# Why we need the 2nd Amendment



## Johann (Feb 17, 2022)

This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 17, 2022)

I thought that was why we spent $700Billion a year on defense...


----------



## cnm (Feb 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I thought that was why we spent $700Billion a year on defense...


Obviously not enough. Fantasies must be fed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?



And who gets to decide who the enemy is?


----------



## Johann (Feb 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And who gets to decide who the enemy is?


Guess that’s a personal choice…


----------



## Johann (Feb 17, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I thought that was why we spent $700Billion a year on defense...


Raw number is misleading…what’s that expenditure as a percentage of gdp?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?


The US WWI soldiers and WWII soldiers trained with wooden rifles.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> Guess that’s a personal choice…



So, if I decide that black people are the enemy, it's perfectly legit for me to go around shooting up black people?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, if I decide that black people are the enemy, it's perfectly legit for me to go around shooting up black people?


Better get Congressional approval.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?


We do not need assault weapons.  The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms, along with the other weapons we can buy and use, such as semiautomatic shotguns are plenty for personal defense, sports shooting, or hunting, and will suffice, along with the myriad high quality pistol.  I favor mandatory training and permits, off your property or out of your vehicle or boat.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, if I decide that black people are the enemy, it's perfectly legit for me to go around shooting up black people?


If Nigeria were invading the US then I guess those particular black people would be the enemy.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We do not need assault weapons.  The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms, along with the other weapons we can buy and use, such as semiautomatic shotguns are plenty for personal defense, sports shooting, or hunting, and will suffice, along with the myriad high quality pistol.  I favor mandatory training and permits, off your property or out of your vehicle or boat.


But many people see the AR 15 as “assault weapons”.


----------



## Donald H (Feb 17, 2022)

As long as their toy guns aren't painted black so that they can be mistaken for bad guns, there's no harm in play guns. Start making them look too real and that's how people get dead.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 17, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Better get Congressional approval.



So it's not a personal choice then?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 17, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> If Nigeria were invading the US then I guess those particular black people would be the enemy.



Based on what happened after 9/11, I think ALL black people would be made the enemy, except the Nigerians (because they have oil).


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?



I prefer the Colorado State Firearms and the Federal Firearms laws.  
The other day, I saw a neat little hideaway 38 SW +P, they ran the background check in about 15 minutes, I paid cash for it and out the door I went.  Took me less than 30 minutes from the time I opened the door going in to the closing of the door leaving with the pistol.  They didn't have any ammo for it so I went to a larger gun store and purchased a box of 100 rounds of 38+P ammo.  Time to purchase the ammo about 2 minutes and I am walking out the door.  They had an entire pallet of them and I could have purchased 1000 only seconds slower than 100 since it would have been more bags.

You fruitcakes already costs us over 3 million in court costs telling you to go shrug yourselves.  The NRA damn near went bankrupt over it.  The only change in our laws was the changing of the 10 round mag to the 15 round mag and that was done on the day that your bunch of fruitcakes started to argue it so a lot of money was spent by  the NRA arguing something that wasn't there.  Heller V is the gold standard.

In case you aren't aware of it, in WWII, many soldiers trained with wooden guns because the new guns had not been authorized or purchased yet. 

You can stop trolling anytime, Ivan.
\


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Based on what happened after 9/11, I think ALL black people would be made the enemy, except the Nigerians (because they have oil).


Huh?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 17, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Huh?


After 9/11 the Saudis were given a free pass (they had the most people on board those planes), but Muslims in the US were vilified. Anyone wearing a head scarf was attacked verbally at the very least.

Logical, hey?

Take Trump's "Muslim ban", not a single country that had participants on 9/11 was included. Go figure.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 17, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> But many people see the AR 15 as “assault weapons”.


That is because they do not know any better.  Most people that have not been military in a combat arms branch specialty are clueless about weapons in general, have received little formal training and are actually scared of weapons.  Some grew up shooting .22s or hunting with shotguns but still no training on real assault weapons, probably never even seeing one in person on a range.


----------



## cnm (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> Guess that’s a personal choice…


Be interesting if Kiev is chosen as the enemy.


----------



## No Sympathy (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic.



Agree.

I have a few gamer friends I get on discord from time to time & most of them are either from the United Kingdom or Australia/New Zealand and they have asked me multiple times why the United States just doing get rid of their weapons so that gun violence goes away. Of course, they'd criticize me for owning guns and for supporting the 2nd Amendment as just another crazy Republican and tell me how they don't have crime despite owning no weapons, but anytime I asked them what would happen if their government overreached and took control of their lives, how would they fight it? Well, called a conspiracy theorist and told that it would never happen, so what's the point in worrying about it.

Fast forward to now and Australia (after giving up their guns) was left helpless against their government - as we all saw it play out on the news.

I never thought I would ever see myself buying a firearm however, when 2020 hit and my state and local government (I live in Portland, OR) decided to side with criminals, things changed. I ended up having a close friend of mine help me w/ purchasing a firearm and giving me the necessary tools to use it properly and where to properly do my training for a concealed handgun license.

Hope to never use my weapons, but better have it just in case.

Anyways, support the 2nd Amendment and I see anyone trying to get rid of it as someone to be cautious of now going forward.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> That is because they do not know any better.  Most people that have not been military in a combat arms branch specialty are clueless about weapons in general, have received little formal training and are actually scared of weapons.  Some grew up shooting .22s or hunting with shotguns but still no training on real assault weapons, probably never even seeing one in person on a range.



And those of that have know that the AR can run a tremendous body count in our hands.  Those that haven't had the training or the wrong training can still run quite a body count.  The ONLY thing an AR or an AK is number 1 at is mass killing both war and civilian uses.  Do I need one?  Nope.  But my new handgun costs about 4 times what I can purchase an AR-15 for around here.  Showing up at the range with just an AR gets you laughed at.  And my handguns and the shotgun does home defense much, much better.  

I might tell you how the AR is #1 in what it does but one of your more sicker members will hear it as a voice in his head as the voice of God and then go do it.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 17, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> Agree.
> 
> I have a few gamer friends I get on discord from time to time & most of them are either from the United Kingdom or Australia/New Zealand and they have asked me multiple times why the United States just doing get rid of their weapons so that gun violence goes away. Of course, they'd criticize me for owning guns and for supporting the 2nd Amendment as just another crazy Republican and tell me how they don't have crime despite owning no weapons, but anytime I asked them what would happen if their government overreached and took control of their lives, how would they fight it? Well, called a conspiracy theorist and told that it would never happen, so what's the point in worrying about it.
> 
> ...



First of all, CCW Holders are not the problem.  The Open Carry ones are.  You did the right thing.  

Second, 2A, the way it's written, no longer makes sense when you factor in the National Firearms Act of 1934.


----------



## No Sympathy (Feb 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> First of all, CCW Holders are not the problem.  The Open Carry ones are.  You did the right thing.
> 
> Second, 2A, the way it's written, no longer makes sense when you factor in the National Firearms Act of 1934.



Well, I am glad I made the right choice. I just didn't feel comfortable carrying my firearm out in the open, even if it is legal is certain states.

For someone not very versed in the firearms would yet, is this an act that strengthened or limited the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## cnm (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> Raw number is misleading…what’s that expenditure as a percentage of gdp?


Much more than most other developed nations.












						Military spending as GDP share by country 2021 | Statista
					

As a share of gross domestic product (GDP), Saudi Arabia spent more on its military than any other country in 2021, followed by Israel and Russia.




					www.statista.com


----------



## cnm (Feb 17, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> Fast forward to now and Australia (after giving up their guns) was left helpless against their government - as we all saw it play out on the news.


What a load of normal paranoid 2A ignorant bullshit.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 17, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> Well, I am glad I made the right choice. I just didn't feel comfortable carrying my firearm out in the open, even if it is legal is certain states.
> 
> For someone not very versed in the firearms would yet, is this an act that strengthened or limited the 2nd Amendment?



No, it really has nothing to do with 2A.  It has more to do with States Rights as well as County and City rights.  Plus, it shows you should be able to have it whether you do or not.


----------



## No Sympathy (Feb 17, 2022)

cnm said:


> What a load of shit.



So you're saying that all the protests that happened because of government overreach in Australia was fake?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 17, 2022)

Johann said:


> Raw number is misleading…what’s that expenditure as a percentage of gdp?


no....

The $700+B buys just as many weapons regardless of the % of GDP.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 17, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> So you're saying that all the protests that happened because of government overreach in Australia was fake?



Watch out.  You are getting close to jumping into that rabbit hole.


----------



## No Sympathy (Feb 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Watch out.  You are getting close to jumping into that rabbit hole.



Yeah, probably right and not worth it late into the night as it is for me.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> And those of that have know that the AR can run a tremendous body count in our hands.  Those that haven't had the training or the wrong training can still run quite a body count.  The ONLY thing an AR or an AK is number 1 at is mass killing both war and civilian uses.  Do I need one?  Nope.  But my new handgun costs about 4 times what I can purchase an AR-15 for around here.  Showing up at the range with just an AR gets you laughed at.  And my handguns and the shotgun does home defense much, much better.
> 
> I might tell you how the AR is #1 in what it does but one of your more sicker members will hear it as a voice in his head as the voice of God and then go do it.


I have taken mine to a good outdoor range.  Nobody laughs at you.  Where else are you going to practice on 200, 300 and 400 meter plus targets.  You do believe in practice and range work, don't you?  You may be going to the wrong range and should look around.  Oh, and decent outdoor range complexes have ranges and lane for your pistol also, and a more serious minded class of shooters than you are encountering.  If you go during week days, you can set up multiple pistol target, to practice shooting on the move and different shooting position, usually not applicable to indoor ranges.


----------



## cnm (Feb 18, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> So you're saying that all the protests that happened because of government overreach in Australia was fake?


I'm saying you're a kook lapping up bullshit talking points because you're ignorant of life outside the US.

Note how the protests in Oz have not been put down by an overbearing government overstepping the limits after the citizens supported reducing the level of firearms in society.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

No Sympathy said:


> Yeah, probably right and not worth it late into the night as it is for me.



There are two rabbit holes.  One for the rtwingnutgunnutters and the other for the ltwingantigunnutters.  Then there is everyone else.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I have taken mine to a good outdoor range.  Nobody laughs at you.  Where else are you going to practice on 200, 300 and 400 meter plus targets.  You do believe in practice and range work, don't you?  You may be going to the wrong range and should look around.  Oh, and decent outdoor range complexes have ranges and lane for your pistol also, and a more serious minded class of shooters than you are encountering.  If you go during week days, you can set up multiple pistol target, to practice shooting on the move and different shooting position, usually not applicable to indoor ranges.



When I break out my bull barrelled 700BDL OUght Six that is a respectable range gun and gets thumbs up and smiles.  The best  you can get is "Now, that's cute" and giggles.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 18, 2022)

LOf co


frigidweirdo said:


> So, if I decide that black people are the enemy, it's perfectly legit for me to go around shooting up black people?


Of course not. 

However if the Russians, the Chinese or the United Nations ever invades and takes over our nation you use your weapons to engage in asymmetrical warfare. 

If our government ever turns into a tyrannical Marxist socialist worker’s paradise like Venezuela or Cuba, you use you weapons to overthrow it. 









						Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'
					

As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment –regarding the country’s earlier gun control bill that saw citizens stripped of their weapons-owning rights.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> When I break out my bull barrelled 700BDL OUght Six that is a respectable range gun and gets thumbs up and smiles.  The best  you can get is "Now, that's cute" and giggles.


You run with snobs, not shooters, Scooter.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> That is because they do not know any better.  Most people that have not been military in a combat arms branch specialty are clueless about weapons in general, have received little formal training and are actually scared of weapons.  Some grew up shooting .22s or hunting with shotguns but still no training on real assault weapons, probably never even seeing one in person on a range.



A semi-automatic AR or AK rifle is not an "assault weapon."  And yet, magazines over ten round capacity are banned in several states. California's 1989 ban included 40 different semi-automatic pistols and rifles which they considered "assault weapons", also including magazines over 10 rounds.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/aws-guide.pdf?


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> A semi-automatic AR or AK rifle is not an "assault weapon."  And yet, magazines over ten round capacity are banned in several states. California's 1989 ban included 40 different semi-automatic pistols and rifles which they considered "assault weapons", also including magazines over 10 rounds.
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/aws-guide.pdf?


That is goofy.  I use  20 rd or 30 rd magazines on the range just to continue practice without having to reload as often.  I like 20 rd if firing from prone supported as the longer 30 rd magazine gets in the way and changes the way I shoot.  It is not illegal here.  I live in a normal state.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> That is goofy.  I use  20 rd or 30 rd magazines on the range just to continue practice without having to reload as often.  I like 20 rd if firing from prone supported as the longer 30 rd magazine gets in the way and changes the way I shoot.  It is not illegal here.  I live in a normal state.



If you haven't noticed yet, most every factory stock AR-15 available still has a bayonet lug under the front sight.

That's also considered "illegal" in some states.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 18, 2022)

Batcat said:


> LOf co
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> ...



What do you mean "of course not"? 

Probably you mean that it isn't personal, as was stated. 

Yes, you can use your weapons to overturn any type of government, not just Marxist. You could use it to overturn the tyrannical current US government (this president, last president, presidents before, doesn't matter who, it's the same).


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

JGalt said:


> If you haven't noticed yet, most every factory stock AR-15 available still has a bayonet lug under the front sight.
> 
> That's also considered "illegal" in some states.
> 
> View attachment 602942


I had not noticed.  I don't think mine does, but of course I built mine from the ground up and do not remember the choice when selecting barrel and upper.  Now you got me wanting to look but PJ is asleep back there.  There is not good reason to ever mount a bayonet.  I have no intention of ever letting anyone approach me in anger to within bayonet range.   I still remember the manual of arms of the riot baton,  and am pretty sure I wouldn't damage the weapon, so i could still turn out somebody's lights if I felt charitable.  If I was actually being attacked, it is unlikely I would be in a charitable mood.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> You run with snobs, not shooters, Scooter.



Are you going to tell me that your toy can shoot with my rifle?


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What do you mean "of course not"?
> 
> Probably you mean that it isn't personal, as was stated.
> 
> Yes, you can use your weapons to overturn any type of government, not just Marxist. You could use it to overturn the tyrannical current US government (this president, last president, presidents before, doesn't matter who, it's the same).



Or you can use it to support our Democratically elected Government as well.  I choose the latter.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Or you can use it to support our Democratically elected Government as well.  I choose the latter.



What democratically elected government? I don't see a democratically elected government in the US.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Are you going to tell me that your toy can shoot with my rifle?


I am going to tell you the tool I built is better for my actual purposes in having it, but it still requires outdoor range time.  I have no idea what purpose you bought yours for.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What democratically elected government? I don't see a democratically elected government in the US.



I won't allow a domestic terrorist and traitor like you to use my posts.  Say goodnight Gracie.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I am going to tell you the tool I built is better for my actual purposes in having it, but it still requires outdoor range time.  I have no idea what purpose you bought yours for.



If you are going to use it for the #1 purpose then you need locked up in a nuthouse and all your guns taken away before  you try and go for the new record.  The number 1 purpose to use an AR is for mass shootings whether it is civilian or military.  Show up at my range and you are going to hear "Well, that's nice" and chortles if that is the only thing you brought.  Beware that the other shooter start taking you serious.  I live in a Red Flag State.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> I won't allow a domestic terrorist and traitor like you to use my posts.  Say goodnight Gracie.



What the fuck? 

Who the fuck is Gracie and why would I be a "domestic terrorist and traitor" because I understand how the voting system works? 

Is ignorance the sign of a true Hermerican?


----------



## Batcat (Feb 18, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What do you mean "of course not"?
> 
> Probably you mean that it isn't personal, as was stated.
> 
> Yes, you can use your weapons to overturn any type of government, not just Marxist. You could use it to overturn the tyrannical current US government (this president, last president, presidents before, doesn't matter who, it's the same).


Joe Biden many be a corrupt politician but he  is not a tyrant. Nor was Trump or Obama. 

Our current government is not perfect by any means but there is no reason to overthrow it. 

Perhaps the reason we don’t live under a truly tyrannical government is we have the Second Amendment and more firearms in our nation than people.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> That is because they do not know any better.  Most people that have not been military in a combat arms branch specialty are clueless about weapons in general, have received little formal training and are actually scared of weapons.  Some grew up shooting .22s or hunting with shotguns but still no training on real assault weapons, probably never even seeing one in person on a range.


I dont disagree.    That doesnt change the truth about my statement.  🤷‍♂️


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

cnm said:


> Obviously not enough. Fantasies must be fed.


There's nothing fantasy about what's going to happen to Ukraine.

