws . . .   Nah, no way, only a crazy person would ever think that!

This "guns to Mexico" topic is probably a huge Pandora's Box of hijack here. It's a fun topic and _definitely_ worthwhile to discuss, given Biden is pushing now, with Reich floating the test balloon, the same policies Obama was then.

Like I said, deja vu!


----------



## Abatis (Mar 16, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It's a political bastardization of the term "Assault Rifle" which got its name from the Strumgewehr 44 (literally "Storm Rifle" means assault rifle).
> 
> Assault Rifle parameters include select fire, a mid-sized round, and a detachable magazine.
> 
> ...



As you note, the term "Assault Rifle" has a real definition describing type, function and performance.  Here is a *US DOD book* from 1970, with the definition formally stated:






As you also note, the term "assault weapon" is strictly a political term that only refers to a style of gun, not any particular type or function. 

The _*term's *_function and usefulness is as a political tool and was described by a founding father of the gun control movement, Josh Sugarman. 

The *term's* function and usefulness relies on the general public's ignorance of guns and willingness to be propagandized:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."​​Josh Sugarmann, _Assault Weapons and Accessories in America _(1988)​Firearms Policy Project of the Violence Policy Center​


----------



## scruffy (Mar 16, 2022)

This is just stupid.

EVERY weapon is an assault weapon.

What the hell you gonna pick up a weapon for, if you ain't gonna assault someone with it?

Defensive or not, it's still an assault. You better HOPE it's an assault, if you threaten someone with a weapon and you're not ready to assault them you might not live very long.

Stupid libtards ... 

A baseball bat is an assault weapon. A kitchen knife is an assault weapon. Even Covid, could be an assault weapon.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 16, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ultimate goal of the current pro-Marxist administration is to disarm the public, become an authoritarian, oppressive, persecutory, tyrannical and murderous government.  Once disarmed and draconian laws are enacted and the public protests, the leaders of the protests would be dragged off and disappear and the general crowd dispersed with live fire.  
Once they've become the enemy our founding fathers warned us about, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and Russia will suddenly become our best friends.
At least that's how it's perceived.  Will that really happen?  Not sure.  All we can do is vote for the candidates of our choice and wait.


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 17, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> The ultimate goal of the current pro-Marxist administration is to disarm the public, become an authoritarian, oppressive, persecutory, tyrannical and murderous government.  Once disarmed and draconian laws are enacted and the public protests, the leaders of the protests would be dragged off and disappear and the general crowd dispersed with live fire.
> Once they've become the enemy our founding fathers warned us about, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and Russia will suddenly become our best friends.
> At least that's how it's perceived.  Will that really happen?  Not sure.  All we can do is vote for the candidates of our choice and wait.



~~~~~~
While no one was watching that is exactly what Progressive Maoist/DSA Democrats have been doing to the U.S. population for the last two years. 
It started with the lock down and Fauci and expanded to masks, mandatory vaccinations and 'Wokeness.  
Americans woke up after they found their children were being abused in schools by teachers imposing CRT rather than teaching the three R's.


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 17, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> The ultimate goal of the current pro-Marxist administration is to disarm the public, become an authoritarian, oppressive, persecutory, tyrannical and murderous government.  Once disarmed and draconian laws are enacted and the public protests, the leaders of the protests would be dragged off and disappear and the general crowd dispersed with live fire.
> Once they've become the enemy our founding fathers warned us about, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and Russia will suddenly become our best friends.
> At least that's how it's perceived.  Will that really happen?  Not sure.  All we can do is vote for the candidates of our choice and wait.



~~~~~~
While no one was watching that is exactly what Progressive Maoist/DSA Democrats have been doing to the U.S. population for the last two years. 
It started with the lock down and Fauci and expanded to masks, mandatory vaccinations and 'Wokeness.  
Americans woke up after they found their children were being abused in schools by teachers forcing them to wear masks and imposing CRT rather than teaching the three R's.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 17, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> ~~~~~~
> While no one was watching that is exactly what Progressive Maoist/DSA Democrats have been doing to the U.S. population for the last two years.
> It started with the lock down and Fauci and expanded to masks, mandatory vaccinations and 'Wokeness.
> Americans woke up after they found their children were being abused in schools by teachers forcing them to wear masks and imposing CRT rather than teaching the three R's.


Yeah. When the reading scores go back up to where they were 20 years ago, THEN talk to me about the revisionist bullshit. Till then, keep the critical "theories" out of our schools.


----------



## Doc7505 (Mar 17, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Yeah. When the reading scores go back up to where they were 20 years ago, THEN talk to me about the revisionist bullshit. Till then, keep the critical "theories" out of our schools.




Hey brother I'm with you all the way.
I saw this happening in the 1980's and complained about it then and no one was listening then either. I saw that in my grandsons in the early 2000's again and questioned then also to no avail.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Those aren't assault weapons.  Don't let the Freedom Haters get away with pretending that they are.
> 
> Assault weapons were restricted from the general public 88 years ago.
> 
> ...


No those are automatic weapons

The word "assault" isn;t in there

And FYI you can own a fully automatic weapon all you have to do is pay a 200 dollar tax


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No those are automatic weapons


Assault weapons are a subset of automatic weapons.




Blues Man said:


> The word "assault" isn't in there


Isn't in where?




Blues Man said:


> And FYI you can own a fully automatic weapon all you have to do is pay a 200 dollar tax


Not exactly.  You also have to pay a highly inflated price to buy from an extremely limited pool of weapons.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.


They can call themselves anything they want, but that does not make them the militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.




Dagosa said:


> You don’t seem to know much about how the national guard is set up nor how it’s allowed by the constitution.  You really don’t have a clue what their mission is.


That is incorrect.  I am familiar with those things.




Dagosa said:


> Any “militia” that has authority to act anywhere within the US, also has authority to work out side the the US.


That is incorrect.  The federal role of the militia is limited to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

None of those involve service outside US borders.




Dagosa said:


> Your wish list has nothing to do with what is actually allowed by our constitution.


Actually it does.  It is the Constitution that limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.




Dagosa said:


> Lets stop making foolish remarks.


I never make foolish remarks.




Dagosa said:


> Really, you are amazingly uninformed about the militia.


No I'm not.




Dagosa said:


> You never served did you ?


Sorry, but I prefer to keep my life private.

I've found that whenever a progressive starts asking me about my personal life, they just want to use it to attack me to distract from the discussion at hand.  It doesn't even matter whether the answer is yes or no.  They'll attack me for either answer.

Perhaps you don't mean to do this, but I just make it a universal policy now to never answer questions about my personal life.




Dagosa said:


> Look it up instead of making up sht.


Every single thing that I say is true.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Assault weapons are a subset of automatic weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the National Firearms act of 1934.

And just because an automatic weapon is expensive that in no way means you cannot own one.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> In the National Firearms act of 1934.


It doesn't have to refer to them by name in order to restrict them.  Assault rifles count as machine guns under the NFA's definitions.




Blues Man said:


> And just because an automatic weapon is expensive that in no way means you cannot own one.


There are about 20,000 transferable M-16s.  There are about 4,000 transferable FN FNC sears.  There are about 7,200 transferable HK sears.

Add in the handful of other transferable assault rifles of various kinds, and that makes for about 32,000 transferable assault rifles available to the general public.

No mater who owns those 32,000 weapons, the vast majority of the general public is going to be prevented from legally owning an assault rifle.  Whenever someone new acquires one of those 32,000 weapons, that means someone else is giving theirs up.

I know you can also acquire an assault rifle by becoming a federally licensed machine gun manufacturer and then building your own.  The vast majority of the general public is also not going to be able to start their own machine gun manufacturing business.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't have to refer to them by name in order to restrict them.  Assault rifles count as machine guns under the NFA's definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The term "assault rifle" is meaningless.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The term "assault rifle" is meaningless.