It won't happen here because we still have guns. And that pisses you off doesn't it?

We know exactly why you want our guns gone.  That's why we keep
pushing for machine guns and we will get them in 10 years.  Bank on it.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> First of all, CCW Holders are not the problem.  The Open Carry ones are.  You did the right thing.
> 
> Second, 2A, the way it's written, no longer makes sense when you factor in the National Firearms Act of 1934.


The act doesnt take precedence over the constitution. Especially one whos only constitutional authority is taxation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We do not need assault weapons.  The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms,...


Psst...
The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms ARE "assault weapons".


White 6 said:


> I favor mandatory training and permits, off your property or out of your vehicle or boat.


Both are unnecessary and ineffective restriction son the rights of the law abiding.
Never mind the fact the state has no standing to issue, much less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2022)

cnm said:


> Note how the protests in Oz have not been put down by an overbearing government overstepping the limits after the citizens supported reducing the level of firearms in society.


Only because Oz isn't run by Democrats.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> If you are going to use it for the #1 purpose then you need locked up in a nuthouse and all your guns taken away before  you try and go for the new record.  The number 1 purpose to use an AR is for mass shootings whether it is civilian or military.  Show up at my range and you are going to hear "Well, that's nice" and chortles if that is the only thing you brought.  Beware that the other shooter start taking you serious.  I live in a Red Flag State.


So, you are really and anti gun nut with a toy to show your friends, eh?  Totally oblivious to the fact there are are about 20 million of weapons owned by normal Americans, similar to mine, in a country with a population of 331,450,00 people.  How many like yours?  Yep.  Hard to find that number, isn't it?  With less than 500 people killed by all rifles combined, in the US last year, (that is counting accidental, on purpose and suicide) that make you sound pretty silly, uninformed and attests the FACT most rifle owner in general, and AR/AK platform rifles (maybe 173 by a Times analysis), and their owners are nowhere near the hazard, you and the other anti-gun nut people would like the public to believe.  The math isn't hard to understand unless you are math challenged or a hysterical fool.
"Red Flag" state?  Don't make me laugh, pretender.  You sure speak poorly for your unnamed "Red Flag" state and the people in it.  This is Tennessee.  Most of us shooting rifles and shotguns since we were little kids.  I often invite people on here to visit Tennessee (you know, Red Flag with 3 stars) and go Tennesseeing, but you need to just stay on the interstate and pass through.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> I dont disagree.    That doesnt change the truth about my statement.  🤷‍♂️


Yes, but the normal people really are not responsible for misperceptions of the few, due to the lack of experience of the anti-gun cause nuts.


M14 Shooter said:


> Psst...
> The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms ARE "assault weapons".
> 
> Both are unnecessary and ineffective restriction son the rights of the law abiding.
> Never mind the fact the state has no standing to issue, much less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right.


No.  They are not.  They just look similar, but without the same function.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> No.  They are not.  They just look similar, but without the same function.


Reference any "assault weapon" law you choose.
All of them refer to semi-automatic rifles.

The term you mean to use is assault rifle, which are select-fire.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> There's nothing fantasy about what's going to happen to Ukraine.
> 
> It won't happen here because we still have guns. And that pisses you off doesn't it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> The act doesnt take precedence over the constitution. Especially one whos only constitutional authority is taxation.



Machine Guns in the Civilian World needed to be curtailed.  There were a lot of innocents that died due to spray and pray shooting of a thompson.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> So, you are really and anti gun nut with a toy to show your friends, eh?  Totally oblivious to the fact there are are about 20 million of weapons owned by normal Americans, similar to mine, in a country with a population of 331,450,00 people.  How many like yours?  Yep.  Hard to find that number, isn't it?  With less than 500 people killed by all rifles combined, in the US last year, (that is counting accidental, on purpose and suicide) that make you sound pretty silly, uninformed and attests the FACT most rifle owner in general, and AR/AK platform rifles (maybe 173 by a Times analysis), and their owners are nowhere near the hazard, you and the other anti-gun nut people would like the public to believe.  The math isn't hard to understand unless you are math challenged or a hysterical fool.
> "Red Flag" state?  Don't make me laugh, pretender.  You sure speak poorly for your unnamed "Red Flag" state and the people in it.  This is Tennessee.  Most of us shooting rifles and shotguns since we were little kids.  I often invite people on here to visit Tennessee (you know, Red Flag with 3 stars) and go Tennesseeing, but you need to just stay on the interstate and pass through.



You do what you must in your state and we will do what we must in our state.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yes, but the normal people really are not responsible for misperceptions of the few, due to the lack of experience of the anti-gun cause nuts.
> 
> No.  They are not.  They just look similar, but without the same function.


No offense but I think you have it backwards.    It's unfortunately the few who have the experience to know the difference.    Most people just see the AR as a "scary gun" that shouldnt be in the hands of everyday Americans.     Most people dont understand what semi automatic means, have no understanding of ballistics, or the function of the weapons.   Their opinion is based solely on what it looks like and what they've heard in the media.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Machine Guns in the Civilian World needed to be curtailed.  There were a lot of innocents that died due to spray and pray shooting of a thompson.


There are very few people who die from machine gun fire in the US every year and likely zero from legally owned machine guns.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Reference any "assault weapon" law you choose.
> All of them refer to semi-automatic rifles.
> 
> The term you mean to use is assault rifle, which are select-fire.


So you agree, they are not assault weapons, and not even select fire weapons. Got it. Thanks


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> You do what you must in your state and we will do what we must in our state.


First sensible thing you have said in 16 hours.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> No offense but I think you have it backwards.    It's unfortunately the few who have the experience to know the difference.    Most people just see the AR as a "scary gun" that shouldnt be in the hands of everyday Americans.     Most people dont understand what semi automatic means, have no understanding of ballistics, or the function of the weapons.   Their opinion is based solely on what it looks like and what they've heard in the media.


Right.  I am one of the normal people, not responsible for the misconceptions of people that don't know much on the subject, so I don't mind.


----------



## JGalt (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Machine Guns in the Civilian World needed to be curtailed.  There were a lot of innocents that died due to spray and pray shooting of a thompson.



As of 2017, there were 5,203,489 legal Class III NFA weapons in the hands of US collectors and shooters. And yet there has been only one recorded murder with a full-automatic weapon since the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was a police officer who committed the murder.

NFA Firearms, Forms, and Revenue Statistics - The Truth About Guns

I don't know if you're really that stupid or you're just trolling.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> There are very few people who die from machine gun fire in the US every year and likely zero from legally owned machine guns.



Andn why is that?  could it be that the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the due dilligence of many law enforcements contributed to it's demise?  And we have to be very careful.  The Ghost Gun Full Autos are starting to surface because of you 2nd Amendment Gunnutters.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> So you agree, they are not assault weapons, and not even select fire weapons. Got it. Thanks



Then you would be wrong.  Assault Rifle is a Military Term given a complete class of weapon including the AR series and the AK series and the various clones, copies.  To say that a M-16 is not an AR disagrees with the Colt Factory Model Number of Colt Model 60X.  And I fired them all from the 601 to the 604.  And I also fired the Model 750 which has been discontinued which is one of the two that can legally called an AR-15.  All others except for the FN are considered legally as clones or copies.  

In a combat situation, there is absolutely no difference between the operation of the M-16 than the AR-15. What makes them deadly isn't whether they can fire auto or not.  Firing you M-16 on full auto in combat breaks the 11th commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Run out of Ammo lest you die".  Hence the dropping of the full auto setting for the totally worthless 3 shot burst.  The reason for the AR and the M-16 hasn't changed since 1958.  Stoner designed it right.  The AR and M-16 is the B-52 Assault Rifles.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> First sensible thing you have said in 16 hours.



And I am still waiting for something sensible from you.  Wait, no, never going to happen.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Then you would be wrong.  Assault Rifle is a Military Term given a complete class of weapon including the AR series and the AK series and the various clones, copies.  To say that a M-16 is not an AR disagrees with the Colt Factory Model Number of Colt Model 60X.  And I fired them all from the 601 to the 604.  And I also fired the Model 750 which has been discontinued which is one of the two that can legally called an AR-15.  All others except for the FN are considered legally as clones or copies.
> 
> In a combat situation, there is absolutely no difference between the operation of the M-16 than the AR-15. What makes them deadly isn't whether they can fire auto or not.  Firing you M-16 on full auto in combat breaks the 11th commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Run out of Ammo lest you die".  Hence the dropping of the full auto setting for the totally worthless 3 shot burst.  The reason for the AR and the M-16 hasn't changed since 1958.  Stoner designed it right.  The AR and M-16 is the B-52 Assault Rifles.


It is the selector that make it enabled for full auto or limited burst auto, not the shape of the rifle that makes the M-16 an assault weapon suited for combat and the AR-15 not.  Get real.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
The M-16 is a multi-use platform.  You can use it in combat, and best in a firefight on single shot, but go auto as suppressive fire for moving to a new position, or suppression to egress.  If clearing a building in close quarters door by door, a burst of automatic is a good calling card and effective at putting down multiples in close, where precision aim is not the highest priority, but speed of putting a lot of rounds in a small space is.  That, dude, is an assault weapon.
Not the case with an AR-15, look alike.  Where the idea is to acquire, aim to sight picture, and squeeze a round, then repeat if necessary.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> And I am still waiting for something sensible from you.  Wait, no, never going to happen.


I make more sense than your elitist drivel.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> It is the selector that make it enabled for full auto or limited burst auto, not the shape of the rifle that makes the M-16 an assault weapon suited for combat and the AR-15 not.  Get real.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


You still don't understand the difference between an assault rifle and an 'assault weapon'.
Why?


----------



## White 6 (Feb 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You still don't understand the difference between an assault rifle and an 'assault weapon'.
> Why?


Too many years in Combat Arms  Enlisted Mos and Officer Branch assignment, and all those years of training people to use them, tactically and on ranges, I guess.  After a few million rounds down range, I am not too interested in splitting hairs, when I know the difference.  The people that put the pen to paper on writing the laws that suit you, in the language that suits you, are clueless about these weapons by comparison, same as you.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You still don't understand the difference between an assault rifle and an 'assault weapon'.
> Why?


Because assault weapon is just a word created by politicians trying to get gun control passed for scary looking gun.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 18, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Joe Biden many be a corrupt politician but he  is not a tyrant. Nor was Trump or Obama.
> 
> Our current government is not perfect by any means but there is no reason to overthrow it.
> 
> Perhaps the reason we don’t live under a truly tyrannical government is we have the Second Amendment and more firearms in our nation than people.



Thing was, I wasn't talking about the presidents. The US isn't run by presidents. 

Tyrannical depends on your point of view, I guess. If you're Iranian, Venezuelan, Libyan, Syrian, black, Native American you might have a different perspective.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 18, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?


Firstly, the 2nd says "a well regulated militia". 
It does Not say every idiot is militia. 

Secondly. 
What are you gonna do if America is attacked on the other side if the country? Illtell you.  Nothing because the military dont need Rambos like you with you ageing pop guns. You're fabricating exteaordinary excuses that will NEVER unfold regardless of  how you try.  
The logistics of  what you say are impossible.  Your best bet would be leave it to the military. You would only get in the road.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Thing was, I wasn't talking about the presidents. The US isn't run by presidents.
> 
> Tyrannical depends on your point of view, I guess. If you're Iranian, Venezuelan, Libyan, Syrian, black, Native American you might have a different perspective.


At this point the people who run the nation are not tyrannical either but they are headed in that direction.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> At this point the people who run the nation are not tyrannical either but they are headed in that direction.



That depends on how you see things. 

People BELIEVE they have freedom. The people in charge put a lot of effort into creating the sense that the people are in the zoo, but looking in at the animals. But others could claim that the people are in the zoo and the animals are looking in on the people, kind of thing.

You think about the poverty, the boom and bust, all this kind of thing.

Obviously I'm not talking about tyrannical as in they go around killing at will and all that. But "tyrant" comes from the term for "absolute ruler", and I'd say that those people with that power have a lot of that power. The people could, potentially, take that power away, but you get the feeling that the powers that be have so much control, so much manipulation, over the people, that it'll never happen.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> That depends on how you see things.
> 
> People BELIEVE they have freedom. The people in charge put a lot of effort into creating the sense that the people are in the zoo, but looking in at the animals. But others could claim that the people are in the zoo and the animals are looking in on the people, kind of thing.
> 
> ...


As I said the people who actually run this nation are not yet tyrants but are headed in that direction. 

One example: 









						The CIA Is Still Spying on American Citizens and Lying About It
					

The CIA has operated above the law and resisted accountability throughout the century, and now we find out it’s been operating an illegal domestic spying program for years.




					www.jacobinmag.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> As I said the people who actually run this nation are not yet tyrants but are headed in that direction.
> 
> One example:
> 
> ...



And as I said it depends on how you see a tyrant.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> It is the selector that make it enabled for full auto or limited burst auto, not the shape of the rifle that makes the M-16 an assault weapon suited for combat and the AR-15 not.  Get real.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
> The M-16 is a multi-use platform.  You can use it in combat, and best in a firefight on single shot, but go auto as suppressive fire for moving to a new position, or suppression to egress.  If clearing a building in close quarters door by door, a burst of automatic is a good calling card and effective at putting down multiples in close, where precision aim is not the highest priority, but speed of putting a lot of rounds in a small space is.  That, dude, is an assault weapon.
> Not the case with an AR-15, look alike.  Where the idea is to acquire, aim to sight picture, and squeeze a round, then repeat if necessary.



If I am going to suppress, say, a doorway, I will center my rounds on that doorway.  SAme goes for any entrance or egress.  And since I can get adequate firepower from a semi auto with a high degree or reload capability the I would be an idiot to choose to empty my weapon out and cause the Eleventh Commandment of Battle.  And the AR can do the same job is experienced hands as the M-16 (all models).  As for the 3 shot setting, you are doing a joke right?


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Too many years in Combat Arms  Enlisted Mos and Officer Branch assignment, and all those years of training people to use them, tactically and on ranges, I guess.  After a few million rounds down range, I am not too interested in splitting hairs, when I know the difference.  The people that put the pen to paper on writing the laws that suit you, in the language that suits you, are clueless about these weapons by comparison, same as you.


Ah, your arrogance does become you.
\


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Firstly, the 2nd says "a well regulated militia".
> It does Not say every idiot is militia.
> 
> Secondly.
> ...


The second amendment doesnt exist to protect the citizenry against a foreign invader, though it would, it's to protect them against a tyrannical government.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> If I am going to suppress, say, a doorway, I will center my rounds on that doorway.  SAme goes for any entrance or egress.  And since I can get adequate firepower from a semi auto with a high degree or reload capability the I would be an idiot to choose to empty my weapon out and cause the Eleventh Commandment of Battle.  And the AR can do the same job is experienced hands as the M-16 (all models).  As for the 3 shot setting, you are doing a joke right?


You can do that with virtually any semi automatic rifle, what's your point? 

And the 3rd burst does have it's applications.   Not every combat situation is you sitting or in the prone with the ability to take well aimed shots at stationary targets who aren't firing back at you like doorways.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> The second amendment doesnt exist to protect the citizenry against a foreign invader, though it would, it's to protect them against a tyrannical government.



Okay, lt's look at it another direction.  It's there to prevent the Federal Goverment from monkeying with States Rights.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> You can do that with virtually any semi automatic rifle, what's your point?
> 
> And the 3rd burst does have it's applications.   Not every combat situation is you sitting or in the prone with the ability to take well aimed shots at stationary targets who aren't firing back at you like doorways.



My adrenelin pretty well makes every shot a 3 shot burst in single shot mode when required.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And as I said it depends on how you see a tyrant.


it’s easy to confuse a corrupt politician with a tyrant if you were born and live in the United States.

You might ask a person from Cuba or Venezuela who is living in the states if he feels this nation is a tyranny.  I used to live in a predominate Cuban neighborhood. Cubans who fled Cuba were damn happy to be living in the U.S.

You have to really want to leave a nation to travel like this.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> My adrenelin pretty well makes every shot a 3 shot burst in single shot mode when required.


no it doesnt.   you cant pull the trigger as fast as the gun will cycle itself.    It's funny that you think you can.


----------



## Vrenn (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> no it doesnt.   you cant pull the trigger as fast as the gun will cycle itself.    It's funny that you think you can.



The difference is, all shots are on target but in 3 shot or full auto, only the first shot is on target.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, if I decide that black people are the enemy, it's perfectly legit for me to go around shooting up black people?


If they're raping your wife and burning your hous, are they the enemy?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> When I break out my bull barrelled 700BDL OUght Six that is a respectable range gun and gets thumbs up and smiles.  The best  you can get is "Now, that's cute" and giggles.


Yall sound like gun snob Fudds.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> The difference is, all shots are on target but in 3 shot or full auto, only the first shot is on target.


Automatic fire is for area suppression, not shooting MOA, or sub-MOA.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Machine Guns in the Civilian World needed to be curtailed.  There were a lot of innocents that died due to spray and pray shooting of a thompson.


The people doing the shooting should have been taken off the streets instead.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> You do what you must in your state and we will do what we must in our state.


But, when I come to your state, I want my rights upheld.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Andn why is that?  could it be that the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the due dilligence of many law enforcements contributed to it's demise?  And we have to be very careful.  The Ghost Gun Full Autos are starting to surface because of you 2nd Amendment Gunnutters.


Arrest the people using them to cause harm.  Problem solved.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> If I am going to suppress, say, a doorway, I will center my rounds on that doorway.  SAme goes for any entrance or egress.  And since I can get adequate firepower from a semi auto with a high degree or reload capability the I would be an idiot to choose to empty my weapon out and cause the Eleventh Commandment of Battle.  And the AR can do the same job is experienced hands as the M-16 (all models).  As for the 3 shot setting, you are doing a joke right?


If 5 guys are rushing through that doorway you would need to use automatic fire.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And as I said it depends on how you see a tyrant.


What if the KKK formed their own army and started imposing it's will on you and your neighbors?  Is that tyranny?


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> The second amendment doesnt exist to protect the citizenry against a foreign invader, though it would, it's to protect them against a tyrannical government.


That's a complete lie because it doesn't say that read it dickhead. That's a very poor justification for an arsenal of unused weapons. 

What you really mean is a Democrat government. Trump was the wannabe fascist/tyrant by orchestrating the j6 riots but you did nothing about it. 
There will be no tyrannical governments whole  democracy prevails and the election of Biden over trump proves the people are not as mad as you.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> That's a complete lie because it doesn't say that read it dickhead. That's a very poor justification for an arsenal of unused weapons.
> 
> What you really mean is a Democrat government. Trump was the wannabe fascist/tyrant by orchestrating the j6 riots but you did nothing about it.
> There will be no tyrannical governments whole  democracy prevails and the election of Biden over trump proves the people are not as mad as you.


Cool story


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Cool story


You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> That's a complete lie because it doesn't say that read it dickhead. That's a very poor justification for an arsenal of unused weapons.
> 
> What you really mean is a Democrat government. Trump was the wannabe fascist/tyrant by orchestrating the j6 riots but you did nothing about it.
> There will be no tyrannical governments whole  democracy prevails and the election of Biden over trump proves the people are not as mad as you.


The 2nd Amendment exists so the people can defend themselves.  Period.  From the government, foreign invaders, criminals, it doesn't matter.

I don't need to justify the number of guns I own.  I have the right own a thousand guns, if I want.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.


I’m sure you believe that


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Firstly, the 2nd says "a well regulated militia".
> It does Not say every idiot is militia.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You've been exposed dickhead and you know it. Try again but with facts next time.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> I’m sure you believe that


You bet I do and you can't take it. Fick you and your 2nd amendment. You are all egotistical gun nuts who are frightened to walk out the door without a gun. 
Home of the brave my arse.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You bet I do and you can't take it. Fick you and your 2nd amendment. You are all egotistical gun nuts who are frightened to walk out the door without a gun.
> Home of the brave my arse.


Yeah I can tell how much you believe it by how insecure you are.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Yeah I can tell how much you believe it by how insecure you are.


Stay on  topic even if it starts to pain. 
But the irony of you saying I'm insecure yet you all have guns to protect yourselves.  Why a hypocrit. You're completely devoid of  any brains.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Stay on  topic even if it starts to pain.
> But the irony of you saying I'm insecure yet you all have guns to protect yourselves.  Why a hypocrit. You're completely devoid of  any brains.


cool story.   Bitch


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> it’s easy to confuse a corrupt politician with a tyrant if you were born and live in the United States.
> 
> You might ask a person from Cuba or Venezuela who is living in the states if he feels this nation is a tyranny.  I used to live in a predominate Cuban neighborhood. Cubans who fled Cuba were damn happy to be living in the U.S.
> 
> You have to really want to leave a nation to travel like this.



I get what you're saying. 

Problem I have is that people often misuse words. 

Like "Communism" which suddenly becomes either "anyone who calls themselves Communist regardless of whether they are or not" or "Anything that looks like the USSR". 

Cuba might be considered tyrannical. But not because of how it acted, but because of how the leader had power. 

Castro had 100% of the power. Therefore he was a tyrant. It didn't matter what he did with that power, he was a tyrant simply for the fact that he had this power. 

I doubt those Cubans left simply because Castro had that power. They left because of what he did with that power.

Obviously absolute power corrupts. But that's a consequence of tyranny rather than tyranny itself.


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 19, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> cool story.   Bitch


Oh it's bitch now. You getting a little frustrated old darling. I'm under your skin.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 19, 2022)

What's the point? The 2nd Amendment has been upheld in a dozen Supreme Court decisions. Why do we need to justify the freaking Bill of Rights every time democrats get the majority in congress?


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 19, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Oh it's bitch now. You getting a little frustrated old darling. I'm under your skin.


Sure ya are.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I get what you're saying.
> 
> Problem I have is that people often misuse words.
> 
> ...


It has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding a benevolent dictator.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> It has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding a benevolent dictator.



Yeah, the problem is all forms of government have their problems.

For me, Proportional Representation is the best, with a series of other things, that bring people into politics more. FPTP just seems to lead to money controlling it all, because it's far easier to use money to change the outcome of a small area, than the whole country.

Germany spent less on their whole federal election than one Senate race in the US.... says a lot.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, the problem is all forms of government have their problems.
> 
> For me, Proportional Representation is the best, with a series of other things, that bring people into politics more. FPTP just seems to lead to money controlling it all, because it's far easier to use money to change the outcome of a small area, than the whole country.
> 
> Germany spent less on their whole federal election than one Senate race in the US.... says a lot.


Well there is no doubt that Big Money has corrupted our election process. The cost to win an election to the House of Representatives is $1.6 million. Congress Critters are forced to spend much of their time raising money. Your idea of Proportional Representation is interesting but I image hard to implement. 









						The astonishing amount of money it costs to win a seat in Congress today
					

The cost of winning an election has skeyrocketed, which may be in large part due to the 2010 landmark United States Supreme Court Case ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 19, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Well there is no doubt that Big Money has corrupted our election process. The cost to win an election to the House of Representatives is $1.6 million. Congress Critters are forced to spend much of their time raising money. Your idea of Proportional Representation is interesting but I image hard to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, PR is easy to implement. Beyond the fact that the Reps and Dems don't want it and they make up nearly 100% of the US political system, that is.

Germany has it. People vote, there's a 5% cut off (I prefer a lower number, Denmark has 2%) and then the votes are counted and then based on these numbers the seats are doled out. 

Much simpler than having gerrymandering and all the other nonsense that goes on. You can't gerrymander PR.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, PR is easy to implement. Beyond the fact that the Reps and Dems don't want it and they make up nearly 100% of the US political system, that is.
> 
> Germany has it. People vote, there's a 5% cut off (I prefer a lower number, Denmark has 2%) and then the votes are counted and then based on these numbers the seats are doled out.
> 
> Much simpler than having gerrymandering and all the other nonsense that goes on. You can't gerrymander PR.


I thought changing would require a Constitutional amendment but apparently I was wrong. 





__





						Rep.htmlProportional Representation What is Proportional Representation?
					





					thirdworldtraveler.com
				




***snip***

_So How Do We Change From "Winner-Take-All" To Proportional Representation?
In many states it is possible to convert to PR simply by changing applicable laws. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not required. The laws can be changed by a simple vote of the legislatures, or in many cases via a voter initiative. PR can be adapted to local, state and national levels, bringing the democratic promise of "one person, one vote" closer to fulfillment.​If the political will could be mobilized, it is possible to convert immediately to a system of proportional representation for electing representatives to city councils, state legislatures, and even the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Senators could be elected by Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), giving voters more choice. As a bonus, PR would spare states the torment of legislative redistricting, an arduous, bitter and partisan gerrymandering affair.​_​


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 20, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> Sure ya are.


Yes if course I am.  And you're a slut.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Feb 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And who gets to decide who the enemy is?


The enemy:  Any foreign or domestic government with the active goal of trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 20, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I thought changing would require a Constitutional amendment but apparently I was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess as an amendment it would be the best way, because you're going to need the support of all states and areas to implement it anyway. If one state doesn't do it (unless it's a small state like Wyoming) then it all falls apart. 

For the presidential election, if PR were to be implemented it would probably need an amendment because the Electoral College is enshrined into the Constitution. Though something like the French system might work with a run off system where the two most popular then fight each other head to head. 

For the House it would be much easier, an agreement with states would probably be enough. There are many ways of doing it. Germany has both FPTP and PR representatives at the same time, though the make up of the Bundestag is by PR.

Also what could happen is simply that in the House the number of votes is based on the popular vote, rather than the number of people in the House. It's not something that actually happens, but I don't see why it couldn't.


Imagine if the Reps had 100 members, the Dems had 100 members and a few other parties all have 100, but those 100 Reps vote, and 75 say "yes" then 75% of the percentage the Reps got (say they got 42% of the vote, then they'd have 31.5% yes and 10.5% no in the House). 

The Senate would need an Amendment as each state gets two members. Doesn't work at all.

However just changing the House would have a MASSIVE impact, it would certainly change the presidency and who would stand a chance getting elected.


----------



## Couchpotato (Feb 20, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Yes if course I am.  And you're a slut.


ha ha ha.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 20, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> The enemy:  Any foreign or domestic government with the active goal of trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic.



And who decides whether someone is actively trying to destroy the Republic? 

Biden supporters will say Trump is trying to actively destroy the Republic.
Trump supporters will say Biden is trying to actively destroy the Republic.

So who decides?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Feb 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And who decides whether someone is actively trying to destroy the Republic?
> 
> Biden supporters will say Trump is trying to actively destroy the Republic.
> Trump supporters will say Biden is trying to actively destroy the Republic.
> ...


Perhaps an administration that would seek to undermine our Constitutional Bill of Rights, like the First and Second Amendments for an example.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 20, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> Perhaps an administration that would seek to undermine our Constitutional Bill of Rights, like the First and Second Amendments for an example.



Well, that also depends on who's interpreting the Constitution, doesn't it? 

What does the Second Amendment mean? I say it means something different because I've studied it. Others claim it gives them an unlimited right to arms at all times and all places no matter what.....

The Constitution also has an amendment process. If they try and change the constitution, does this make them an enemy? When it's perfectly legal and constitutional under the constitution.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?




Canada.....


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Couchpotato said:


> But many people see the AR 15 as “assault weapons”.


Those people are wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> The ONLY thing an AR or an AK is number 1 at is mass killing both war and civilian uses.


So why do police officers have AR rifles?  Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?




Vrenn said:


> And my handguns and the shotgun does home defense much, much better.


Good luck punching through Kevlar with a handgun or shotgun.




Vrenn said:


> Second, 2A, the way it's written, no longer makes sense when you factor in the National Firearms Act of 1934.


If there is a conflict between the Second Amendment and the NFA, the NFA becomes unconstitutional.




Vrenn said:


> The number 1 purpose to use an AR is for mass shootings whether it is civilian or military.


Actually lots of people use them for protection against foxes and coyotes.

And lots of other people use them for self defense against criminals.

And lots of other people use them for target shooting sports.




Vrenn said:


> Then you would be wrong.  Assault Rifle is a Military Term given a complete class of weapon including the AR series and the AK series and the various clones, copies.


An AR is not an assault rifle unless it has full-auto or burst-fire capability.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Psst...
> The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms ARE "assault weapons".


Actually no.  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.




M14 Shooter said:


> Reference any "assault weapon" law you choose.
> All of them refer to semi-automatic rifles.


Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.




M14 Shooter said:


> You still don't understand the difference between an assault rifle and an 'assault weapon'.
> Why?


There is no difference.  Both terms refer to weapons that were outlawed some 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.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> So why do police officers have AR rifles?  Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?



Simple answer.  I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM,  Neither were full auto.  The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols.  The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets.  After that,  cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.  



Open Bolt said:


> Good luck punching through Kevlar with a handgun or shotgun.



41 Mag should be able to do it.  




Open Bolt said:


> If there is a conflict between the Second Amendment and the NFA, the NFA becomes unconstitutional.



And when YOUR interpretation of the 2A conflicts with public safety, then YOUR interpretation becomes unconstitutional.  




Open Bolt said:


> Actually lots of people use them for protection against foxes and coyotes.



There are a lot of other weapons that do as better job.  The AR is merely adequate.





Open Bolt said:


> And lots of other people use them for self defense against criminals.



And that is one of the dumbest things you can come up with.  Why did the cops feel the need to carry the M1921?  Easy answer, the criminals had them and the cops were greatly outgunned.   Did they do this by pushing the M1921 to the civilian market?  No, they got rid of them with the cops being the last to get rid of them long before the AR-15.  And that was the reason the NFA of 1934 was passed.  It also covered some other really nasty weapons that should not be on the street without completely banning all but a few.  It took them about 10 years to get enough M1921s off the streets to make a difference without confiscations.






Open Bolt said:


> And lots of other people use them for target shooting sports.



Fine, but having the AR having to be licensed as well as the shooter doesn't change that.  Licensed shooters (CCW) are not the problem and about the least likely to become a mass shooter.   Same would go for the NFA licensed shooter.  Make a special category for the AR and AK.  




Open Bolt said:


> An AR is not an assault rifle unless it has full-auto or burst-fire capability.



Are you saying that the M-16 used in the Military today is NOT an assault Rifle?  Funny, that's how the Military categorizes it and has since 1963 when it was first introduced into the USAF.  

You keep trying to use the same tired crap over and over.   Come up with something new.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually no.  Assault weapons:
> 
> a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,



I see, now you are including burst fire weapons.  



Open Bolt said:


> b) accept detachable magazines,



Can you imagine reloading one that isn't?  Kind of takes away from the intention doesn't it.




Open Bolt said:


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



Aww, you are just making shit up again.




Open Bolt said:


> d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.



Do you know what it takes to be effective out to 900+ yds?  I doubt seriously that on something that would be classed as an assault rifle would have the sights to handle that and the shooter wouldn't have the special training.  Anything that is effective at over4 900yds would be classed as a sniper rifle no matter if it were a single or a semi shot.  Yer making shit up again.




Open Bolt said:


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



Good comparison is an AR-15 and a Mini-14.  The only real advantage the AR has over the Mini is how fast you can change out the mags.  And that is a fantastic difference.  





Open Bolt said:


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



You making shit up again




Open Bolt said:


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



You already made this shit up earlier.



Open Bolt said:


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



Finally, something that actually make some kind of sense.




Open Bolt said:


> Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good.  You seem to want to have a Champaign diet on a beer budget.


----------



## Innocynioc (Mar 16, 2022)

JGalt said:


> If you haven't noticed yet, most every factory stock AR-15 available still has a bayonet lug under the front sight.
> 
> That's also considered "illegal" in some states.
> 
> View attachment 602942


----------



## Innocynioc (Mar 16, 2022)

As an elderly man living alone in a secluded country house after my wife of fifty-one years recently passed away  I take comfort in having my Ruger Mini 30 semi auto rifle wearing a thirty round magazine leaning against the wall beside my bed.  It is not an AR or AK, but it fires the same round as the AK47.  It is just a different flavor of the same concept.

If you are old enough to remember the TV coverage of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles you saw Korean merchants on the roofs of their buildings using AK 47s to good effect.  Their buildings are the ones that did not get looted and burned.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 16, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually no.  Assault weapons:
> a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,


That's an assault rifle.
'Assault weapon' is a term created by law, and universally applies to semi-automatic weapons.


Open Bolt said:


> b) accept detachable magazines,


The SPAS-12 qualifies as an 'assault weapon' (see above)
So, no.


Open Bolt said:


> Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.


If the law defines the term, then the term, as used by the law, is accurate.


Open Bolt said:


> There is no difference.  Both terms refer to weapons that were outlawed some 88 years ago.


Assault rifles are not outlawed.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 16, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> As an elderly man living alone in a secluded country house after my wife of fifty-one years recently passed away  I take comfort in having my Ruger Mini 30 semi auto rifle wearing a thirty round magazine leaning against the wall beside my bed.  It is not an AR or AK, but it


Same concept, wrong war.  The Mini-14 is a reduced copy of a M-14 with a 308 and full auto.  And the M-14 was an upgraded version of the old M-1.  The M-1 goes back to the old Mauser design.  So I can safely say that the Mini-14s design goes back at least 60 years.  But Stoner had a better idea making it lighter, smaller, reload quicker and more idiot proof.  It took the USArmy about 10 years to figure that out.  The concept may have been the same but the way it got there was completely different.  And the Mini-14 became a decent Civilian Rifle regardless of what those that watch the "A-Team" believe.  