The term has a meaning.  Assault rifles:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault rifles.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault rifles.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The term has a meaning.  Assault rifles:
> 
> a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,
> 
> ...



I'm not going to quibble semantics with you


----------



## The Original Tree (Mar 17, 2022)

*Meanwhile in Ukraine:

You get an AK47!

You get an AK47!

and you get an AK47!











*


----------



## The Original Tree (Mar 17, 2022)

*The Constitution and The Militia Act guarantees that Americans are allowed to possess "Assault Rifles".*


Open Bolt said:


> The term has a meaning.  Assault rifles:
> 
> a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,
> 
> ...


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect. The federal role of the militia is limited to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.
> 
> None of those involve service outside US borders.


You are dreadfully uninformed. . The national guard is regulated militia.
Our guard unit was one of many to serve overseas. Once activated by the Fed, you can be send the unit anywhere in the world.
You have no idea what you are saying, Tucker.

On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20 units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War. Eight units deployed to Vietnam and over 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

The Original Tree said:


> *The Constitution and The Militia Act guarantees that Americans are allowed to possess "Assault Rifles".*


 More made up shit. Only when activated by the gov or federal gov can an organized state militia use “assault weapons” in the defense of our nations. You must be over 200 years old with musket. Dillusional.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The term has a meaning.  Assault rifles:
> 
> a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,
> 
> ...


Bla, bla, bla
The definition  of an assault weapon varies with regulation used to enforce its regulation. The definition used in the military does not mean shit to Mass or Calif. or anyother state who wishes to regulate any firearm they damn well please. THAT right is given to the residents of the every state given to them by the CONSTITUTION of the USA and their state constitution.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You are dreadfully uninformed. .


These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> The national guard is regulated militia.


Not in the eyes of the US Constitution.




Dagosa said:


> Our guard unit was one of many to serve overseas. Once activated by the Fed, you can be send the unit anywhere in the world.
> On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20 units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War. Eight units deployed to Vietnam and over 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone.


These deployments are allowed because the National Guard is part of a standing army and is not part of the militia.




Dagosa said:


> More made up shit.


The Original Tree did not make anything up.  The Second Amendment is quite real.




Dagosa said:


> Only when activated by the gov or federal gov can an organized state militia use “assault weapons” in the defense of our nations.


Of course if the militia were defending the nation in an active war, the militia would be acting under the orders of the government.

Is anyone disputing this?




Dagosa said:


> You must be over 200 years old with musket.


The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons.  People have the right to have modern weapons.




Dagosa said:


> Dillusional.


Not at all.  The Second Amendment is quite real.




Dagosa said:


> Bla, bla, bla


Facts are facts whether you like them or not.




Dagosa said:


> The definition  of an assault weapon varies with regulation used to enforce its regulation. The definition used in the military does not mean shit to Mass or Calif. or any other state who wishes to regulate any firearm they damn well please.


Fraudulent definitions can vary all they like.  The true definition remains the same.




Dagosa said:


> THAT right is given to the residents of the every state given to them by the CONSTITUTION of the USA and their state constitution.


That is incorrect.  Even under the restrictive scope of the Heller ruling, states are allowed to restrict guns only if the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

No compelling government interest = restriction not allowed.


----------



## badbob85037 (May 26, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FUCK JOE and you should brush up on your firearms as you almost sound as bad as a gun grabber


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s hilarious. You  know nothing about constitutional.  The Heller ruling allowed an unlocked  handgun ( not assault rifle) only if the owner was permitted and the handgun was registered. It’s funny how you  support a decision  that supports registering ALL HANDGUNS.


----------



## JWBooth (May 28, 2022)

#FJB


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 28, 2022)

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 651028
> #FJB



Got any links to back up what your bullshit meme says, or is this just more slander of Biden because Trump lost?


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> FUCK JOE and you should brush up on your firearms as you almost sound as bad as a gun grabber


Sounds like you just came out of the closet.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 28, 2022)

protectionist said:


> AR-15 is just an ordinary rifle. Fires ONE shot with each pull of the trigger.
> 
> And yes there CAN BE times when you look out your window and see that you DO NEED a high capacity magazine, if not a fully automatic rifle (machine gun) >>
> 
> ...


Another paranoid dolt.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 28, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What well regulated militia do you belong to?


----------



## protectionist (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Another paranoid dolt.


But not you - until the day a criminal accosts you with a knife, or some other weapon.  That's when your head comes out of your ass.


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons. People have the right to have modern weapons.


Strange. Since the second amendment was adjudicated in every decision, black powder weapons were generally  excluded from regulation as are more modern firearms. That pretty much covers the weapons of the day. Every decision involving other firearms, there is no ABSOLUTE  right to their possession. None, ever.


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> What well regulated militia do you belong to?


There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units.  I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Another paranoid dolt.


Wrong.  What he said is quite reasonable.




Who_Me? said:


> What well regulated militia do you belong to?


I'm going to assume from your question that you ignorantly believe that only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms.  Otherwise your question would be weird and wildly off topic.

You are wrong.  It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms, not members of a well regulated militia.

(As an aside, not that it matters to the discussion, but I bet you also are ignorant of the meaning of "well regulated".)


----------



## Open Bolt (May 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s hilarious. You  know nothing about constitutional.


Wrong.  I know everything about the Constitution.  That's why you cannot point out a single untrue statement in anything that I wrote.

I think I mentioned before that your empty and untrue accusations of ignorance are a poor substitute for an actual argument.

It's OK if you can't make any arguments.  But in a situation where you have nothing to say, it is better to stay silent instead of falsely accusing better-informed people of ignorance.




Dagosa said:


> The Heller ruling allowed an unlocked handgun (not assault rifle) only if the owner was permitted and the handgun was registered.


I assume that what you meant to say is that the Heller ruling allows the government to require permits and registration.

The Heller ruling itself does not require it.

Assault rifles were all but banned nearly 90 years ago.  They have not been much of an issue ever since.




Dagosa said:


> It’s funny how you support a decision that supports registering ALL HANDGUNS.


I think we've been registering guns on Form 4473s for at least 50 years now.




Dagosa said:


> Strange. Since the second amendment was adjudicated in every decision, black powder weapons were generally excluded from regulation as are more modern firearms. That pretty much covers the weapons of the day.


Why would that be strange?




Dagosa said:


> Every decision involving other firearms, there is no ABSOLUTE  right to their possession. None, ever.


That depends on what you mean by an absolute right.  Any law that conflicts with the Second Amendment is absolutely unconstitutional.

On the other hand, laws that pass muster with Strict Scrutiny are permitted.  Perhaps that's what you meant by no absolute right.




Dagosa said:


> There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units.  I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.


More false accusations of ignorance because you have no real arguments to make.

And speaking of ignorance, do you know what "well regulated" means?


----------



## Who_Me? (May 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units.  I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.


The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 28, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong.  What he said is quite reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Something being in proper working order."  The people on this thread obviously do not qualify.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> "Something being in proper working order."


OK.  So you do know.




Who_Me? said:


> The people on this thread obviously do not qualify.


That's OK.  They don't need to qualify.  No one here is trying to claim that they are in a militia.

Again, it is *the people* who have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.


The National Guard Bureau disagrees with that foolish post.  
You have no idea WTF you are talking about. You’re  delusional. Guard units are dual purpose.  The state ( gov) controls the disposition of the guard units when not on active duty. The guard is the regulated militia when not on active duty. You fool. The regular Army IS NEVER UNDER STATE CONTROL. You obviously never served have you….The guard units can be called into action for any number of municipal services by even local request. That’s exactly what a militia is for. The regular army IS NEVER under local request for services except by federal declaration. The guard units can ROUTINELY work with local authorities. There is no such thing as a regulated militia other then guard units. .