Innocynioc said:


> If you are old enough to remember the TV coverage of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles you saw Korean merchants on the roofs of their buildings using AK 47s to good effect.  Their buildings are the ones that did not get looted and burned.



And neither did the Merchants in Detroit during the last bit of protests there.  But a shotgun would have had the same effect.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 'Assault weapon' is a term created by law, and universally applies to semi-automatic weapons.


That is incorrect.  It means the same thing as assault rifle.

Any definition that says differently is fraudulent.




M14 Shooter said:


> The SPAS-12 qualifies as an 'assault weapon' (see above)


That is incorrect.  It lacks the full-auto or burst-fire capability.  It lacks the detachable magazines.  It lacks the reduced power.  And it lacks the required range.




M14 Shooter said:


> If the law defines the term, then the term, as used by the law, is accurate.


That is incorrect.  If a law includes a fraudulent definition, being part of a law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.




M14 Shooter said:


> Assault rifles are not outlawed.


Funny how the vast majority of the general public is not permitted to own them.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Simple answer.  I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM,  Neither were full auto.


The bad guys' guns had been illegally converted to full auto.

The main problem the police had, however, was the inability to punch through the bad guys' Kevlar.




Vrenn said:


> The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols.  The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets.  After that, cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.


So in other words, ARs have a purpose other than mass murder.




Vrenn said:


> 41 Mag should be able to do it.


It won't.  You need a centerfire rifle to punch through Kevlar.




Vrenn said:


> And when YOUR interpretation of the 2A conflicts with public safety, then YOUR interpretation becomes unconstitutional.


That is incorrect.  An accurate interpretation of the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.




Vrenn said:


> There are a lot of other weapons that do as better job.  The AR is merely adequate.


Which weapons do you contend provide better protection against foxes and coyotes?




Vrenn said:


> And that is one of the dumbest things you can come up with.


Not at all.  You noted above that cops use ARs for self defense.




Vrenn said:


> Why did the cops feel the need to carry the M1921?  Easy answer, the criminals had them and the cops were greatly outgunned.   Did they do this by pushing the M1921 to the civilian market?  No, they got rid of them with the cops being the last to get rid of them long before the AR-15.  And that was the reason the NFA of 1934 was passed.  It also covered some other really nasty weapons that should not be on the street without completely banning all but a few.  It took them about 10 years to get enough M1921s off the streets to make a difference without confiscations.


Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police do.




Vrenn said:


> Fine, but having the AR having to be licensed as well as the shooter doesn't change that.  Licensed shooters (CCW) are not the problem and about the least likely to become a mass shooter.   Same would go for the NFA licensed shooter.  Make a special category for the AR and AK.


That sounds unconstitutional.  A semi-auto-only AR or AK is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto-only rifle that accepts large magazines.




Vrenn said:


> Are you saying that the M-16 used in the Military today is NOT an assault Rifle?


No.  I say only what I post.




Vrenn said:


> You keep trying to use the same tired crap over and over.   Come up with something new.


I do not agree that facts and logic are crap.

I intend to continue posting facts and logic.




Vrenn said:


> I see, now you are including burst fire weapons.


I always have.




Vrenn said:


> Aww, you are just making shit up again.
> Yer making shit up again.
> You making shit up again
> You already made this shit up earlier.


You cannot point out a single untrue statement in any of my posts, including my posting of the definition of an assault weapon.




Vrenn said:


> You seem to want to have a Champaign diet on a beer budget.


Who doesn't?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Simple answer.  I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM,  Neither were full auto.  The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols.  The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets.  After that,  cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You may be reffering to the North Hollywood shootout and the two robbers had modified rifles that did, in fact, fire fully automatic.....

With all of the shooting, the robbers did not actually kill anyone..

The robbers were covered in Kevlar so the police couldn't easily put them down...

The cops went to a local gun store and got Ar-15 rifles...

North_Hollywood_shootout

The problem was the kevlar the robbers were wearing...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  It means the same thing as assault rifle.
> Any definition that says differently is fraudulent.


You apparently refuse to understand 'assault weapon' is a legal term with a legal definition, and assault rifle is not.
An AR15 is an 'assault weapon' under various laws, and is not an assault rifle.
An M16 is an assault rifle, and -never- falls under the definition of 'assault weapon'.


Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  It lacks the full-auto or burst-fire capability.  It lacks the detachable magazines.  It lacks the reduced power.  And it lacks the required range.


No, it is correct.  Under any number of the laws that define an 'assault weapons', the SPAS-12 is specifically mentioned.
Thus, an 'assault weapon'.
And not an assault rifle.


Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  If a law includes a fraudulent definition, being part of a law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.


The law defines legal terms.   'Assault weapon' is a legal term
You may disagree with the particulars, but that does not change the fact the law defines those terms as such.
And so, the law that defines 'assault weapons' defines them correctly.


Open Bolt said:


> Funny how the vast majority of the general public is not permitted to own them.


Unless you live in a state that prohibits NFA weapons, if you can legally own a gun, you are "permitted" to own an assault rifle.
The vast majority of people do not live in states that prohibit NFA weapons -  and so, the vast majority of people are indeed "permitted" to own assault rifles.


----------



## IamZ (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And who gets to decide who the enemy is?


Well that’s where good immigration comes in


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The bad guys' guns had been illegally converted to full auto.
> 
> The main problem the police had, however, was the inability to punch through the bad guys' Kevlar.



In the Roaring 20s and early 30s, the bad guys didn't have boy armor.  Pay attention.





Open Bolt said:


> So in other words, ARs have a purpose other than mass murder.



The only thing it is designed to do better than any other weapon is war other than mass murder.  I can uswe a large crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer.




Open Bolt said:


> It won't.  You need a centerfire rifle to punch through Kevlar.



Wrong.  Kevlar comes in many grades from Level 1 to Level 111A.  About the best you can afford will be a 11B which protects against almost every handgun except the 44 Mag.  Since the 41 mag has a better penetration than the 44 then you can include that as well.  Now unless you have at lest  3000 bucks for a bullet resistant vest,  you probably won't stop any of the Magnum pistols.  Vest are not bullet proof, they are bullet resistant.



Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  An accurate interpretation of the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.



The 2nd is so ambiguous that it's easy to read many different ways.  




Open Bolt said:


> Which weapons do you contend provide better protection against foxes and coyotes?



Almost anything.  Foxes and Coyotes rarely attack humans.  Although I would suggest a decent 243 or 6mm.




Open Bolt said:


> Not at all.  You noted above that cops use ARs for self defense.



They keep them in the trunk while keeping the shotgun inside the vehicle for ease of use.  



Open Bolt said:


> Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police do.



Then you should put the weapons in the same category that the cops do; the Pistol first, Shotgun second and AR last.




Open Bolt said:


> That sounds unconstitutional.  A semi-auto-only AR or AK is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto-only rifle that accepts large magazines.



I can accurate discharge more than 120 rounds for an AR while you can't do half that out of a mini-14.  The fact that the Mag replacement is much faster.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> The only thing it is designed to do better than any other weapon is war other than mass murder.  I can use a large crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer.


The police don't seem to agree with you.  Presumably they are choosing what they feel are the best weapons for their self defense needs.  They keep choosing ARs for self defense.




Vrenn said:


> Wrong.  Kevlar comes in many grades from Level 1 to Level 111A.  About the best you can afford will be a 11B which protects against almost every handgun except the 44 Mag.  Since the 41 mag has a better penetration than the 44 then you can include that as well.  Now unless you have at lest  3000 bucks for a bullet resistant vest,  you probably won't stop any of the Magnum pistols.  Vest are not bullet proof, they are bullet resistant.


Bad guys aren't going to use thin Kevlar.  They are going to be wearing 3A.




Vrenn said:


> The 2nd is so ambiguous that it's easy to read many different ways.


It is not ambiguous to me.




Vrenn said:


> Almost anything.


That's not really an answer.




Vrenn said:


> Foxes and Coyotes rarely attack humans.


They quite often attack chickens.  People who shoot foxes and coyotes are not protecting themselves.  They are protecting their livestock.




Vrenn said:


> Although I would suggest a decent 243 or 6mm.


The AR 10 platform provides a decent 243.




Vrenn said:


> They keep them in the trunk while keeping the shotgun inside the vehicle for ease of use.
> Then you should put the weapons in the same category that the cops do; the Pistol first, Shotgun second and AR last.


I am skeptical.  Do you have a cite of the police doing this?




Vrenn said:


> I can accurate discharge more than 120 rounds for an AR while you can't do half that out of a mini-14.  The fact that the Mag replacement is much faster.


I'm having trouble envisioning the slower magazine changes making such a massive difference.

But, that could be why the police choose the AR for their self defense needs.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You apparently refuse to understand 'assault weapon' is a legal term with a legal definition, and assault rifle is not.


I never accept falsehoods.




M14 Shooter said:


> An AR15 is an 'assault weapon' under various laws,


Those laws are using a fraudulent definition.




M14 Shooter said:


> An M16 is an assault rifle, and -never- falls under the definition of 'assault weapon'.


It falls under the true definition of assault weapon.




M14 Shooter said:


> No, it is correct.  Under any number of the laws that define an 'assault weapons', the SPAS-12 is specifically mentioned.
> Thus, an 'assault weapon'.


Again, those laws are using a fraudulent definition.




M14 Shooter said:


> The law defines legal terms.   'Assault weapon' is a legal term
> You may disagree with the particulars, but that does not change the fact the law defines those terms as such.


The fact that a fraudulent definition is written into law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.




M14 Shooter said:


> And so, the law that defines 'assault weapons' defines them correctly.


That is incorrect.  Fraudulent definitions are not correct definitions.




M14 Shooter said:


> Unless you live in a state that prohibits NFA weapons, if you can legally own a gun, you are "permitted" to own an assault rifle.
> The vast majority of people do not live in states that prohibit NFA weapons -  and so, the vast majority of people are indeed "permitted" to own assault rifles.


That is incorrect.  There are some 20,000 transferable M-16s, some 4,000 transferable FN FNC sears, and some 7,200 transferable HK sears.

Thrown in the handful of other transferable assault rifles out there and we end up with around 32,000 transferable assault rifles.

A maximum of 32,000 guns is not enough guns for the majority of Americans to own one.

The majority of people in this country are also not going to be able to start their own machine gun manufacturing business so they can build their own post-86 guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I never accept falsehoods.


That you chose to disbelieve the facts does change the facts,


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> That you chose to disbelieve the facts does change the facts,


I never choose to disbelieve facts.  Notice my continued challenges against your untrue claims.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The police don't seem to agree with you.  Presumably they are choosing what they feel are the best weapons for their self defense needs.  They keep choosing ARs for self defense.



Then why do they keep the AR in the locked trunk and have the pistol and shotgun for ease of access?  If what you are saying is the truth, all cops would be constantly armed with the AR.  I've been pulled over by the Polizia armed with an Uzi.  We don't need that crap in America.




Open Bolt said:


> Bad guys aren't going to use thin Kevlar.  They are going to be wearing 3A.



Bad Guys won't bother with the 3000 buck kelvar or the 6000 dollar kevlar.  That is how much a 3A kevlar armor costs.  The Armor that would mostly stop a 357 or a 38 Spl +P would be a 2A or a 2B and cost nearly 3000 bucks.  I don't know what movie you keep watching over and over but it does apply in the United States.



Open Bolt said:


> It is not ambiguous to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shotguns do a better job.





Open Bolt said:


> The AR 10 platform provides a decent 243.



AR-10 from Armelite?  Hard to find.  And it fits many of the states definition of either banned or restricted weapons since it's what brought us all the AR-15 Model 601 in 1958 and the AR-15 Model 750 in 1962.  




Open Bolt said:


> I am skeptical.  Do you have a cite of the police doing this?



Don't need one.  Get out of your Mother's Basement and watch the cops in your town.  



Open Bolt said:


> I'm having trouble envisioning the slower magazine changes making such a massive difference.
> 
> But, that could be why the police choose the AR for their self defense needs.



They didn't choose it for defense reasons.  They chose it because some of the bad guys were outgunning them.  Haven't you learned a thing from your forebearers?  Instead of arming everyone with an M1921 (typewriter) you get them out of the criminals hands.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Then why do they keep the AR in the locked trunk and have the pistol and shotgun for ease of access?


I don't think they do.  I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.




Vrenn said:


> If what you are saying is the truth, all cops would be constantly armed with the AR.


I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.

They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.




Vrenn said:


> I've been pulled over by the Polizia armed with an Uzi.  We don't need that crap in America.


Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.




Vrenn said:


> Bad Guys won't bother with the 3000 buck kelvar or the 6000 dollar kevlar.  That is how much a 3A kevlar armor costs.


I think they will.  And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.




Vrenn said:


> Shotguns do a better job.


I disagree.  Light rifles are perfect.




Vrenn said:


> AR-10 from Armelite?  Hard to find.


Many manufacturers make AR-10 platforms.




Vrenn said:


> And it fits many of the states definition of either banned or restricted weapons since it's what brought us all the AR-15 Model 601 in 1958 and the AR-15 Model 750 in 1962.


Those sound like unconstitutional laws that will soon be struck down.




Vrenn said:


> Don't need one.  Get out of your Mother's Basement and watch the cops in your town.


If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.




Vrenn said:


> They didn't choose it for defense reasons.  They chose it because some of the bad guys were outgunning them.


I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.




Vrenn said:


> Haven't you learned a thing from your forebearers?  Instead of arming everyone with an M1921 (typewriter) you get them out of the criminals hands.


People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest.  Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.

I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I never choose to disbelieve facts.  Notice my continued challenges against your untrue claims.


And thus, an example of you dispebliving facts,


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, an example of you dispebliving facts,


No.  Your untrue claims are not facts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And who gets to decide who the enemy is?


democrats are the greatest threat to America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I never accept falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude a AR 15 IS NOT AN ASSUT RIFLE It doesn't have a selective fire and cannot be switched to fire automatic
A baseball bat is an assault weapon Assualt is an act
Now shut the fuck up
I will say this the 94 ban did not have any effect on reducing crime or mass shootings 
Though I disagree with their opinion what weapons were banned is in the link and they were called assault weapons because of how they looked not the function
*Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective*​The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.
*Shotguns:* Franchi LAW–12 and* SPAS 12*; _All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:_ IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No.  Your untrue claims are not facts.


just because you made false claims doesn't mean Shooter has.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't think they do.  I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.



I am unable to give you a cite you can accept as long as you stay in your mother basement.  Then again, if you go outside and look you won't need the cite.




Open Bolt said:


> I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.
> 
> They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.



Get out of that basement and stop watching that fictional movie.  





Open Bolt said:


> Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.



You are going to have to give me a cite on that one.  I did a fast search and came up blank.




Open Bolt said:


> I think they will.  And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



Almost any center fire rifle and the 41 Mag Pistol and bigger has that capability.  So you already have that.




Open Bolt said:


> I disagree.  Light rifles are perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you mean like the ones in Colorado and Boston?  The ruling is, if you don't like the laws, move.






Open Bolt said:


> If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.



I tried to find a cite to the preferred location of a Police AR-15 and came up blank.  Again, get out of your mothers basement and talk to the nearest cop and ask him where his is located at.  I will tell you this much, none of your cops here have their AR-15 within easy access inside the car.  



Open Bolt said:


> I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



No, they choose the AR-15 because they got tired of having services for their brothers and sisters because you fruitcakes outgunned them and you were killing them.




Open Bolt said:


> People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest.  Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.
> 
> I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).



I think I have heard enough from you.  Say goodnight, gracie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No.  Your untrue claims are not facts.


My claims are true.  You simply disbelieve.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> *Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective*​


The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce anything, because did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'.








bigrebnc1775 said:


> The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.


_Post hoc_ fallacy


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> My claims are true.


No they aren't.

Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong.

Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> I am unable to give you a cite you can accept as long as you stay in your mother basement.


Your childish name-calling signifies the end of the debate anyway.




Vrenn said:


> You are going to have to give me a cite on that one.  I did a fast search and came up blank.


I'll give you a link if I can find one.  I don't know if it's online though.




Vrenn said:


> Almost any center fire rifle and the 41 Mag Pistol and bigger has that capability.


Only centerfire rifles can punch through 3A.




Vrenn said:


> Do you mean like the ones in Colorado and Boston?


I am not super familiar with those particular laws, but it is very likely that they are unconstitutional and soon to be struck down.




Vrenn said:


> The ruling is, if you don't like the laws, move.


No.  If a law is unconstitutional, have the courts strike it down.




Vrenn said:


> No, they choose the AR-15 because they got tired of having services for their brothers and sisters because you fruitcakes outgunned them and you were killing them.


More childish name-calling signifying the end of the debate.

The police move to AR-15s came as a result of those two criminals wearing Kevlar in the North Hollywood bank robbery.




Vrenn said:


> I think I have heard enough from you.  Say goodnight, gracie.


Constitutional law is too much for you?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dude a AR 15 IS NOT AN ASSUT RIFLE It doesn't have a selective fire and cannot be switched to fire automatic


Correct.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> A baseball bat is an assault weapon Assualt is an act


That is incorrect.  Assault weapon is a term for a type of gun.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now shut the fuck up


No.  I will continue to challenge untrue claims when I see them.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> I will say this the 94 ban did not have any effect on reducing crime or mass shootings


Correct.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> what weapons were banned is in the link and they were called assault weapons because of how they looked not the function


That was a fraudulent definition.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> just because you made false claims doesn't mean Shooter has.


I have not made any false claims.  Shooter has made multiple false claims.  You have made at least one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No they aren't.


Demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Demonstrate this to be true.


Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong.  Reality remains true even if a law or statute says otherwise.

Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong.  There are more than 300 million Americans.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 18, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Your claim that "placing a fraudulent definition in a statute somehow makes it not fraudulent" is wrong.  Reality remains true even if a law or statute says otherwise.
> 
> Your claim that "a finite supply of 32,000 guns can somehow arm the vast majority of the American people" is also wrong.  There are more than 300 million Americans.


Thanks for playing.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, that also depends on who's interpreting the Constitution, doesn't it?
> 
> What does the Second Amendment mean? I say it means something different because I've studied it. Others claim it gives them an unlimited right to arms at all times and all places no matter what.....
> 
> The Constitution also has an amendment process. If they try and change the constitution, does this make them an enemy? When it's perfectly legal and constitutional under the constitution.


The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 19, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.



No, you're wrong.

The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty". 

Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong.
> 
> The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.


You are wrong.  The very first definition of "to bear arms," is to "carry arms," and I did say that you have them so that you "can" provide for a militia if needed.  Our founding fathers recognized the contribution the citizen militias provided in helping defeat the British.
What it doesn't clarify is where and when you can carry said arms, hence the restrictions in such locations as courthouses and bars, et cetera and anything not covered specifically by the Constitution, can be determined upon by the individual states.  
While not discussed, the determination of the types of "small-arms" that citizens may keep and bear, are by simply recognizing that the said citizens would provide for militias if needed, means that they would be able to keep and bear firearms (rifles/pistols) similar to the federal military.  
The anti-gun crowd tends to fall into the following groups:
1.  Families of victims of gun violence.
2.  People unfamiliar with firearms and have a fear of them.
3.  Leftists/Marxists that want the public disarmed to rule out armed resistance once they can come to power.
There are approximately 95,000,000 to 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. owning an approximate 324,000,000 firearms.  I'm one of them.  I've not only been around them since I was eight years old, but spent 23 years in the military.  We take the ownership seriously and don't run around committing crimes with them.  Criminals with guns, for the most part, possess stolen firearms or ghost guns (it's not that difficult to make one now).  Their preferred weapon is stolen or ghost pistol/revolver, rather than a rifle.  Reason:  It's far easier to conceal.  
As to statistics, the numbers are inflated by the government by adding in suicides, which is different from a criminal act.   Someone hell-bent on killing themselves can easily succeed without a firearm.   Anyway, the left, for the most part, is hell-bent on confiscating the firearms from the law-abiding public that aren't the danger.  They deliberately are soft on criminals committing crimes with firearms, to enhance people's fears and help them push for firearms confiscation. Why?  Refer to #3.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 19, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> You are wrong.  The very first definition of "to bear arms," is to "carry arms," and I did say that you have them so that you "can" provide for a militia if needed.  Our founding fathers recognized the contribution the citizen militias provided in helping defeat the British.
> What it doesn't clarify is where and when you can carry said arms, hence the restrictions in such locations as courthouses and bars, et cetera and anything not covered specifically by the Constitution, can be determined upon by the individual states.
> While not discussed, the determination of the types of "small-arms" that citizens may keep and bear, are by simply recognizing that the said citizens would provide for militias if needed, means that they would be able to keep and bear firearms (rifles/pistols) similar to the federal military.
> The anti-gun crowd tends to fall into the following groups:
> ...



No, I'm not wrong. 

The definition of "bear arms" is "render military service" and "militia duty".



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


Here's the main document I use to prove it.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The clause they were talking about.

What Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Pretty clear Mr Gerry sees "bear arms" and "militia duty" as the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson said "render military service."

In fact the different versions of the 2A went back and forth.

June 8th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

They weren't sure whether to use one or the other.

If we look at the original state RBA clauses we see:

"1776 North Carolina: *That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"*

The right to bear arms for the "defence of the State".

So, you're saying North Carolina envisaged people walking around with guns just in case someone invaded the state?

"1776 Pennsylvania: *That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."*

These are different versions and it wasn't until 1817 that "themselves" changed to "himself", ie, collective "common defence" equals "defence of themselves" changed to individual defence (after the 2A was written) with "defence of himself"

"1817 Mississippi: *Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."*

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783​George Washington

In this document by a dude known as "George Washington", you might have heard of him, he said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He said you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of "bear". 

He also talked about "bear Arms" and "Military duties" in the same sentence.

Even in Heller they spoke about it:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""

Yep, and it still does. "Stool" also means a "poop". Doesn't mean if the teacher says "sit on the stool" he's not meaning "sit on the poop". Words have different meanings. To suggest a word CAN mean something it MUST mean something is ridiculous in the English language.

"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."

This is important. It means "confrontation". They've used "confrontation" because it works with self defense and the meaning it actually has. It's a very political choice of word, because EVERYTHING ELSE they talk about doesn't point to self defense. 

"In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

Yes, but not outside of a "militia". They're trying to be political again. They point to the state clauses I showed before. That you could "bear arms" for "common defence". It still doesn't mean "self defense". It means "collective defense" before 1817 in Mississippi, and therefore in the 2A.

"that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

Here they use "carrying of arms" as in "being in the militia", rather than actually just carrying them around in every day life.

"The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""

Here we go. This is the meaning that we see when the Founding Fathers were discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. Things can mean other things, but in the sense of the Second Amendment we KNOW what it means. Most people just choose to ignore it.

So, I'm not wrong.​


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong.
> 
> The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.




So you then oppose abortion....since that is definitely no where in the Constitution.......right?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I'm not wrong.
> 
> The definition of "bear arms" is "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> ...




Yeah....Scalia takes apart your silly post in Heller...you should try reading it sometime....... He even cites Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the definition of "Bear," in Heller......


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2022)

LuckyDuck said:


> The 2nd Amendment is clear in that it tells us that the people have the right to keep and bear (that means have on your premises and carry) firearms and not be infringed from doing so, so that they, if needed, can form a well-regulated militia to keep their states free, just as they did during the Revolutionary War.



And exactly what IS a Well Regulated Militia?


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, you're wrong.
> 
> The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.



One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States.  This is why it listed "A Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States.  This is why it listed "A Well Regulated Militia"



I mean, one of the interpretations of the 2A is that you can keep bear arms in your home. 

The problem with "interpretations" is that the people making them are ignorant of reality.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thanks for playing.


I'm always happy to defend the truth.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" and "render military service" and "militia duty".
> Nowhere, I mean, NOWHERE does it say the 2A is about carrying arms around whenever you like.


It doesn't have to say it.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.

That includes the part about people having guns to privately defend their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> I mean, one of the interpretations of the 2A is that you can keep bear arms in your home.
> The problem with "interpretations" is that the people making them are ignorant of reality.


No ignorance.  The right to keep and bear arms clearly includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> And exactly what IS a Well Regulated Militia?


It is a militia that has trained to a sufficient degree that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.




Vrenn said:


> One of the interpretations of the 2A is limiting the Feds but leaving it open to the States.


The Fourteenth Amendment came along later and applied it to state and local governments.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It doesn't have to say it.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...



If it's so clear, you'll be able to show me, using sources from the time, that this is so. 

I've shown you sources, and ALL of those sources make absolutely NO MENTION OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF THEIR HOMES.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> If it's so clear, you'll be able to show me, using sources from the time, that this is so.
> I've shown you sources, and ALL of those sources make absolutely NO MENTION OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF THEIR HOMES.


Statute:
33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1, An Act Concernin Crossbows and Handguns (1541)
And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, *except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house*, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/

Court rulings:
Rex v. Gardner (1739):
"And *they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it*. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."
https://books.google.com/books?id=8...ut+only+from+making+that+forbidden+use+of+it"
Mallock v. Eastley (1744):
"the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for *a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family*."




__





						TO PRESERVE LIBERTY--A LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
					

Northern Kentucky Law Review; To Preserve Liberty--A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by Richard E. Gardiner



					guncite.com
				




Wingfield v. Stratford (1752):
"It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, *and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes*, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."




__





						The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition
					

Hastings Const. Law Q.; The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition, by Joyce Lee Malcolm



					guncite.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Statute:
> 33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1, An Act Concernin Crossbows and Handguns (1541)
> And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, *except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house*, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
> https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/
> ...



What's your point here?

I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense. I'm saying the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't protect the right to self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What's your point here?


You asked for cites showing that having guns for private home defense was part of the right to keep and bear arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense. I'm saying the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't protect the right to self defense.


The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't protect only one small part of that right.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> You asked for cites showing that having guns for private home defense was part of the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't protect only one small part of that right.



Yeah, and you DID NOT show that private home defense was a part of the right to keep and bear arms. So.... what's your point? 

Yes, the 2A protects the "entire right to keep and bear arms".

The right to keep arms equals the right to own weapons. 
The right to bear arms equals the right to be in the militia. 

No individual self defense. Collective self defense, yes.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 20, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The 2nd Amendment exists so the people can defend themselves.  Period.  From the government,


When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government? 


Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> foreign invaders,


Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared? 


Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> criminals,


Yes, usually more people with guns like yourself but you've never done that either. 


Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> it doesn't matter.
> 
> I don't need to justify the number of guns I own.  I have the right own a thousand guns, if I want.


I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd. 
It clearly states a well armed militia.  60 million nut cases like you are not a well armed militia. 

Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, and you DID NOT show that private home defense was a part of the right to keep and bear arms.


I showed a statute and several court rulings that establish people's right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, the 2A protects the "entire right to keep and bear arms".
> The right to keep arms equals the right to own weapons.
> The right to bear arms equals the right to be in the militia.


People also have the right to use those weapons for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> No individual self defense. Collective self defense, yes.


Privately defending your home is individual self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
> Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.


You completely missed the point.  He did not offer any justifications of any sort whatsoever.

Free people do not have to justify ourselves.  If we want to have guns, we have guns, and we don't care if anyone likes it or not.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I showed a statute and several court rulings that establish people's right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, you showed a statute that was specific. It's hard to know the context of the law here, because there's only a quote that could have been taken out of context. However even if we take it to be massively relevant, the Second Amendment simply does not talk about self defense, the Founding Fathers did not talk about self defense. 

Again, I'm not arguing that there is no right to self defense, just that the 2A doesn't protect it.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yep, you showed a statute that was specific. It's hard to know the context of the law here, because there's only a quote that could have been taken out of context.


The context is that people were allowed to have guns and use them for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> However even if we take it to be massively relevant, the Second Amendment simply does not talk about self defense, the Founding Fathers did not talk about self defense.
> Again, I'm not arguing that there is no right to self defense, just that the 2A doesn't protect it.


Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.

But the right to keep and bear arms (which is protected by the Second Amendment) does cover people having guns that they can use to defend their homes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The context is that people were allowed to have guns and use them for the private defense of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fine people then could have guns and use them for the self defense. Now people can have guns and use them for their self defense. So what?

Doesn't mean the 2A protects this, does it? 

The third amendment uses the word "house", does this mean it provides you with a right to have a house? No. 

The 2A protects two things. Neither of which are self defense. Just because you can use a gun to defend yourself, doesn't mean that's what the 2A protects. Hell, I could use a potato to defend myself, does this mean that potatoes are protected by the 2A?


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> You completely missed the point.  He did not offer any justifications of any sort whatsoever.
> 
> Free people do not have to justify ourselves.  If we want to have guns, we have guns, and we don't care if anyone likes it or not.


Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.  

You all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. That was certainly enough to storm the wh to rid the country of tyranny. What did you do? 
Nothing. 

Trump orchestrated the only coup ever in the history of the country to install fascism. That should be enough to use your guns. Again you did nothing but reversed your beliefs and supported the fuckwit. 

So don't give me that rubbish about why you have them. You have confirmed you have them because you want to.  That's my point.  You don't need them . You just want them like spoilt little kids. All tough guys and wannabe rambos.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Its nothing to do with freedom.


Sure it is.  Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.




Colin norris said:


> You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom.


You have that twisted around.  It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.




Colin norris said:


> That comes from democracy.


Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.




Colin norris said:


> So don't give me that rubbish about why you have them.


No one has given you anything of the sort.  We've been saying that we have guns merely because we want them.




Colin norris said:


> You have confirmed you have them because you want to.


Yes.  That's what we've been telling you.  We have guns because we want to have guns, and for no other reason.




Colin norris said:


> That's my point.


That was _our_ point.




Colin norris said:


> You don't need them . You just want them like spoilt little kids.


We're free people.  We don't have to need them.  Merely wanting them is enough.




Colin norris said:


> All tough guys and wannabe rambos.


Not really.


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Sure it is.  Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.


So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right. 
There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free. 


Open Bolt said:


> You have that twisted around.  It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.


No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.


Open Bolt said:


> Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.


No its not. Let's say all guns disappeared overnight for instance. What would happen the very next day? Would you run your life differently? 
Would no guns immediately restrict your freedom?  I'd say having a gun would restrict where you might like to go. 


Open Bolt said:


> No one has given you anything of the sort.  We've been saying that we have guns merely because we want them.


I'm saying you have no use for all those guns. Don't give me the hunting and protection bullshit.  It doesn't exist and you've probably never faced that situation. You'd be too frightened to go to LA by yourself un armed. I have a couple of times. 


Open Bolt said:


> Yes.  That's what we've been telling you.  We have guns because we want to have guns, and for no other reason.


Still not a justification compared to what you say you have them for. 


Open Bolt said:


> That was _our_ point.
> 
> 
> 
> We're free people.  We don't have to need them.  Merely wanting them is enough.


Most Western democracies are free and ill bet your style of living is not one they are willing to import. 


Open Bolt said:


> Not really.





Open Bolt said:


> Sure it is.  Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.


I explained that above and you are still wrong. 


Open Bolt said:


> You have that twisted around.  It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.


Youre like a broken record. Is that all you have? 


Open Bolt said:


> Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats not the justifications you been saying. You know that. Going to your default position is not justification. 


Open Bolt said:


> Not really.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Fine people then could have guns and use them for the self defense. Now people can have guns and use them for their self defense. So what?
> 
> Doesn't mean the 2A protects this, does it?
> 
> ...




The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect it.......the Right existed before the Constitution was written, it wasn't created by the Constitution, it isn't protected by the Amendment.....the Amendment is simply written down so we can show asshats like you that the Right exists........without need for your consent......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right.
> There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.
> 
> No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.
> ...




If all guns disappeared overnight, crime would go up about 150%......and the democrat party brownshirts would be turned loose on the suburbs.....right now, the democrat party uses blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in primarily black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities...because they know only actual criminals in those neighborhoods have easy access to guns.....the democrats also know that the suburbs have guns...so if they tried to burn, loot and murder in the Suburbs, their blm/antifa brownshirts would get shot....

Europe took guns away from their people in the 1920s and 30s.....and by 1939 they began to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children........

That is what happens when you get rid of guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government?
> Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared?
> Yes, usually more people with guns like yourself but you've never done that either.
> I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
> ...


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right.
> There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government?
> 
> Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared?
> 
> ...


No, it clearly states that keeping and bearing arms is a "right of the People".  Nowhere does the 2nd Amendment say anything about a "well armed militia".  

I'm not a nut case.  I'm a citizen of the republic and the 2nd Amendment states, in no uncertain terms, that my "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.



We're free BECAUSE we have an armed citizenry.  So yes, we use guns to maintain our freedoms every single day.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.
> 
> You all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. That was certainly enough to storm the wh to rid the country of tyranny. What did you do?
> Nothing.
> ...


What other people need is none of your fucking business.

My reasons for owning firearms are my own and have nothing to do with you.