10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​The *National Guard Bureau*is the federal instrument responsible for the administration of the National Guard established by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. It was created by the Militia Act of 1903.


----------



## Dagosa (May 28, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.




*All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246.* National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
Branch: U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force
Country: United States
Part of: National Guard Bureau
Size: 443,543


----------



## Open Bolt (May 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The National Guard Bureau disagrees with that foolish post.


A factual post is never foolish.  And when someone disagrees with reality, they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> You have no idea WTF you are talking about. You’re  delusional.


Given his factually correct post, that is unlikely to be the case.




Dagosa said:


> The state ( gov) controls the disposition of the guard units when not on active duty. The guard is the regulated militia when not on active duty. You fool. The regular Army IS NEVER UNDER STATE CONTROL. You obviously never served have you….The guard units can be called into action for any number of municipal services by even local request. That’s exactly what a militia is for. The regular army IS NEVER under local request for services except by federal declaration. The guard units can ROUTINELY work with local authorities.


Despite the personal attacks, none of that changes the fact that National Guardsmen are sworn members of the US Army.




Dagosa said:


> There is no such thing as a regulated militia other then guard units..


That is doubly wrong.

Not only is the National Guard part of the US Army, but if we put machine guns in the hands of state defense forces, they would count as part of the militia.




Dagosa said:


> *All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246.*


Are you under the impression that statutes overrule the Constitution?

It really doesn't matter much whether the National Guard is the militia or not.  The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.  But for what it's worth, the National Guard are part of a standing army.  That means they are not the militia as far as the US Constitution is concerned.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> A factual post is never foolish.  And when someone disagrees with reality, they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha.
So you lied. You guys claim the guard is not the militia. You lied. I have the reference to the website.
For the umpteenth time. The guard is under DUAl control. You can’t read ? That’s who served in the Guard AFTER active duty know this shit. Did you ever serve your country ? You should be ashamed lying about Army Guard, the Air Force Guard and the role they p,ay as a MILITIA . The guard can be activated to serve by the president and also by the gov of each state to serve as a local militant ia.

It’s NO DIFFERENT then when the constitution was written. Enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

You lied about the role the guard plays. All guardsmen and women have to be activated by the services for training. and fighting. When by the president, like in the earlier days, the militia fought foreign enemies. How numb are you guys. The militia then becomes part of the standing army. When deactivated, they are under control of the gov of each state for local service. That’s the regulated militia..
Guardsmen and women have died serving out country in wars and service. . You should be ashamed for not recognizing that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha.
> So you lied. You guys claim the guard is not the militia. You lied.
> For the umpteenth time. The guard is under DUAl control. You can’t read ? That’s who served in the Guard AFTER active duty know this shit. Did you ever serve your country ? You should be ashamed lying about Army Guard, the Air Force Guard and the role they p,ay as a MILITIA .


No dumbass the guard is not the Militia 
You have the full time military, the reserves, the national guard and the unorganized militia.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It really doesn't matter much whether the National Guard is the militia or not


Yes it does ! READTHE CONSTITUTION.
Read the 2a you fool.
*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.

Why are you denigrating those who served our country when it’s the 2a that provided that service. It’s all part of ONE SENTENCE. A free state in the constitution is BOTH  the state and federal gov.
We train our guardsmen and women to serve our country in this DUAL ROLE. The early militia fought the fking British. Wtf are you denying it ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No dumbass the guard is not the Militia


You can’t read my references ? The guard units are the regulated militia. Those who served know this shit. YOU DON’T. You are denigrating the guard units many of whom gave their lives in service to this country, defending their country from enemies.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No dumbass the guard is not the Militia
> You have the full time military, the reserves, the national guard and the unorganized militia.


You are ignorant. You don’t even know what WELL REGULATED MILITIA in the 2a represents do you. Those who spent years in the Guard defending and dying for our country when activated and serving our individual states KNOW THIS shit. You’re lying. You can’t even read the 2a.

The early Militias like they do today stood with the standing Army in defense of this country and many died doing it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t read my references ? The guard units are the regulated militia. Those who served know this shit. YOU DON’T. You are denigrating the guard units many of whom gave their lives in service to this country, defending their country from enemies.


AFSC81150 was my speciality code 
Once again Regular, Reserve National guard and unorganized militia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You are ignorant. You don’t even know what WELL REGULATED MILITIA in the 2a represents do you. Those who spent years in the Guard defending and dying for our country when activated and serving our individual states KNOW THIS shit. You’re lying. You can’t even read the 2a.
> 
> The early Militias like they do today stood with the standing Army in defense of this country and many died doing it.


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

(b) The classes of the militia are—

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

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


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No dumbass the guard is not the Militia
> You have the full time military, the reserves, the national guard and the unorganized militia.


By the height of the Vietnam War in the late 1960's, *the U.S. Air Force had 1,900 medics conducting medical operations in Southeast Asia*.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> AFSC81150 was my speciality code
> Once again Regular, Reserve National guard and unorganized militia.


You obviously forgot. I was a Guardsman for 10 years after active duty. WE WERE THE REGULATED MILTIA. We were activated. We served in WAR.  We also served out state as milita service units. Over 1900 Air Force medics served in Vietnam, some were activated guardsmen. 

You talk like the militia did not fight in wars !


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AFSC81150 was my speciality code
> Once again Regular, Reserve National guard and unorganized militia.


YOU  are a confused little puppy. Reservist and guardsmen are not necessarily  the same . ITS THE GUARDSMEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE A DUAL ROLE.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> By the height of the Vietnam War in the late 1960's, *the U.S. Air Force had 1,900 medics conducting medical operations in Southeast Asia*.
> 
> You obviously forgot. I was a Guardsman for 10 years after active duty. WE WERE THE REGULATED MILTIA.


I honestly don't give a fuck 
You were a national guardsman 
And the rest of what you wrote has a relevance to what?


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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


So you’re now agreeing with me !


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> YOU  are a confused little puppy. Reservist and guardsmen are not necessarily  the same . ITS THE GUARDSMEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE A DUAL ROLE.


Funny shit when you try to make up something that was never said. I said 
You have the full time military
The Reserve's
The national guard 
And the unorganized militia. 
No do everybody a favor 
Stop drunk posting


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So you’re now agreeing with me !


Full time military
Reserve 
National guard 
The unorganized militia


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Funny shit when you try to make up something that was never said. I said
> You have the full time military
> The Reserve's
> The national guard
> ...


The regulated militia in the 2a is the “full filled”  in your own post by the guardsmen and women. 


bigrebnc1775 said:


> No dumbass the guard is not the Militia
> You have the full time military, the reserves, the national guard and the unorganized militia.


Your quote. Guardsmen and women ARE the  regulated militia. Look at your own reference !  
Do you really know what REGULATED means ? The state’s only activate regulated militia which are only trained guardsmen and women. Unorganized militia are good for what ? They aren’t even activated by states. If they exist at all it’s only in communities. Name one state that activates unorganized militia. They draft and then train them for regular service and become part of standing  army. 

You are wrong about guardsmen not being the regulated militia.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Full time military
> Reserve
> National guard
> The unorganized militia


The National Guard are the regulated militia in the 2a. Show me the “unorganized militia “ in the 2a. 
Where is it mentioned ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The National Guard are the regulated militia in the 2a. Show me the “unorganized militia “ in the 2a.
> Where is it mentioned ?


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

(b) The classes of the militia are—

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

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


			https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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


I guess you don’t know what the 2a is. I asked where the unorganized militia is mentioned in the second amendment. 

You claimed the Guard was not the militia. Your own reference says it is.


----------



## justoffal (May 29, 2022)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 485502


There are a lot of dots in the oceans....those are Islands?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I guess you don’t know what the 2a is. I asked where the unorganized militia is mentioned in the second amendment.
> 
> You claimed the Guard was not the militia. Your own reference says it is.


The guard is the guard 
The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The guard is the guard
> The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized.


Continually posting copy paste coverup isn’t working.  The Guard units are militia. I’ve referenced all that before…..


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Continually posting coverup isn’t working.  The Guard units are militia.


I believe you should stick with your useless old post how do you like this pic of me type threads. Because you are way out of your league peewee. Dude calls facts he does not like cover-up?  The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I believe you should stick with your useless old post how do you like this pic of me type threads. Because you are way out of your league peewee. Dude calls facts he does not like cover-up?  The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


Dude, you’re the one who said the Guard is not the militia. You’ve been shown a fraud since that post. You were wrong. I don’t know why you keep reposing my references to prove it.
The unorganized militia is useless. They have no training or authority outside of the local community they reside. . The standing  armies and reserve guard units contain support personnel that foolish  little unorganized militia bands don’t even account for. They’re just toy soldiers playing games.

But keep with the act. You’re funny.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Dude, you’re the one who said the Guard is not the militia. You’ve been shown a fraud since that post. You were wrong. I don’t know why you keep reposing my references to prove it.
> The unorganized militia is useless. They have no training or authority outside of the local community they reside. . The standing  armies and reserve guard units contain support personnel that foolish  little unorganized militia bands don’t even account for. They’re just toy soldiers playing games.
> 
> But keep with the act. You’re funny.


The guard is not the Militia the militia act of 1903 ended the Militia and created the national guard and the unorganized militia.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


That’s another wrong statement. The militia is NOT ENDED. 
The Guard Units  fill the need for the constitutionally required  regulated militia. Why are you mak8ng these uninformed states. You can’t read ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s another wrong statement. The militia is NOT ENDED.
> The Guard Units  fill the need for the constitutionally required  regulated militia. Why are you mak8ng these uninformed states. You can’t read ?


No it's not try again.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The guard is not the Militia the militia act of 1903 ended the Militia and created the national guard and the unorganized militia.


Dude. You are a neophyte. You’re a  infused puppy. Your verbiage is lacking. We still have A MILITIA. Read the 2a and the your own references. The Guard is the regulated militia and the unorganized militia is the qualified peoples in the populous that can be use as a base for selective service.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I believe you should stick with your useless old post how do you like this pic of me type threads. Because you are way out of your league peewee. Dude calls facts he does not like cover-up?  The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


You have no proof. Read your own references. They make you look foolish.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I believe you should stick with your useless old post how do you like this pic of me type threads. Because you are way out of your league peewee. Dude calls facts he does not like cover-up?  The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


It’s a lie made up by gunaholics to pretend that the 2a doesn’t refer to a regulated militia. Obviously, the Guard bureau disagrees with you as does the guard units themselves and every gov. defence  agency.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's not try again.


The Guard is subject to the state call up by  governors in every state in the union. The militia act codified under what circumstances the feds could finance and call up the same units. Are you that foolish ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


For some stupid reason, you have a hard time understanding the printed word.


----------



## Couchpotato (May 29, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Outside of a war zone, does a person REALLY need the ability to throw 30 rounds down range in less than 20 seconds?
> 
> Me?  I'm retired U.S. Navy, and on one tour was also a member of the Security Force (basically base police).  And, while we had .45's and then switched to 9mm, which are semi automatic weapons, we never had more than 10 rounds of ammo in the gun at any time.  And, it's really easy to reload a 9mm, which can be done in 2 seconds or less.
> 
> But, our Gunny also taught us ammo control, meaning shoot 2 or 3 rounds, stop, reassess the situation, and fire another 2-3 if required.  When we went to the range, we had to fire from several different positions (standing, through a window, through a door, behind a barrier, etc.), and each station required only a certain amount of rounds.  If you got to the last couple of stations and ran out of ammo before completing them, the Gunny had your ass for lunch.


The M9 Beretta uses a 15 rd magazine.  Why did you only load 10 in it?    And it's not called ammo control, it's called trigger control.      Me thinks just maybe you're talking out your ass.


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2022)




----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The 1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia and created the unorganized militia which has no connection with the national guard.


Ha ha
Where does it say in the act that the militia is ended ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> Where does it say in the act that the militia is ended ?





Dagosa said:


> Dude. You are a neophyte. You’re a  infused puppy. Your verbiage is lacking. We still have A MILITIA. Read the 2a and the your own references. The Guard is the regulated militia and the unorganized militia is the qualified peoples in the populous that can be use as a base for selective service.





Dagosa said:


> You have no proof. Read your own references. They make you look foolish.





Dagosa said:


> It’s a lie made up by gunaholics to pretend that the 2a doesn’t refer to a regulated militia. Obviously, the Guard bureau disagrees with you as does the guard units themselves and every gov. defence  agency.
> 
> The Guard is subject to the state call up by  governors in every state in the union. The militia act codified under what circumstances the feds could finance and call up the same units. Are you that foolish ?





Dagosa said:


> For some stupid reason, you have a hard time understanding the printed word.


Triggered


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Triggered


“1903 militia act started the national guard. Which ended the Militia”
Your quote. You forgot to tell the Guard  Bureau.
Tell me how the Militia Act can end the Militia.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The guard is not the Militia the militia act of 1903 ended the Militia and created the national guard and the unorganized militia.


The unorganized militia ? Wow, sounds like a sound defensive policy. Tell us how being unorganized contributes to our national defense. I know you guys favor the less educated and ignorant, now you’re claiming the unorganized is a key to national defense. This is hilarious.
What are the first four  words in the 2a ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 651276


The same guy who organized a campaign that  garnered 7 million more votes and  swamped Trump in the last election.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The guard is the guard
> The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized.


Maybe you should look up the word “ codify”. It has nothing to do with eliminating any militia.


----------



## Turtlesoup (May 29, 2022)

CremeBrulee said:


> Am I the only one that finds humor in the fact some people think magazine capacity means trying to put that many rounds on target?


Not funny...but very scary that are obsessed with guns but don't have any clue about even the basics.


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The same guy who organized a campaign that  garnered 7 million more votes and  swamped Trump in the last election.


The same guy that got his Chicom buddies to unleash a bio weapon so that the Democrat Party could use the pandemic as an excuse to create fraudulent mail in and harvested ballots to be counted by Democrats in Democrat controlled swing districts.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> The same guy that got his Chicom buddies to unleash a bio weapon so that the Democrat Party could use the pandemic as an excuse to create fraudulent mail in and harvested ballots to be counted by Democrats in Democrat controlled swing districts.


Oh, another conspiracy theory. Boy, you do make up shit. Keep them coming for shits and giggles.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> The same guy that got his Chicom buddies to unleash a bio weapon so that the Democrat Party could use the pandemic as an excuse to create fraudulent mail in and harvested ballots to be counted by Democrats in Democrat controlled swing districts.


Your idiotic posts complexly matches your avatar with it’s white supremest based bias.


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, another conspiracy theory. Boy, you do make up shit. Keep them coming for shits and giggles.


It is not a conspiracy when it is reality.  Moon Bats never accept reality.  That is one of the reasons we call them Moon Bats.


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Your idiotic posts complexly matches your avatar with it’s white supremest based bias.


I have that avatar to trigger you stupid uneducated Moon Bats.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> It is not a conspiracy when it is reality.  Moon Bats never accept reality.  That is one of the reasons we call them Moon Bats.


What reality ? You’re afraid of Rick Manning like you were Hillary. I get it.


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> It is not a conspiracy when it is reality.  Moon Bats never accept reality.  That is one of the reasons we call them Moon Bats.


Have seen no reality form your white supremest based avatar. Still waiting. What did Ricky Manning do to you that makes you quiver in shoes ? Did he wear tan suits ? How about Eck ? Does he scare you too ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 29, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> Not funny...but very scary that are obsessed with guns but don't have any clue about even the basics.