I own firearms because unlike you I realized that the police cannot protect me and my family from those who would do us harm.  SCOTUS has also ruled that no police officer has any legal obligation to come to your aid if you call them.

So tell you what.  Since you have chosen to be unarmed and trust your safety to the police, If I see you getting mugged and beat on the street I will not draw my weapon to aid you but instead will call the cops and be on my way hoping they'll get there in time to save your sorry ass and you can simply mind your own fucking business in return.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right.
> There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.
> 
> No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.
> ...


They have less freedom.

How can you say a person who's government bans them from owning a firearm is more fee than those who can?


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> They have less freedom.
> 
> How can you say a person who's government bans them from owning a firearm is more fee than those who can?



By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers? 
Because you have no use for them as I said. 
Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?
> Because you have no use for them as I said.
> Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> So why do police officers have AR rifles?  Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The cops I knew in a small Florida town had five M16 rifles which were capable of fully automatic fire. However they had no instructor to qualify them on the use of these weapons so they just stayed locked up in the police building.

I do know one cop carried a AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in the trunk of his police car.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 21, 2022)

Johann said:


> This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?


America needs the 2nd amendment to allow those who would be willing to shoot their own countryman under the guise (false pretence) of 'defending me and my family'. Such a stupid reason in most countries would scupper (thwart or ruin) your gun application.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 21, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right.
> There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.
> 
> No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.
> ...


The numerous country's that are free is because of the USA 2 nd amendment


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> America needs the 2nd amendment to allow those who would be willing to shoot their own countryman under the guise (false pretence) of 'defending me and my family'. Such a stupid reason in most countries would scupper (thwart or ruin) your gun application.


If a dude was raping your daughter and you had a locked and loaded firearm in your hand, would you shoot him, or call the cops and wait for them to do something about it?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> America needs the 2nd amendment to allow those who would be willing to shoot their own countryman under the guise (false pretence) of 'defending me and my family'. Such a stupid reason in most countries would scupper (thwart or ruin) your gun application.



Europe…..took guns away people….then murdered 15 million of them


15 million murdered by their governments…………

You have absolutely nothing to teach us……


----------



## 1stNickD (Mar 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I thought that was why we spent $700Billion a year on defense...


And biden would order that none of it be used so we don't hurt the enemies' feelings. look at the truth in our cities, every law-abiding person in those blue towns need to have self-protection, because the police are not allowed to arrest violent thugs anymore.

A group of New York City dirt bike riders yank a father and son out of their car, then beat and rob them in broad daylight 

Law abiding citizens need to protect themselves because the far left socialist's, and deviant democrats refuse to maintain a decent and lawful society. In fact, the more lawless and violent our society becomes the more the left seems to like it.


----------



## 1stNickD (Mar 21, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We do not need assault weapons.  The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms, along with the other weapons we can buy and use, such as semiautomatic shotguns are plenty for personal defense, sports shooting, or hunting, and will suffice, along with the myriad high quality pistol.  I favor mandatory training and permits, off your property or out of your vehicle or boat.


I used to support permits, but in my state, the left is so close to completely eliminating the second amendment that its scary. You cannot legally own a firearm without a fire arms ID card and in some cases it takes over a year to obtain one. Laws are being passed that allows the anti second amendment crowd to remove all of your rightfully owned firearms if an ex girl friend or boyfriend tells a mental health official that they think you might harm yourself. There doesn't have to be anything to it, and your second amendment rights are gone... Then you have to spend a fortune  prove you are sane. And if you think there are no vindictive ex's out there, you live in a fairyland.

Of course the mental health experts will make a fortune by insisting you just need another 6 more months of their therapy charged at 250 dollars an hour to your insurance company. Then in 6 months you will be told its just another  6 months before you can have your grand fathers favorite hunting rifle back.  By the time you clear their barriers it could be years, and your heirloom may well be damaged or lost in the system.

The answer is simple, commit any type of crime using a gun and its a mandatory 10 years in prison and if you actually use it its 25 years, even if no one was hurt. And if you kill someone with a gun during a crime, you don't get out until you are too old to chew your own food.


----------



## Vrenn (Mar 22, 2022)

1stNickD said:


> And biden would order that none of it be used so we don't hurt the enemies' feelings. look at the truth in our cities, every law-abiding person in those blue towns need to have self-protection, because the police are not allowed to arrest violent thugs anymore.
> 
> A group of New York City dirt bike riders yank a father and son out of their car, then beat and rob them in broad daylight
> 
> Law abiding citizens need to protect themselves because the far left socialist's, and deviant democrats refuse to maintain a decent and lawful society. In fact, the more lawless and violent our society becomes the more the left seems to like it.



The only reason we don't have more videos from Rural Areas for violence is that there aren't nearly as many cameras and phones available.  Before I state this, you may wish to resist in screaming "Lie, False and Cite" at the top of your lungs.  The facts remain that there is a higher number of violent crimes in rural areas than Urban areas.  And those areas are primarily Republican.  Plus, the number of welfare recipients are higher per capita goes to the Republican Controlled States.  I am not going to give the democrats a free ride on this like you have the republicans.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 22, 2022)

1stNickD said:


> I used to support permits, but in my state, the left is so close to completely eliminating the second amendment that its scary. You cannot legally own a firearm without a fire arms ID card and in some cases it takes over a year to obtain one. Laws are being passed that allows the anti second amendment crowd to remove all of your rightfully owned firearms if an ex girl friend or boyfriend tells a mental health official that they think you might harm yourself. There doesn't have to be anything to it, and your second amendment rights are gone... Then you have to spend a fortune  prove you are sane. And if you think there are no vindictive ex's out there, you live in a fairyland.
> 
> Of course the mental health experts will make a fortune by insisting you just need another 6 more months of their therapy charged at 250 dollars an hour to your insurance company. Then in 6 months you will be told its just another  6 months before you can have your grand fathers favorite hunting rifle back.  By the time you clear their barriers it could be years, and your heirloom may well be damaged or lost in the system.
> 
> The answer is simple, commit any type of crime using a gun and its a mandatory 10 years in prison and if you actually use it its 25 years, even if no one was hurt. And if you kill someone with a gun during a crime, you don't get out until you are too old to chew your own food.


I understand your position.  In fact, I am not as hard minded against the constitutional carry thing, though I still believe in the value of training, licensing, and national background checks.  But, I have been made aware, of the true expenses, hurdles and hoops, you guys in states that lost control of or practically speaking lost control of your weapons rights for self protection in your states.  I do not come from or live in one of those states.  We do not have to have a special ID or permit to buy a weapon.  We are not required to have a weapon or ID'd permit to buy or store ammunition.  I am retired military.  My CCW cost me $65.00 bucks for 8 years.  I still intend to keep mine up.  At the moment I am unaware of any state that allows unrestricted weapons carry by citizens from other state that are not permit holders, and we like to travel.  I understand and support this, as you cannot allow people from out of state, swarming in with weapons any time there is a riot, demonstration, or (heaven forbid) some nuts decide the reason they failed on January 6th was because they did not have firepower to make their insurrection stick.   I do not know how you folks lost your rights and hope I never have to find out.  In this state, I doubt I ever will.  I still recommend you get trained and permitted.  If you do not plan to carry while traveling, that is up to you.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Europe…..took guns away people….then murdered 15 million of them
> 
> 
> 15 million murdered by their governments…………
> ...


Europe didn't.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?
> Because you have no use for them as I said.
> Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.


That's not my thinking so don't try to pretend you can speak for me.

My use for firearms is solely for self defense because the police cannot protect people and the police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

And FYI the Wild West wasn't very wild.

MAybe you should get your history from some other source than old Westerns


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Europe didn't.


European governments have been murdering unarmed citizens for two thousand years.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> America needs the 2nd amendment to allow those who would be willing to shoot their own countryman under the guise (false pretence) of 'defending me and my family'. Such a stupid reason in most countries would scupper (thwart or ruin) your gun application.


So you think self defense is a false pretense?

SO tell me is some guy comes at you swinging a lead pipe you'll just stand there and let him beat your skull to a pulp because self defense is a false pretense?

You are that fucking stupid and you think other people should take you and your equally stupid opinion on guns seriously?


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> European governments have been murdering unarmed citizens for two thousand years.


No one in the UK has the right to own a firearm.  It is a privilege granted by the government and that privilege can be revoked at any time for any reason.

People in the UK are so used to being ruled that they cannot understand the concept that rights are inherent in each person and cannot be granted or revoked by the fucking government


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 22, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?
> Because you have no use for them as I said.
> Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.


Because rocket launchers aren't "arms".  But, you all best be careful making that stupid argument; one day gun owners might want to own rocket launchers and own them we will.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 22, 2022)

1stNickD said:


> And biden would order that none of it be used so we don't hurt the enemies' feelings. look at the truth in our cities, every law-abiding person in those blue towns need to have self-protection, because the police are not allowed to arrest violent thugs anymore.
> 
> A group of New York City dirt bike riders yank a father and son out of their car, then beat and rob them in broad daylight
> 
> Law abiding citizens need to protect themselves because the far left socialist's, and deviant democrats refuse to maintain a decent and lawful society. In fact, the more lawless and violent our society becomes the more the left seems to like it.



I am a 2nd amendment supporter, gun owner and shooter.    But even without a gun, before I let some punk pull me out of my car there would be some punks and bikes run over.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> European governments have been murdering unarmed citizens for two thousand years.


Keep taking the meds.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So you think self defense is a false pretense?
> 
> SO tell me is some guy comes at you swinging a lead pipe you'll just stand there and let him beat your skull to a pulp because self defense is a false pretense?
> 
> You are that fucking stupid and you think other people should take you and your equally stupid opinion on guns seriously?


So people are swinging lead pipes at you? Let's carry on this daft hypothetical crap. You grabbed the pipe, thus disarming him. He panicked and ran off.

Or 

The 4 year girl walking along, ran over and saved you from this pipe weilding maniac by using a karate kick she learnt off YouTube.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So people are swinging lead pipes at you? Let's carry on this daft hypothetical crap. You grabbed the pipe, thus disarming him. He panicked and ran off.
> 
> Or
> 
> The 4 year girl walking along, ran over and saved you from this pipe weilding maniac by using a karate kick she learnt off YouTube.



First of all, grabbing the pipe is a great idea that very likely won't work.   Just like the idea that a child learned a karate kick off YouTube.

I am 62 years old.    I am in decent shape, but my fighting days are long gone.  If I am out in the world, and I am attacked by a single thug, chances are pretty good he is younger and in good shape.  At the very least he is faster.   If I am attacked by more than one thug, I am screwed if I am unarmed.

Plus, if I see violence being done on the street I will step up.   Without my gun I become just another victim.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> First of all, grabbing the pipe is a great idea that very likely won't work.   Just like the idea that a child learned a karate kick off YouTube.
> 
> I am 62 years old.    I am in decent shape, but my fighting days are long gone.  If I am out in the world, and I am attacked by a single thug, chances are pretty good he is younger and in good shape.  At the very least he is faster.   If I am attacked by more than one thug, I am screwed if I am unarmed.
> 
> Plus, if I see violence being done on the street I will step up.   Without my gun I become just another victim.


NEVER move to the UK, sounds like you won't survive 5 minutes, we must be made of harder stuff.

If you feel you're willing to use a gun on someone, you are the worst candidate to be in possession of a gun, hence why your 2ndA has caused dreadful gun stats in the US. And secondly, crime and crime by a gun creates miniscule stats in every day life but often, crime is perceived to be a great threat by Joe public. It's an education issue.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> NEVER move to the UK, sounds like you won't survive 5 minutes, we must be made of harder stuff.



I have visited the UK several times.    I am made of the same stuff.   I just have better teeth.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I have visited the UK several times.    I am made of the same stuff.   I just have better teeth.


That old chestnut, lmfao. The number of Americans I've had to school on this. Americans suffer from vanity, they need false white shining teeth, thus they spend money on that fakeness. Brits actually spend more of teeth hygiene, thus retaining the natural colour of teeth. The low IQ Americans that default to teeth doesn't know this and think Brit teeth are worse because of the natural colour, as opposed to the bright white vanity ailment.

The myth of bad British teeth 

So just like your inept knowledge on crime, I've had to school you on your teeth vanity. And you're 62? You come across as an uneducated teenager, where the heck have you been??


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you feel you're willing to use a gun on someone, you are the worst candidate to be in possession of a gun, hence why your 2ndA has caused dreadful gun stats in the US. And secondly, crime and crime by a gun creates miniscule stats in every day life but often, crime is perceived to be a great threat by Joe public. It's an education issue.


You make claims that are ridiculous. You are a joke.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Keep taking the meds.


Your country has a long history of disarming and oppressing the populace.





__





						Disarming Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> That old chestnut, lmfao. The number of Americans I've had to school on this. Americans suffer from vanity, they need false white shining teeth, thus they spend money on that fakeness. Brits actually spend more of teeth hygiene, thus retaining the natural colour of teeth. The low IQ Americans that default to teeth doesn't know this and think Brit teeth are worse because of the natural colour, as opposed to the bright white vanity ailment.
> 
> The myth of bad British teeth
> 
> So just like your inept knowledge on crime, I've had to school you on your teeth vanity. And you're 62? You come across as an uneducated teenager, where the heck have you been??



I put out an old insult.   Obviously it worked.

You haven't schooled me on anything.   My knowledge of crime is fine.   Your claims that the same solution works everywhere is ridiculous.    The UK does not have the level of complete craziness in crime that the US does.   And yes, the Uk has a lower violent crime rate than the US.   But one thing you seem to not know.   The violent crime rates have been falling in the US for decades.    The violent crime rates in the UK?  They are rising.

Another difference between the two nations is police response time.   How many places in the UK have a 30 minute response time by law enforcement?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Your country has a long history of disarming and oppressing the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Increase the dose.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Increase the dose.


You people have been murdering unarmed populations for centuries.










						Bloody Sunday (1972) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I put out an old insult.   Obviously it worked.
> 
> You haven't schooled me on anything.   My knowledge of crime is fine.   Your claims that the same solution works everywhere is ridiculous.    The UK does not have the level of complete craziness in crime that the US does.   And yes, the Uk has a lower violent crime rate than the US.   But one thing you seem to not know.   The violent crime rates have been falling in the US for decades.    The violent crime rates in the UK?  They are rising.
> 
> Another difference between the two nations is police response time.   How many places in the UK have a 30 minute response time by law enforcement?


Back tracking on the teeth issue after learning the truth, poor show old bean.

America was born out of brawn and not brains, hence why your constitution protects the right to arm the undesirables that are willing to shoot their neighbour. You forgot to mention that over 70% of UK crime is by immigrants, between immigrants. As stupid governments believe multiculturalism is fantastic, countries continue to take in undesirables. So as UK immigration increases, crime will increase. If you ever read the UK news, the majority of those named in the news are not British names.

If you feel the only option to survive life is to have a gun and willing to shoot people, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, completely wrong mentality, hence high gun incidents.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You people have been murdering unarmed populations for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You guys shoot more on a Saturday then the UK do in several years!!!!

You need to go over over to Northern island about their gun laws, they're different to the mainland and much more relaxed. Did you not know that?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You guys shoot more on a Saturday then the UK do in several years!!!!
> 
> You need to go over over to Northern island about their gun laws, they're different to the mainland and much more relaxed. Did you not know that?


Not the government...lol


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Not the government...lol


American gun nuts can only argue the 2nd Amendment with one dimension comments and thinking. When you drill down the one dimensional crap and cover the full picture, it utterly rips that crap to pieces.

And in the next thread, the gun nuts will just come out with the same one dimensional crap (rinse, wash, repeat). It's either on purpose or thickness, I'm beginning to get the feeling it's the latter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> American gun nuts can only argue the 2nd Amendment with one dimension comments and thinking. When you drill down the one dimensional crap and cover the full picture, it utterly rips that crap to pieces.


You make claims that are ridiculous. You are a joke.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Fine people then could have guns and use them for the self defense. Now people can have guns and use them for their self defense. So what?
> 
> Doesn't mean the 2A protects this, does it?


It does.  The Second Amendment protects the _entire_ right to keep and bear arms.

Having a gun to defend your home is one part of the right to keep and bear arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> The third amendment uses the word "house", does this mean it provides you with a right to have a house? No.


I'm not sure how this example relates to the Second Amendment.




frigidweirdo said:


> The 2A protects two things. Neither of which are self defense. Just because you can use a gun to defend yourself, doesn't mean that's what the 2A protects.


Having a gun to defend your home is part of the right to keep and bear arms.

The entire right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment.




frigidweirdo said:


> Hell, I could use a potato to defend myself, does this mean that potatoes are protected by the 2A?