The basics ? Like what ? Does it make one an expert because he knows how to field strip a Glock in the dark ? It’s hilarious listening to gun  a holics brag about their expertise and still think the answer to gun violence is……more guns in the hands of literally, any breathing humanoid.


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2022)




----------



## Open Bolt (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So you lied.


No lie.  Everything that I said is true.

Note that even if I had made an error, an honest mistake is not a lie.  Not that I made any errors.




Dagosa said:


> You guys claim the guard is not the militia.


Well, it isn't.  They are sworn members of a standing army.




Dagosa said:


> You lied.


No lie.  Everything that I said is true.




Dagosa said:


> I have the reference to the website.


Referring to falsehoods on the internet does not make them true.




Dagosa said:


> For the umpteenth time. The guard is under DUAl control.


Irrelevant.  They are still sworn members of a standing army.




Dagosa said:


> You can’t read ?


Of course.  But I can also recognize and disregard falsehoods.




Dagosa said:


> That’s who served in the Guard AFTER active duty know this shit.


When people "know" something that is not true, they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> You should be ashamed lying about Army Guard, the Air Force Guard and the role they play as a MILITIA.


Everything that I said is true.




Dagosa said:


> The guard can be activated to serve by the president and also by the gov of each state to serve as a local militant ia.


That's nice.  But they are still sworn members of a standing army.




Dagosa said:


> It’s NO DIFFERENT then when the constitution was written. Enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.


No, it's quite different.  Back then there was an actual militia.




Dagosa said:


> You lied about the role the guard plays.


No lie.  Everything that I said is true.




Dagosa said:


> All guardsmen and women have to be activated by the services for training. and fighting. When by the president, like in the earlier days, the militia fought foreign enemies. How numb are you guys. The militia then becomes part of the standing army.


That is incorrect.  A militia never becomes part of a standing army.

I've never found that telling the truth numbs me.




Dagosa said:


> When deactivated, they are under control of the gov of each state for local service. That’s the regulated militia..


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Guardsmen and women have died serving out country in wars and service. . You should be ashamed for not recognizing that.


Now that's an example of a lie.  I have never refused to recognize that Guardsmen have died serving our country.




Dagosa said:


> Yes it does !


Not really.  The question of whether the National Guard counts as a militia is nothing but a sideshow.

People are telling you that you are wrong because you are wrong.  But it doesn't really matter that you are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> READ THE CONSTITUTION.


The Constitution does not say that it matters whether or not the National Guard is the militia.

(But the Constitution does say that the National Guard are not the militia.)




Dagosa said:


> Read the 2a you fool.
> *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.


The Second Amendment does not say that it matters whether or not the National Guard are the militia.




Dagosa said:


> Why are you denigrating those who served our country


I'm not.  Why are you falsely accusing me of weird nonsense?




Dagosa said:


> when it’s the 2a that provided that service.


No it isn't.




Dagosa said:


> It’s all part of ONE SENTENCE.


Actually the Second Amendment has two separate parts.

Although it is hard to see what that has to do with the fact that you are wrong about the National Guard being the militia.




Dagosa said:


> A free state in the constitution is BOTH  the state and federal gov.


OK.  And...?




Dagosa said:


> We train our guardsmen and women to serve our country in this DUAL ROLE. The early militia fought the fking British. Wtf are you denying it ?


I'm not denying either sentence.  Why do you falsely accuse me of weird nonsense?




Dagosa said:


> You can’t read my references ?


Your references are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> The guard units are the regulated militia.


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Those who served know this shit.


When people "know" something that is not true, they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> YOU DON’T.


It is good to not "know" things that are not true.




Dagosa said:


> You are denigrating the guard units many of whom gave their lives in service to this country, defending their country from enemies.


No he isn't.




Dagosa said:


> You are ignorant.


His factual and accurate posts suggest otherwise.




Dagosa said:


> You don’t even know what WELL REGULATED MILITIA in the 2a represents do you.


I bet he does.  I certainly do.

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Those who spent years in the Guard defending and dying for our country when activated and serving our individual states KNOW THIS shit.


When people "know" something that is not true, they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> You’re lying.


That is incorrect.  He is telling the truth.

Note that even if he had made an error, an honest mistake is not a lie.  Not that he made any errors.




Dagosa said:


> You can’t even read the 2a.


Oh nonsense.  Of course he can.




Dagosa said:


> The early Militias like they do today stood with the standing Army in defense of this country and many died doing it.


There are no militias today.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You obviously forgot. I was a Guardsman for 10 years after active duty. WE WERE THE REGULATED MILTIA.


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> We were activated. We served in WAR.  We also served out state as milita service units. Over 1900 Air Force medics served in Vietnam, some were activated guardsmen.


They were sworn members of a standing army.




Dagosa said:


> The regulated militia in the 2a is the “full filled”  in your own post by the guardsmen and women.
> Your quote. Guardsmen and women ARE the  regulated militia. Look at your own reference !


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Do you really know what REGULATED means ?


The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> The state’s only activate regulated militia which are only trained guardsmen and women. Unorganized militia are good for what ? They aren’t even activated by states. If they exist at all it’s only in communities. Name one state that activates unorganized militia. They draft and then train them for regular service and become part of standing  army.
> You are wrong about guardsmen not being the regulated militia.


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> The National Guard are the regulated militia in the 2a.


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Show me the “unorganized militia “ in the 2a.
> Where is it mentioned ?


They would count as part of the people.




Dagosa said:


> The Guard units are militia. I’ve referenced all that before…..


That is incorrect.  Guardsmen are sworn members of a standing army.




Dagosa said:


> Dude, you’re the one who said the Guard is not the militia. You’ve been shown a fraud since that post.


Nonsense.  Telling the truth does not make someone a fraud.




Dagosa said:


> You were wrong.


That is incorrect.  You are the one who is wrong.




Dagosa said:


> That’s another wrong statement. The militia is NOT ENDED.


That is incorrect.  There is no longer any militia in the US.




Dagosa said:


> We still have A MILITIA.


No we don't.




Dagosa said:


> The Guard is the regulated militia and the unorganized militia is the qualified peoples in the populous that can be use as a base for selective service.


There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> You have no proof.


The fact that Guardsmen are sworn members of a standing army is proof.




Dagosa said:


> It’s a lie made up by gunaholics to pretend that the 2a doesn’t refer to a regulated militia.


No.  The truth is not a lie.

The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.




Dagosa said:


> Obviously, the Guard bureau disagrees with you as does the guard units themselves and every gov. defence agency.


They are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> For some stupid reason, you have a hard time understanding the printed word.


Pointing out that you are wrong does not mean that he cannot understand what you say.




Dagosa said:


> Tell me how the Militia Act can end the Militia.


By no longer providing for the existence of an actual militia.


----------



## Dagosa (May 30, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".
> 
> The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.
> 
> ...


How many times do you have to lie ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 30, 2022)

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 651675


Says the Trump Humper who supports a fraud who suggested we nuke storms.


----------



## JWBooth (May 30, 2022)




----------



## Dagosa (May 30, 2022)

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 652098


Private sales  do already. Where have you been living, under a rock ? Unlike voting, gun buyers don’t have to register before they can buy. It’s much harder to vote then buy a gun. Been under that rock a long time ?


----------



## Dagosa (May 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There is no such thing as "the regulated militia".
> 
> The term "well-regulated" is an adjective that means that a militia is effective and in good working order.
> 
> ...


Gee, that’s funny. The guard bureau still thinks it fills the constitutional needs of the militia. Amazing.


----------



## JWBooth (May 31, 2022)




----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The basics ? Like what ? Does it make one an expert because he knows how to field strip a Glock in the dark ? It’s hilarious listening to gun  a holics brag about their expertise and still think the answer to gun violence is……more guns in the hands of literally, any breathing humanoid.