That is only because a potato is not much of a weapon.  If it was an effective weapon it would be covered.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns  don't have freedom. Is that right.


Saturation is not required.

But yes on the Second Amendment.  No nation is free unless they have something similar to the Second Amendment.




Colin norris said:


> There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.


That is incorrect.  Those countries are not free.




Colin norris said:


> No its not.


That is incorrect.  Being free means that we have the right to keep and bear arms.




Colin norris said:


> The second was written before the gun saturation happened.


Gun saturation isn't really a factor, but I don't believe your claim is true.  There were lots and lots of guns around when the Second Amendment was written.




Colin norris said:


> Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked.


That is incorrect.  Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.




Colin norris said:


> Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.


You are really not understanding this justification thing.

No.  I am not offering any sort of justification at all.

I have guns because I feel like having them.




Colin norris said:


> No its not.


Yes it is.  Free people have civil liberties.

People who are not free do not have civil liberties.




Colin norris said:


> Let's say all guns disappeared overnight for instance. What would happen the very next day? Would you run your life differently?
> Would no guns immediately restrict your freedom?  I'd say having a gun would restrict where you might like to go.


What would happen is we'd start making new guns.




Colin norris said:


> I'm saying you have no use for all those guns.


Being a free citizen of the US, I am not required to have a use for them.




Colin norris said:


> Don't give me the hunting and protection bullshit.  It doesn't exist


Wrong.  They most certainly do exist.




Colin norris said:


> Still not a justification compared to what you say you have them for.


Well duh.

Of course "a refusal to provide justification" is not justification.

Isn't that kind of obvious?




Colin norris said:


> Most Western democracies are free


No they aren't.  The US is the only free nation left on the planet.




Colin norris said:


> Thats not the justifications you been saying. You know that. Going to your default position is not justification.


I haven't been saying any justification.

I really hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for me to provide justification, because I mean what I say when I tell you I don't plan on providing any justification.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect it.......the Right existed before the Constitution was written, it wasn't created by the Constitution, it isn't protected by the Amendment.....the Amendment is simply written down so we can show asshats like you that the Right exists........without need for your consent......


I agree that the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Second Amendment.  But preventing the government from infringing the right does provide it with protection.




2aguy said:


> If all guns disappeared overnight, crime would go up about 150%......and the democrat party brownshirts would be turned loose on the suburbs.....right now, the democrat party uses blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in primarily black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities...because they know only actual criminals in those neighborhoods have easy access to guns.....the democrats also know that the suburbs have guns...so if they tried to burn, loot and murder in the Suburbs, their blm/antifa brownshirts would get shot....


I remember when Australia abolished freedom in the 1990s.  They had a massive crimes spree that lasted for years.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

Batcat said:


> The cops I knew in a small Florida town had five M16 rifles which were capable of fully automatic fire. However they had no instructor to qualify them on the use of these weapons so they just stayed locked up in the police building.


Wow.  I don't entirely approve of cops having full-auto MP5s.  Full-auto M-16s are way more than what is needed for law enforcement.


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


Vrenn said:


> The only reason we don't have more videos from Rural Areas for violence is that there aren't nearly as many cameras and phones available.  Before I state this, you may wish to resist in screaming "Lie, False and Cite" at the top of your lungs.  The facts remain that there is a higher number of violent crimes in rural areas than Urban areas.  And those areas are primarily Republican.  Plus, the number of welfare recipients are higher per capita goes to the Republican Controlled States.  I am not going to give the democrats a free ride on this like you have the republicans.


I'm in a rural area, and crime is so low here that I've gotten well into middle age without ever being called to jury duty.


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


White 6 said:


> I understand your position.  In fact, I am not as hard minded against the constitutional carry thing, though I still believe in the value of training, licensing, and national background checks.  But, I have been made aware, of the true expenses, hurdles and hoops, you guys in states that lost control of or practically speaking lost control of your weapons rights for self protection in your states.  I do not come from or live in one of those states.  We do not have to have a special ID or permit to buy a weapon.  We are not required to have a weapon or ID'd permit to buy or store ammunition.  I am retired military.  My CCW cost me $65.00 bucks for 8 years.  I still intend to keep mine up.  At the moment I am unaware of any state that allows unrestricted weapons carry by citizens from other state that are not permit holders, and we like to travel.  I understand and support this, as you cannot allow people from out of state, swarming in with weapons any time there is a riot, demonstration, or (heaven forbid) some nuts decide the reason they failed on January 6th was because they did not have firepower to make their insurrection stick.   I do not know how you folks lost your rights and hope I never have to find out.  In this state, I doubt I ever will.  I still recommend you get trained and permitted.  If you do not plan to carry while traveling, that is up to you.


The US Supreme Court is about to come to the rescue of people in those anti-gun states.


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


Blues Man said:


> No one in the UK has the right to own a firearm.  It is a privilege granted by the government and that privilege can be revoked at any time for any reason.
> People in the UK are so used to being ruled that they cannot understand the concept that rights are inherent in each person and cannot be granted or revoked by the fucking government


That is a real tragedy, because we actually got our right to keep and bear arms from the UK when they used to have it.

But then they abolished freedom in the UK and in other places.  And now the US is the only free country left in the world.


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


WinterBorn said:


> You haven't schooled me on anything.   My knowledge of crime is fine.   Your claims that the same solution works everywhere is ridiculous.    The UK does not have the level of complete craziness in crime that the US does.   And yes, the Uk has a lower violent crime rate than the US.   But one thing you seem to not know.   The violent crime rates have been falling in the US for decades.    The violent crime rates in the UK?  They are rising.


It's been at least a decade since I've bothered to compare stats, and I don't plan to go look them up again now.  But the last time I did look into the matter, the UK had double the crime rate and triple the violent crime rate of the US.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?


Currently we don't have a militia.  But if we did, militiamen would have the right to have bazookas.




Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Because rocket launchers aren't "arms".


I consider bazookas to be militia-suitable arms.  Grenades too.

They are not really appropriate for private home defense though.




Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> But, you all best be careful making that stupid argument; one day gun owners might want to own rocket launchers and own them we will.


Maybe one day the government will bring back the militia.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Wow.  I don't entirely approve of cops having full-auto MP5s.  Full-auto M-16s are way more than what is needed for law enforcement.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> ...


Not sure.  The Supreme Court certainly didn't protect the Remington and their 4 insurance companies from the Sandy Hook families.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not sure.  The Supreme Court certainly didn't protect the Remington and their 4 insurance companies from the Sandy Hook families.


When did Remington,. et al, appeal the court's judgement against them to the USSC?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Back tracking on the teeth issue after learning the truth, poor show old bean.
> 
> America was born out of brawn and not brains, hence why your constitution protects the right to arm the undesirables that are willing to shoot their neighbour. You forgot to mention that over 70% of UK crime is by immigrants, between immigrants. As stupid governments believe multiculturalism is fantastic, countries continue to take in undesirables. So as UK immigration increases, crime will increase. If you ever read the UK news, the majority of those named in the news are not British names.
> 
> If you feel the only option to survive life is to have a gun and willing to shoot people, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, completely wrong mentality, hence high gun incidents.



So most of your crime is between immigrants, and not the people who have lived there for 1,000 years?      Hmmm, well America *is* immigrants.

And who are these "undesirables" you speak of?


----------



## White 6 (Mar 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> When did Remington,. et al, appeal the court's judgement against them to the USSC?


Supreme Court decided to let it go through on Nov 4, 2019.  The case ended back in February, with Remington and their insurance companies giving the families something like $73 Million Dollars.  The only change to the court since that time has be Amy Comey Barrett in Jan of 2020.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Supreme Court decided to let it go through on Nov 4, 2019.  The case ended back in February, with Remington and their insurance companies giving the families something like $73 Million Dollars.  The only change to the court since that time has be Amy Comey Barrett in Jan of 2020.


You didn't answer the question.
When did Remington,. et al, appeal the court's judgement against them to the USSC?


----------



## White 6 (Mar 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> When did Remington,. et al, appeal the court's judgement against them to the USSC?


Beats me.  What are you saying?  They used sh#tty lawyers like trump election lawyers, and they had bad outcome in the wrong court?  Why do you ask?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Beats me.  What are you saying?  They used sh#tty lawyers like trump election lawyers, and they had bad outcome in the wrong court?  Why do you ask?


As I thought.
You aren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> As I thought.
> You aren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.


Remington requested a review by the Supreme Court of the lower court decision that allowed the Sandy Hook families to sue the gunmaker at all.
_The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Remington Arms’ request for review of a decision that allows a lawsuit to continue that seeks to hold the manufacturer civilly liable for the actions of a mentally ill man who murdered children.
The high court did not make any comment on the decision to deny the request from Remington Arms. The case will now move forward in a lower Connecticut court.








						An Official Journal Of The NRA | Supreme Court Denies Remington’s Appeal in Sandy Hook Lawsuit
					

Lawsuit alleging gun manufacturer liability for murderer’s actions will move forward.




					www.americas1stfreedom.org
				



_


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It does.  The Second Amendment protects the _entire_ right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Having a gun to defend your home is one part of the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...



You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense. 


You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms". 

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.
> 
> No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.
> 
> ...


Word salad, BS.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Word salad, BS.



So, to sum up, you have nothing to say.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.


That is what it means.  "Entire" means all of it.

Think about free speech.  The Founding Fathers were only worried about political speech.  But all speech is protected, including pornography.




frigidweirdo said:


> No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.


But it does protect the right to have guns for the purposes of self defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense


The right to have guns for the purpose of self defense, not self defense itself.

Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.




frigidweirdo said:


> because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".


Because it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.




frigidweirdo said:


> So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.


That's not based on anything _I've_ said.  The Third Amendment is not about people having houses.




frigidweirdo said:


> A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.


Some guns are appropriate for personal self defense.  Other guns are appropriate for militia use.

A potato isn't an effective enough weapon to be appropriate for either.

Some nuclear bombs are appropriate for militia use.  No nuclear bombs are appropriate for personal self defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.


Not all potential weapons are appropriate for all uses.

A militiaman will reasonably have a use for any battlefield infantry weapon.

Someone who is defending themselves from criminals will reasonably have a use for the same weapons that the police use to defend themselves from criminals.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is what it means.  "Entire" means all of it.
> 
> Think about free speech.  The Founding Fathers were only worried about political speech.  But all speech is protected, including pornography.
> 
> ...



Is pornography that includes minors included in "Entire"? 

You need to understand what a right is, first.

A right isn't "God given" or "natural" or any of the nonsense. A right is merely a limit on power for a government. Individuals don't actually have rights, others are merely prevented from doing something. 

The US federal government is prevented from stopping people owning arms. As I said before, if an individual is able to get arms at normal (ish) prices, then the government isn't preventing you from keeping arms if they ban nukes, SAMs, assault rifles, machine guns etc etc.


Look, if you are able to have a gun, AND you have the right to self defense then I would guess than in 99.99% of cases, yes, you'd be able to defend yourself with that gun. 

You'd also have the ability to sit in front of the TV and eat popcorn.

Doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to sit in front of the TV and eat popcorn.

Yes, it says "shall not be infringed", and YET, criminals in prisons, the insane, children etc are infringed upon this all the time and the NRA supports this infringement, most Americans support this infringement etc etc. 

No, the third amendment is NOT about people having houses and the second amendment is NOT about personal self defense. Maybe now you see where I'm going with this.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.
> 
> No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.
> 
> ...


It doesn't have to specifically name the right to self defense

That right exists period and the Founders knew that and the 9th Amendment confirms it


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You need to understand what a right is, first.
> 
> A right isn't "God given" or "natural" or any of the nonsense. A right is merely a limit on power for a government. Individuals don't actually have rights, others are merely prevented from doing something.



*Your* "understanding" of "what a right is", is not represented in the USA's foundational philosophical principles by which the "limit on power for a government" was conceptualized.  Nor are your beliefs represented in the formal legal mechanism (the Constitution) that sets-out the structural limitations on government power and the legal process (SCOTUS) enforcing those limitations, which "merely prevents" government from "doing something".

Your personal affection for collectivist political ideology which informs and animates your hostility for the principle of inherent and unalienable rights, does not speak to any governmental model that the USA is founded upon or operates under.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So people are swinging lead pipes at you? Let's carry on this daft hypothetical crap. You grabbed the pipe, thus disarming him. He panicked and ran off.
> 
> Or
> 
> The 4 year girl walking along, ran over and saved you from this pipe weilding maniac by using a karate kick she learnt off YouTube.


I've already told you that I was the victim of a violent crime.

3 assholes jumped me from behind.  One asshole had a bike chain wrapped around his fist and he repeatedly hit me about the head while the other 2 assholes took to kicking and stomping me in the ribs and abdomen.

The injuries

Fractured eye orbital
3 broken ribs
Grade 4 concussion
ruptured spleen
Permanent vision impairment in my left eye

If you choose to be so fucking naive that you think there isn't real violence in this world that's your problem.

So if you think you don;t have a right to defend yourself that's your choice.

So I'll make the same deal with you that I do with other like minded morons.

If I see you getting mugged and beat by some thug assholes I will not draw my weapon or come to your aid because you have chosen to trust your safety to the police and I respect that choice.  So I'll call the cops and be on my way with the hope that they get there before you get dead and all I ask in return is for you to mind your own fucking business

.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It doesn't have to specifically name the right to self defense
> 
> That right exists period and the Founders knew that and the 9th Amendment confirms it



The POINT being made is that the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't include the right to self defense, rather than there not being a right to self defense in the Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> *Your* "understanding" of "what a right is", is not represented in the USA's foundational philosophical principles by which the "limit on power for a government" was conceptualized.  Nor are your beliefs represented in the formal legal mechanism (the Constitution) that sets-out the structural limitations on government power and the legal process (SCOTUS) enforcing those limitations, which "merely prevents" government from "doing something".
> 
> Your personal affection for collectivist political ideology which informs and animates your hostility for the principle of inherent and unalienable rights, does not speak to any governmental model that the USA is founded upon or operates under.



Yeah, my view of what a right is, is based on REALITY rather than the fantasy created.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The POINT being made is that the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't include the right to self defense, rather than there not being a right to self defense in the Constitution.


And THE POINT is that there doesn't have to be a right to self defense enumerated in the Constitution


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, my view of what a right is, is based on REALITY rather than the fantasy created.



The founders / framers were informed by two possible realities on the legitimacy of government power which informs what rights are, even today.

Number 1 was what they were experiencing in the American colony, the King's decrees and the treatises of Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer, doctrines which were rejected as informative to govern legitimately. . .

Number 2 was that of John Locke and Algernon Sidney (and others) which the founders / framers embraced and used to form the US government.

*1)*, the right of the King to rule with unquestioned / unquestionable power, and only through his benevolence are people allowed to exercise "rights" and then only to the extent the King deems them worthy of exercising (in service to him).

*2)*, the doctrine of a government established on the popular consent of the people, with all power first residing in the people and the people conferring to government certain expressly enumerated (and thus limited) powers.

By number 2's specific enumeration, those limited powers are delegated to government to perform certain operations and duties assigned to it.

Under the COTUSA it is understood and contractually enforced that the people retained *all* powers they did not confer through the Constitution, to either be conferred to the state governments in state constitutions to perform duties assigned to states, or for this discussion, retaining those powers more commonly called called _*rights*_, _exceptions of powers not granted to_ *any* _government_ (refer to the 9th and 10th Amendments for the codification of these principles).

Since government was not granted _any_ power to even compose a thought about our retained rights, under no possible construction could it be thought that government possess a power to condition or qualify rights held out from their consideration.

Since no aspect of the right to keep and bear arms was ever placed in the care and control of the federal government in the Constitution on June 21, 1788, it *is* a fantasy to think the government then '_gave back_' to the people, on September 25, 1789, through the 2nd Amendment.

How is it the government, having never been given any power over the right then gives the people a qualified and conditioned hollowed-out shell of the "right" they exercised before the 2nd Amendment was ratified?  

Do you really believe the people were given a limited "right" framed within the benevolence of government, allowing citizens to exercise this one "right" only to the extent the ruler deems necessary to perform tasks in service to government?

Your view of what a right is, is not based on REALITY . . .  Your benchmark of reality is completely divorced from the structure the founders / framers established and actually aligns perfectly, in principle and action, the conditioned, qualified and degraded existence suffered by a subject ruled by a King.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Remington requested a review by the Supreme Court of the lower court decision that allowed the Sandy Hook families to sue the gunmaker at all.


This does not change the fact you weren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.       
It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do - and so you cllain that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> This does not change the fact you weren't aware of the there was no judgement against Remington, and thus, nothing for Remington to appeal to the USSC.
> It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do - and so you cllain that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.