Except for 1.1 million Americans a year, it was the answer to criminal violence of all kinds...rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, beatings....and yes, you ignorant dumb ass....even mass public shootings...

West Virginia mass shooting stopped...

*People like this West Virginia woman who stopped what could have become a mass shooting just a day after Uvalde.*


> *Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
> Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday near the Vista View Apartment complex. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
> Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
> “Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
> Officers did not go into detail, but said Butler did have an extensive criminal history.*


*Now, doesn’t that sound like an attempted mass shooting to you?
But it wasn’t.
It wasn’t because the woman was there, had a gun, and had the will to use it at that crucial moment. Hazelett noted the woman won’t be facing any charges, which she shouldn’t.

West Virginia armed citizen stops potential mass shooting
=======



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...-gun-violence-awareness-day.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face. 

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered. 

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side.

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …

California Woman Shoots Machete-Wielding Burglar She Found in Her Closet - The Truth About Guns*
_*=============*_


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 31, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> What well regulated militia do you belong to?


Why does this matter?


----------



## JWBooth (May 31, 2022)




----------



## marvin martian (May 31, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> *Biden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I ordered a 100-round mag for my M4 as a "fuck you" to Fascist Grandpa.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 31, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> I ordered a 100-round mag for my M4 as a "fuck you" to Fascist Grandpa.


Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?  Are you that paranoid and afraid?


----------



## marvin martian (May 31, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?  Are you that paranoid and afraid?



^^^Says the guy who opposes virtually all of my civil rights. Tell us how you supported vaccine mandates, Nazi...


----------



## Dagosa (May 31, 2022)

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 652282


He’s been protected by F15s and B52s and nukes much of his life too. Does that mean they should be sold in private sales to anyone who isn’t qualified. The b52 first flew 69 years ago, the f15 over 50 years ago, nukes since ww2.


----------



## Dagosa (May 31, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> ^^^Says the guy who opposes virtually all of my civil rights. Tell us how you supported vaccine mandates, Nazi...


Well, yes if you’re as irrational as your posts. All your rights are qualified and none is absolute. So yes, you  need to qualify to practice all your rights.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 31, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> ^^^Says the guy who opposes virtually all of my civil rights. Tell us how you supported vaccine mandates, Nazi...


Why in the name of heaven would you need high capacity magazines?


----------



## Dagosa (May 31, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Why in the name of heaven would you need high capacity magazines?


He’s worried about being attacked by a team  of wild hogs  in heat.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> How many times do you have to lie ?


Everything that I said is true.  That is why you couldn't point out any falsehoods in my posts.




Dagosa said:


> Gee, that’s funny. The guard bureau still thinks it fills the constitutional needs of the militia. Amazing.


When people believe something that is not true, they are wrong.




Dagosa said:


> All your rights are qualified and none is absolute.


Constitutional rights are always absolute.  If a law conflicts with a constitutional right, the law is null and void.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 1, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?


He does not sound stupid at all.

A well-made 100 round magazine will serve him well.




Who_Me? said:


> Are you that paranoid and afraid?


Buying guns and magazines does not mean that someone is paranoid or afraid.




Who_Me? said:


> Why in the name of heaven would you need high capacity magazines?


You're using serf-speak here with your talk of need.

This is not the UK.  Americans are not serfs.

Americans do what we want, and we never justify ourselves to anyone.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 1, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> I ordered a 100-round mag for my M4 as a "fuck you" to Fascist Grandpa.


And a binary trigger.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 1, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound?  Are you that paranoid and afraid?


Because Biden doesn't actually plan to ban high-cap magazines?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 1, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Why in the name of heaven would you need high capacity magazines?


Invalid question.
His exercise of his rights is not dependent on a demonstration of need.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Note that even if I had made an error, an honest mistake is not a lie. Not that I made any errors.


Making up shit is not an honest mistake.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because Biden doesn't actually plan to ban high-cap magazines?


Hopefully. But democrats don’t have the balls to do what they should.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 652433


That makes no sense. Everyone around him is licensed, permitted and trained to carry the firearms they do. For some silly reason you think that’s hypocritical ? . It’s exactly what sane people want.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> When people believe something that is not true, they are wrong.


There you go. Are you claiming the militia no longer exists ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Constitutional rights are always absolute. If a law conflicts with a constitutional right, the law is null and void.


Well, that’s a lie. Unless  you claim that the SC is wrong and you know more then they do. Then you could  argue you didn’t lie, because being a lunatic is your defense.
You talk big, as all bloviators do.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 1, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Americans do what we want, and we never justify ourselves to anyone.


No you don’t and yes you do. There are firearm laws in every state the Union. 
There are personal, private and commercial constraints in every citizen in the US regulating our behavior where society as exist in the US seems appropriate. You want to do anything you want, move out of America. It’s the same in any industrialized


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Making up shit is not an honest mistake.


Everything that I've said is completely true.




Dagosa said:


> There you go. Are you claiming the militia no longer exists ?


Yes.  And I am correct to say so.




Dagosa said:


> Well, that’s a lie.


Wrong.  It's the truth.




Dagosa said:


> Unless you claim that the SC is wrong and you know more then they do.


That's hypothetically possible.  But in this case the Supreme Court agrees with me.




Dagosa said:


> Then you could argue you didn’t lie, because being a lunatic is your defense.


The reason why I didn't lie is because what I said is true.




Dagosa said:


> For some silly reason you think that’s hypocritical ?


For the reason that it _is_ hypocritical.




Dagosa said:


> It’s exactly what sane people want.


No.  It's what progressives want.  I'd hesitate to equate progressivism with sanity.




Dagosa said:


> Hopefully. But democrats don’t have the balls to do what they should.


The Democrats do not have a choice.  They are able to do only what the NRA allows them to do.

The NRA will not allow the Democrats to violate people's civil liberties.

And rightly so.  Democrats shouldn't be trying to violate people's civil liberties.




Dagosa said:


> No you don’t and yes you do.


Wrong.  If we want to go buy a gun, we go buy a gun.

We do not justify ourselves to you or to anyone else.  It's none of your business why someone chooses to buy a given gun.




Dagosa said:


> There are firearm laws in every state the Union.


None of those laws prevent us from going out and buying guns if we want to.

None of those laws requires us to justify ourselves.

If any law did so, the Supreme Court would not hesitate to strike it down.




Dagosa said:


> There are personal, private and commercial constraints in every citizen in the US regulating our behavior where society as exist in the US seems appropriate.


Wrong.  You don't get to control people no matter how much you want to.




Dagosa said:


> You want to do anything you want, move out of America.


No.  You don't get to decide what I do.




Dagosa said:


> It’s the same in any industrialized


Not in America.  We're free here.  And you will never be able to change that,


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 2, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Everything that I've said is completely true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Next time you make up shit, click your heals together three times and think about Oz.
You're comments are  full of shit. You’re rights are subject regress when they infringe upon the rights of others. That’s America foolish. You are highly regulated when it comes to activities that threaten the rights of others. You’re just a bloviating braggart.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Next time you make up shit, click your heals together three times and think about Oz.


Everything that I've said is true.




Dagosa said:


> You're comments are  full of shit.


Everything that I've said is true.




Dagosa said:


> You’re rights are subject regress when they infringe upon the rights of others.


Rights do not infringe on other rights.  That's just nonsense that progressives concocted to make it sound OK when they violate people's civil liberties for fun.




Dagosa said:


> You are highly regulated when it comes to activities that threaten the rights of others.


True, but the right to keep and bear arms does not threaten anyone.




Dagosa said:


> You’re just a bloviating braggart.


That is incorrect.  What I do is post facts that correct your untrue statements.

On the other hand, I do agree that it's a bit of a sideshow.  It doesn't actually matter whether the National Guard is actually the militia or not.  So my correcting of your untrue statements on the matter probably falls within the realm of nitpicking.

Perhaps instead of pointing out that the National Guard is not the militia, what I should be doing is asking why it matters whether or not the National Guard is the militia.

We may as well be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  No matter which one of us is right, why does it even matter?


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 3, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Rights do not infringe on other rights. That's just nonsense that progressives concocted to make it sound OK when they violate people's civil liberties for fun.


Wrong. You do not have a right to carry a firearm if you’re a convicted felon. You don’t have a right to posses  firearm in a public place that  informs to stipulated gun free areas by state, local and federal decree.

You don’t even have a right to go anywhere and say anything* you want in a private place without permission. You can’t practice many of your rights in my domicile if I don’t want you to. It’s quite simple. My rights supercede   yours in many  cases.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 3, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong. You do not have a right to carry a firearm if you’re a convicted felon. You don’t have a right to posses firearm in a public place that  informs to stipulated gun free areas by state, local and federal decree.
> You don’t even have a right to go anywhere and say anything* you want in a private place without permission. You can’t practice many of your rights in my domicile if I don’t want you to. It’s quite simple. My rights supercede yours in many cases.


Those are not examples of conflicting rights.  Those are examples of things that are not even covered by rights.

Also, non-violent felons do have the right to carry guns.  Hopefully soon the Supreme Court will start enforcing that.


----------



## Flash (Jun 3, 2022)

Now that the stupid Canadians have given up their arms we can go in with our AR-15s and take all their maple syrup and there won't be a damn thing they can do about it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 3, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Also, non-violent felons do have the right to carry guns. Hopefully soon the Supreme Court will start enforcing that.



Actually, it depends on the state where the person committed the felony.  According to federal law, no, a felon cannot have a gun.  As far as state laws?  Depends on the state, and what the felon did, as well as what they do after their conviction.  If the felony is pardoned or overturned, they can get their guns back in some cases.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Those are not examples of conflicting rights.  Those are examples of things that are not even covered by rights.
> 
> Also, non-violent felons do have the right to carry guns.  Hopefully soon the Supreme Court will start enforcing that.


Huh ? Where in the 2@ does it say you can’t have a firearm if you are a 13 year old. Where does it say violent felons can’t have guns. Obviously, other then the 2a which you seem to know nothing* about, you've never read the constitution or SC majority opinions.


Now you’re hoping convicted drug traffickers, car jacking conspirators   and child porn traffickers can carry AR15 and conceal handguns, as they are all non violent crimes. Silly comments.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Those are not examples of conflicting rights.  Those are examples of things that are not even covered by rights.
> 
> Also, non-violent felons do have the right to carry guns.  Hopefully soon the Supreme Court will start enforcing that.


Convicted felons of non violent crimes have shown a poor lack of judgement and distain for the rest of society. Someone steals my money from the vender including the Govt I depend on, should never have a gun legally he could defend himself from the next arrest. It’s stooped we should allow any non violent larceny bad check writer for monies he uses on drugs and theft. The NRA had convicted  criminals as their leader. That anyone should support felons having firearms shows a lack of good judgment that should deny them their right to have a firearm either.


Open Bolt said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Now that the stupid Canadians have given up their arms we can go in with our AR-15s and take all their maple syrup and there won't be a damn thing they can do about it.
> ...


Canadians are well armed. Guess you never read their firearm laws.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Canadians are well armed. Guess you never read their firearm laws.


Trudeau's objective is for them to only have single shot hunting rifles that they have to keep at a hunting lodge or range.  No match for our semi auto ARs with high capacity magazines.

We will feast on their Maple Syrup and fuck their fat women!


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Trudeau's objective is for them to only have single shot hunting rifles that they have to keep at a hunting lodge or range.  No match for our semi auto ARs with high capacity magazines.
> 
> We will feast on their Maple Syrup and fuck their fat women!


Let’s see the gun law....you’re just making up shit now. How much wildlife carry AR15 to shoot people do you need to defend yourself from in Canada. You guys are absolutely nuts.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Let’s see the gun law....you’re just making up shit now.


That is what the asshole was talking about in the press conference he had a few days ago.

He was going to expand what firearms are illegal to include almost everything except low capacity hunting rifles and who can have them and where they have to be kept and how they can be used.  Despicable isn't it?

The sonofabitch said that gun ownership is not a right but a privilege of the fucking government and you must earn that privilege and be significantly restricted in what the privilege affords you.

They are even going to make the citizens turn in their semi auto rifles and that is pretty damn shitty. 

Yea, we will be able to take their Maple Syrup if we want.  A nation of pussies led by a fucking Communist.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> That is what the asshole was talking about in the press conference he had a few days ago.
> 
> He was going to expand what firearms are illegal to include almost everything except low capacity hunting rifles and who can have them and where they have to be kept and how they can be used.  Despicable isn't it?
> 
> ...


Let’s see a reference. Got any proof this is what he said or any legislation he proposed ?


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Now that the stupid Canadians have given up their arms we can go in with our AR-15s and take all their maple syrup and there won't be a damn thing they can do about it.





Flash said:


> That is what the asshole was talking about in the press conference he had a few days ago.
> 
> He was going to expand what firearms are illegal to include almost everything except low capacity hunting rifles and who can have them and where they have to be kept and how they can be used.  Despicable isn't it?
> 
> ...


For what purpose do you need high capacity magazines and semi auto rifles?


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Let’s see a reference. Got any proof this is what he said or any legislation he proposed ?


Here you go Sport


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> For what purpose do you need high capacity magazines and semi auto rifles?


1.  Recreational purposes

2.  Self defense

3.  Security of a free state

By the way, the Bill of Rights doesn't require that a citizen demonstrate a need to keep and bear arms.  

You also don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do based upon your demented idea of a need.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Here you go Sport


Hey sport…..they aren‘t required to give up their handguns. It’s called a freeze ? Thre is no mention of semI auto hunting rifles being banned, just mag  caps. . Why ?
Because the gun laws are so laxed here, that Maine  which( has stooopid  gun laws supplied weapons for Canada’s worse mass shooting.  We export guns used in crimes to both Canada and Mexico at an alarming rate. Canadians can easily travel to Maine, search for unrestricted  firearms on line, then transfer them to Canada anywhere in 3000 miles of woods.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> 1.  Recreational purposes
> 
> 2.  Self defense
> 
> ...


All of this shit is made up crappolla.
Security of a free state ? laughable.
None  of your rights are absolute, none, nada nix. Just being  a citizen of the US guarantees NOTHING except your ability to GET QUALIFIED.
Geesus, you have to show your license and proof of age to buy beer dingbat. You can’t live anywhere you want without a permit, proof of legality. You can’t even go to some public places without being search dufus.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> 1.  Recreational purposes
> 
> 2.  Self defense
> 
> ...


You don’t need high capacity magazines or semi automatic for those reasons.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> All of this shit is made up crappolla.
> Security of a free state ? laughable.
> None  of your rights are absolute, none, nada nix. Just being  a citizen of the US guarantees NOTHING except your ability to GET QUALIFIED.
> Geesus, you have to show your license and proof of age to buy beer dingbat. You can’t live anywhere you want without a permit, proof of legality. You can’t even go to some public places without being search dufus.




Shall not be infringed comes as close to being absolute as it possibly could be.  Liberals just don't ever seem to understand what that means, do they?

Scalia said that it is not absolute but he never defined what he meant.  I suspect that his definition and the definition of Liberal anti gun nuts would be miles apart.

Can you show me in the Bill of Rights where I have to get qualified in order to keep and bear arms?  I have read it hundreds of times for the life of me I don't remember seeing it.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> You don’t need high capacity magazines or semi automatic for those reasons.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 653951


Well I want a bazooka but I can’t legally get one.  Why not?


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Well I want a bazooka but I can’t legally get one.  Why not?


Because there are assholes in this country that infringes upon the Constitutions and they get away with it.

Hopefully this New York court case the Supremes are ruling on will stop a lot of the infringements by requiring that the right to keep and bear arms be subject to the same strict scrutiny as all the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

Actually you can own a bazooka but it is impossible to get the rockets for it.

You can own a tank.

You can own an artillery piece.

You can own a jet fighter.

I own a machine gun.

You can't own a nuclear weapon because that is restricted by the NRC.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 4, 2022)

Flash said:


> Because there are assholes in this country that infringes upon the Constitutions and they get away with it.
> 
> Hopefully this New York court case the Supremes are ruling on will stop a lot of the infringements by requiring that the right to keep and bear arms be subject to the same strict scrutiny as all the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


That wasn’t the answer I was looking for.  Your reply makes me wonder what is going on in that brain of yours.


----------



## Flash (Jun 4, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> That wasn’t the answer I was looking for.  Your reply makes me wonder what is going on in that brain of yours.


We have no idea what the hell goes through the mind of Liberals that are hell bent on taking away our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, do we?

It isn't safety because gun laws are only adhered to by those that had no intentions of breaking a law.  Crooks ignore the law.

It has to be that Liberals look at the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as an impediment to making this country a Socialist shithole.  We have seen it in other Leftest regimes that deprive their citizens of Liberty.  It is the cornerstone of Leftest to do away with the ability of the citizens to oppose Leftest tyranny.

You can vote in Socialism but you have to shoot your way out.  Taking away the right to keep and bear arms takes away the ability of the citizens to shoot their way out, doesn't it?  We see it all the time in other countries, don't we?


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 4, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> For what purpose do you need high capacity magazines and semi auto rifles?


"Need" is serf speak.  Americans are not serfs.

We buy high capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles because we feel like it, and we never justify our choices to anyone.




Who_Me? said:


> You don’t need high capacity magazines or semi automatic for those reasons.


We don't have to need them.  If we choose to go buy some, we will do so.  It doesn't matter if anyone else does not like it.




Who_Me? said:


> Well I want a bazooka but I can’t legally get one.  Why not?


Because the courts are not enforcing the entire Second Amendment yet.




Who_Me? said:


> That wasn’t the answer I was looking for.  Your reply makes me wonder what is going on in that brain of yours.


His answer looked pretty good to me.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? Where in the 2@ does it say you can’t have a firearm if you are a 13 year old. Where does it say violent felons can’t have guns.


In the definition of Strict Scrutiny.




Dagosa said:


> Obviously, other then the 2a which you seem to know nothing* about, you've never read the constitution or SC majority opinions.


You are the only person here who doesn't know anything about the Constitution or the courts.




Dagosa said:


> That anyone should support felons having firearms shows a lack of good judgment that should deny them their right to have a firearm either.


Luckily for me I have the NRA to uphold the Constitution and prevent you from violating my civil liberties.




Dagosa said:


> All of this shit is made up crappolla.


No it isn't.  People do have guns for recreation.  People do have guns for self defense.

There isn't any organized militia in the US because of government neglect, but there are people in Europe who have guns for national defense.  Switzerland and Finland come to mind.




Dagosa said:


> None of your rights are absolute, none, nada nix.


Any law that conflicts with a constitutional right is absolutely unconstitutional.




Dagosa said:


> Just being a citizen of the US guarantees NOTHING except your ability to GET QUALIFIED.


Americans have a guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 4, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it depends on the state where the person committed the felony.


Actually no.  The Second Amendment applies equally in all states.




ABikerSailor said:


> According to federal law, no, a felon cannot have a gun.  As far as state laws?  Depends on the state, and what the felon did, as well as what they do after their conviction.  If the felony is pardoned or overturned, they can get their guns back in some cases.


Those laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> "Need" is serf speak.  Americans are not serfs.
> 
> We buy high capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles because we feel like it, and we never justify our choices to anyone.
> 
> ...


Another gun toting, paranoid, nut job.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> You are the only person here who doesn't know anything about the Constitution or the courts.


Obviously I do. According to constitutional law, YOU are not the arbiter of the constitution. It lies in the majority opinions of the SC decisions. Your reading doesn’t  mean shit. That you guys never refer to majority opinions is proof positive you’re blowing smoke up your a$$.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually no. The Second Amendment applies equally in all states.


No, it lies in the majority of opinion  of the SC on firearm related decisions. Every state makes their laws with them in mind.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Another gun toting, paranoid, nut job.


I notice that you've run out of arguments and can only rely on personal attacks.

Perhaps you should take that as a sign that your position is indefensible.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Obviously I do.


All your untrue statements say otherwise.




Dagosa said:


> YOU are not the arbiter of the constitution. It lies in the majority opinions of the SC decisions.


Appeals to authority are logical fallacies in case you didn't realize that.




Dagosa said:


> Your reading doesn’t mean shit.


Your inability to point out any errors in my arguments says otherwise.




Dagosa said:


> That you guys never refer to majority opinions is proof positive you’re blowing smoke up your a$$.


I seldom refer to majority opinions because I think for myself instead of committing appeal to authority fallacies.

But if you prefer to rely on appeal to authority fallacies, go ahead and refer to Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion later this month.




Dagosa said:


> No, it lies in the majority of opinion  of the SC on firearm related decisions.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment applies equally in all states.




Dagosa said:


> Every state makes their laws with them in mind.


That is incorrect.  States dominated by the left deliberately violate people's civil liberties.  Leftists think it's fun to violate people's rights.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> seldom refer to majority opinions because I think for myself instead of committing appeal to authority fallacies.


Right. I bet you can fix your own cell phone because  you can think for yourself. Laughable BS.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Right. I bet you can fix your own cell phone because you can think for yourself.


Actually I've never had a cell phone that even needed repair.  I'm not sure if they are designed to be repaired or simply replaced.  But if repair is possible I could certainly do it.




Dagosa said:


> Laughable BS.


Laugh at reality all you want, but it's not BS.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually I've never had a cell phone that even needed repair.  I'm not sure if they are designed to be repaired or simply replaced.  But if repair is possible I could certainly do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh at reality all you want, but it's not BS.


Fear driven conspiracy drivel.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I notice that you've run out of arguments and can only rely on personal attacks.
> 
> Perhaps you should take that as a sign that your position is indefensible.


No, to quote Mark Twain, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> For what purpose do you need high capacity magazines and semi auto rifles?


Your question is invalid.
There's no requirement that anyone demonstrate a need to exercise a right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> You don’t need high capacity magazines or semi automatic for those reasons.


Thank God our rights are not limited by your perception of need.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Well I want a bazooka but I can’t legally get one.  Why not?


If you live in the US and you aren't a felon or other prohibited person. you can.
Rockets for it, too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> Another gun toting, paranoid, nut job.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Fear driven conspiracy drivel.


That is incorrect.  Reality is not a conspiracy.  Neither is it driven by fear.

I do not share the opinion that reality is drivel.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> No, to quote Mark Twain, "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."


Well you certainly are stupid.  But I think it is worthwhile to debunk your lies.


----------



## Dagosa (Jun 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  Reality is not a conspiracy.  Neither is it driven by fear.
> 
> I do not share the opinion that reality is drivel.


Preparing for war with the Govt or the all the non whites replacing you ? How does that work ? Busing ?


----------



## Open Bolt (Jun 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Preparing for war with the Govt or the all the non whites replacing you ?


I've never said anything about either.

I've talked about people owning guns for:

a) hunting,

b) protection from criminals or harmful animals,

c) sports competitions like the Olympic biathlon,

d) merely having a gun collection because they like guns, and

e) being part of a militia for national defense (that means fighting for the government, not against it).

In addition to the five above reasons for gun ownership that I already mentioned, some people also have guns because they are security guards at a bank, or work for an armored car service.




Dagosa said:


> How does that work ? Busing ?


Beats me.  That's a question for people who actually talk about either issue.


----------