Remington was trying to avoid having the lawsuit come to trial and that was their appeal.  The supreme court of Connecticut had ruled the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre could go forward.  That is the ruling, Remington was appealing.  Remington's position was based on the supreme Court ruling that said gun manufacturers could not be held liable for the use of their guns after the sale, or something to that effect.  Unfortunately, they can be held liable (at least at the present time) for the effects of their marketing method creating a hazard to the public, not the weapon, but how they went about attracting customers to the lethality of the weapons.  I knew exactly what it was about the whole time and why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the whole time.  Not hearing it, saved revisiting the ruling that made them not liable for the weapons themselves.  That is what they were protecting by refusing Remington's appeal for review.  Upon the refusal to grant review, it went back to Connecticut state court for the lawsuit to continue.  Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then  offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Remington was trying to avoid having the lawsuit come to trial and that was their appeal.  The supreme court of Connecticut had ruled the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre could go forward.  That is the ruling, Remington was appealing.  Remington's position was based on the supreme Court ruling that said gun manufacturers could not be held liable for the use of their guns after the sale, or something to that effect.  Unfortunately, they can be held liable (at least at the present time) for the effects of their marketing method creating a hazard to the public, not the weapon, but how they went about attracting customers to the lethality of the weapons.  I knew exactly what it was about the whole time and why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the whole time.  Not hearing it, saved revisiting the ruling that made them not liable for the weapons themselves.  That is what they were protecting by refusing Remington's appeal for review.  Upon the refusal to grant review, it went back to Connecticut state court for the lawsuit to continue.  Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then  offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.


And so you claim that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

Where did I claim that?  Nowhere?  That is correct.  I never claimed that.  They protected the previous Supreme Court ruling, gun manufactures thought made the free of any type of lawsuit due to mass shootings with weapons they manufactured.  
So, what is your beef?  Shouldn't you be complaining to Remington?  They are the ones that paid off the victims families for fear of losing even bigger if they went through the court trial to it's end.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Where did I claim that?  Nowhere?  That is correct.  I never claimed that.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The POINT being made is that the SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't include the right to self defense, rather than there not being a right to self defense in the Constitution.




And the whole "Keep and Bear Arms..." is what...so you can bake cookies?

You leftists really must warm up a long time before you try the mental gymnastics you use to deny Rights to citizens.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Remington was trying to avoid having the lawsuit come to trial and that was their appeal.  The supreme court of Connecticut had ruled the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre could go forward.  That is the ruling, Remington was appealing.  Remington's position was based on the supreme Court ruling that said gun manufacturers could not be held liable for the use of their guns after the sale, or something to that effect.  Unfortunately, they can be held liable (at least at the present time) for the effects of their marketing method creating a hazard to the public, not the weapon, but how they went about attracting customers to the lethality of the weapons.  I knew exactly what it was about the whole time and why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the whole time.  Not hearing it, saved revisiting the ruling that made them not liable for the weapons themselves.  That is what they were protecting by refusing Remington's appeal for review.  Upon the refusal to grant review, it went back to Connecticut state court for the lawsuit to continue.  Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then  offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.




The Supreme Court usually let's the lower courts do their thing first......the actual case was never brought to the USSC.....


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Supreme Court usually let's the lower courts do their thing first......the actual case was never brought to the USSC.....


Are you saying Remington did not ask for the Judicial review by the Supreme Court of the lower court ruling to allow the lawsuit to go forward?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Are you saying Remington did not ask for the Judicial review by the Supreme Court of the lower court ruling to allow the lawsuit to go forward?



Nope......they may have I didn't follow it, if they did, the S.C. usually doesn't step in at the state level till the case has gone through the lower courts......at the same time, Remington didn't settle anything......the insurance company settled on their own.....


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope......they may have I didn't follow it, if they did, the S.C. usually doesn't step in at the state level till the case has gone through the lower courts......at the same time, Remington didn't settle anything......the insurance company settled on their own.....


Right.  It was either another delaying tactic or a shot in the dark.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Right.  It was either another delaying tactic or a shot in the dark.


You figure the insurance companies paid the whole thing?  I doubt it.  I would be surprised if they paid more than half.  The Sandy Hook families lawyer did some good negotiating, getting it up another $40 Million dollars in 6 months.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Is pornography that includes minors included in "Entire"?


The courts have a set of rules that they call Strict Scrutiny that they use when dealing with fundamental rights.

Basically what it boils down to is that a fundamental right can be restricted if the restriction serves a compelling government interest.

The government has a compelling interest in restricting child pornography, so such restrictions are allowed.

The same applies to the right to keep and bear arms (and all other fundamental rights).  If a restriction can be justified as serving a compelling state interest, it is allowed.  But if it cannot be so justified, then the restriction is unconstitutional.

It is likely that the courts will find that restrictions against machine guns serve a compelling state interest.

It is likely that the courts will find that laws against pistol grips do not serve a compelling state interest.




frigidweirdo said:


> The US federal government is prevented from stopping people owning arms. As I said before, if an individual is able to get arms at normal (ish) prices, then the government isn't preventing you from keeping arms if they ban nukes, SAMs, assault rifles, machine guns etc etc.


That is incorrect.  When it comes to private self defense, people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.  If the government limits someone's firepower to the degree that their defense is impaired, that is unconstitutional.

Militiamen have the right to have modern infantry weapons including full-autos, grenades, and bazookas.  If the government limits the militia so that they cannot have modern infantry weapons, that also is unconstitutional.




frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, it says "shall not be infringed", and YET, criminals in prisons, the insane, children etc are infringed upon this all the time and the NRA supports this infringement, most Americans support this infringement etc etc.


Criminals and the criminally insane have their rights removed through due process.




frigidweirdo said:


> No, the third amendment is NOT about people having houses and the second amendment is NOT about personal self defense. Maybe now you see where I'm going with this.


The Second Amendment does not have to be about private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Remington decided the evidence amassed against them was more than they could take a chance on, so they offered $32 Million in July, which was rejected by the families and then offered the $73 Million in Februrary to just make it go away, without a court decision.


It was 100% the insurers in both cases.

The "Remington" that was being sued no longer existed at that point.  Under their then-owners they had been making a poor product for awhile and had finally succumbed to bankruptcy.

The lawsuit was really against the insurers alone at that point.

As for why the insurers were foolish enough to settle, who knows.




White 6 said:


> You figure the insurance companies paid the whole thing?  I doubt it.  I would be surprised if they paid more than half.


The insurers paid the entire thing.  They were the only ones left to pay.

"Remington" had already been sold off to new owners, and the new Remington had nothing to do with this lawsuit.




White 6 said:


> The Sandy Hook families lawyer did some good negotiating, getting it up another $40 Million dollars in 6 months.


The first offer was from two of the four insurance companies.  The second offer was from all four insurance companies.

In both cases the insurance companies were paying the maximum that their policies allowed, so they were not actually saving themselves any money by offering this settlement.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It's no surprise to anyone the USSC allowed the case to go forward as they almost always do


It was a surprise to me.  The law required that the case be dismissed with prejudice.




M14 Shooter said:


> and so you cllain that the USSC didn't somehow "protect" Remington, et al, has no merit.


I think his claim does have merit.  As I said, the law actually required that the case be dismissed with prejudice.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And THE POINT is that there doesn't have to be a right to self defense enumerated in the Constitution



You've literally come along, completely ignored the conversation that was going on and started a new conversation that is pointless. Waydago.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The founders / framers were informed by two possible realities on the legitimacy of government power which informs what rights are, even today.
> 
> Number 1 was what they were experiencing in the American colony, the King's decrees and the treatises of Jean Bodin and Sir Robert Filmer, doctrines which were rejected as informative to govern legitimately. . .
> 
> ...



The Founders believed in God. They thought God did things to them and their world. Complete fantasy, but it had an impact on the founding of the country.

Same with rights, they thought rights came from God or some other nonsense, but anyone with any grounding in the Magna Carta and the beginnings of rights will see that it was merely a power grab from the elite over the monarch in England. 

Anyone who followed that development of rights from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights and beyond will see that all it is is a limit on power. 

You don't have to agree. You don't have to agree because the US federal government has a LIMIT on its power put into the Constitution that says the government can't force you to agree to this.

Ironic, huh?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The courts have a set of rules that they call Strict Scrutiny that they use when dealing with fundamental rights.
> 
> Basically what it boils down to is that a fundamental right can be restricted if the restriction serves a compelling government interest.
> 
> ...



So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right.... 

There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense". You show me where this right has been enshrined. 

So, if people have had their rights removed by "due process" (actually infringed upon), then the RKBA can be infringed. 

The 2A was about the militia. We know it's about the militia because it starts with "A well regulated militia".

It does NOT start with "Dick, John and Dave want to defend their individual selves".

Go figure. 

Find me one piece of evidence that shows the founding fathers made the 2A for individual self defense.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right....


Perhaps it is an infringement.  But the rules of strict scrutiny must be observed in doing so.




frigidweirdo said:


> There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense".


That is incorrect.  The right to be armed for self defense means letting people have enough firepower for effective self defense.

Just as the right to be armed for collective defense requires letting people have enough firepower for collective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> You show me where this right has been enshrined.


In the latter half of the Second Amendment:

_"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_




frigidweirdo said:


> So, if people have had their rights removed by "due process" (actually infringed upon), then the RKBA can be infringed.


Perhaps that is an infringement, but the rules of due process must be followed in doing so.




frigidweirdo said:


> The 2A was about the militia. We know it's about the militia because it starts with "A well regulated militia".
> It does NOT start with "Dick, John and Dave want to defend their individual selves".
> Go figure.


Being about the militia doesn't change the fact that it protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part that covers having guns for private self defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> Find me one piece of evidence that shows the founding fathers made the 2A for individual self defense.


The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms:

_"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Perhaps it is an infringement.  But the rules of strict scrutiny must be observed in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, when "shall not be infringed" is written in the Constitution, it doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" then?

No, it is NOT incorrect. You're completely misunderstanding the 2A. 

What you're saying is that if someone doesn't have enough firepower to defend themselves then somehow, they should be GIVEN more firepower. WTF?

The "right" isn't a "right" at all. It's a LIMIT on government power. That LIMIT as I've stated many times merely says that the US govt may not stop individuals from having "arms". It doesn't put any limit on that power they to actually take certain arms away from people, AS LONG AS people are able to buy arms and keep them at home. 

You've provided NOTHING to show this isn't the case. 

The reality is that there is no right to enough weaponry to be able to defend yourself against.... against WHAT? How can a law say "you can have enough weaponry to defend yourself", what is the line over which you can have TOO MUCH WEAPONRY?

In fact, this argument has NEVER, EVER been a part of the 2A. You're just WISHING it to be the case.

You think _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." _Enshrines a right to individual self defense?

We're just going around in circles here, aren't we? I've SHOWN YOU in BLACK AND WHITE that the Founding Fathers considered the right to bear arms the right to be in the militia, or COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. I've shown the different versions of state RBA clauses which are ALL COLLECTIVE. I've shown you that the 2A is about protecting THE MILITIA and you just keep coming back with NOTHING saying that the RKA is somehow the right to self defense. It's not.

Just because you CAN defend yourself with a gun, doesn't mean you have that right protected in the 2A. Your whole argument is "it says "arms" in the 2A so anything I do with those arms is protected". 

Like you have the right to stick your gun up someone's ass, because the 2A sez so. 


HOW ON EARTH do you think that a clause about THE MILITIA, somehow then protects things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA?

Please, explain this nonsense to me. Because it is NONSENSE>


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, when "shall not be infringed" is written in the Constitution, it doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" then?


The biggest infringement here is your willingness to deny the militia the ability to have the level of weaponry that they need to do their job.




frigidweirdo said:


> What you're saying is that if someone doesn't have enough firepower to defend themselves then somehow, they should be GIVEN more firepower. WTF?


I said nothing about giving people anything.  The Second Amendment forbids preventing people from acquiring arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> That LIMIT as I've stated many times merely says that the US govt may not stop individuals from having "arms". It doesn't put any limit on that power they to actually take certain arms away from people, AS LONG AS people are able to buy arms and keep them at home.


Your repeated statements are completely wrong.

The right to have arms for collective defense does not mean any sort of minor arm.  It means people having the sorts or arms that are used for collective defense.

The right to have arms for private defense does not mean any sort of minor arm either.  It means people having the sorts of arms that are appropriate for self defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> You've provided NOTHING to show this isn't the case.


The logic is self evident.  The militia's job includes repelling foreign invasions.

The Second Amendment is about arming the militia so they can do their job.

Denying the militia the kind of weapons that they need to do their job violates the Second Amendment.

Allowing them to have a minor arm that doesn't help them do their job will not change that.




frigidweirdo said:


> The reality is that there is no right to enough weaponry to be able to defend yourself against.... against WHAT?


Against criminals.  And your statement is incorrect.  There is very much a right to have guns for the private defense of your home.

I gave you links to a statute and several court cases which clearly show the existence of this right.




frigidweirdo said:


> How can a law say "you can have enough weaponry to defend yourself",


By saying that people can have guns for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> what is the line over which you can have TOO MUCH WEAPONRY?


If a weapon is more powerful than what the police use to defend themselves from criminals, then it is probably not appropriate for self defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> In fact, this argument has NEVER, EVER been a part of the 2A. You're just WISHING it to be the case.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the _entire_ right to keep and bear arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> You think _"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."_ Enshrines a right to individual self defense?


A right to have guns for the purpose of private home defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> We're just going around in circles here, aren't we? I've SHOWN YOU in BLACK AND WHITE that the Founding Fathers considered the right to bear arms the right to be in the militia, or COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. I've shown the different versions of state RBA clauses which are ALL COLLECTIVE. I've shown you that the 2A is about protecting THE MILITIA


It is noteworthy that you then propose violating that very right by denying the militia the level of firepower that they need to carry our their job.




frigidweirdo said:


> and you just keep coming back with NOTHING saying that the RKA is somehow the right to self defense.


I have provided you with a statute and several court cases that show clearly that people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> It's not.


Legal history shows otherwise.




frigidweirdo said:


> Just because you CAN defend yourself with a gun, doesn't mean you have that right protected in the 2A.


The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.  That includes the part of the right that covers having guns for private defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> Your whole argument is "it says "arms" in the 2A so anything I do with those arms is protected".


No.  That is not my argument.




frigidweirdo said:


> HOW ON EARTH do you think that a clause about THE MILITIA, somehow then protects things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA?


It clearly protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.




frigidweirdo said:


> Please, explain this nonsense to me. Because it is NONSENSE


The fact that the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms is not nonsense.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The biggest infringement here is your willingness to deny the militia the ability to have the level of weaponry that they need to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My biggest problem is my denial of something you can't prove, doesn't exist and is nonsense.

Well..... I'm debating REALITY. You can debate whatever you like, doesn't mean I have to care.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Founders believed in God. They thought God did things to them and their world. Complete fantasy, but it had an impact on the founding of the country.



The more influential founders / framers responsible for the rights philosophy and actual codification of rights protection, Jefferson and Madison, were Diests.  While they believed in a divine being, after creation this god was essentially absent from the world.  At their core they believed reason was superior to dogma which led to the Constitution establishing that religion and government must be separate.



frigidweirdo said:


> Same with rights, they thought rights came from God or some other nonsense,



It is foolish to believe the Declaration of Independence's "endowed by their creator" is making a theological statement that rights are granted from God.  At best it is just an oppositional argument to the King's right to rule and the vestiges of the divine right to rule . . . 





frigidweirdo said:


> but anyone with any grounding in the Magna Carta and the beginnings of rights will see that it was merely a power grab from the elite over the monarch in England.



I don't think Algernon Sidney, John Locke and Francis Hutcheson were ever considered elite even though they certainly did challenge the authority of the King and argued for the concept of unalienable rights . . . Sidney lost his head for his opposition!



frigidweirdo said:


> Anyone who followed that development of rights from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights and beyond will see that all it is is a limit on power.



The attempt to limit power via bills of rights was destined to failure because the governmental system had no inherent limitations.  Even after the reforms of William and Mary the English bill of rights was hollow and ineffective.  Only the novel US Constitution changed the dynamic and made the social compact itself the chains on government, the people were sovereign and all power emanated from their authority and no aspect of this new system refers to or relies on any god's providence.  As further evidence of the uniqueness, the US Bill of Rights was argued to be an absurd redundancy because no actual binding of government flowed from the Bill of Rights.




frigidweirdo said:


> You don't have to agree. You don't have to agree because the US federal government has a LIMIT on its power put into the Constitution that says the government can't force you to agree to this.
> 
> Ironic, huh?



Ironic only because every American has the unfettered right to be wrong and not be beheaded for it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The more influential founders / framers responsible for the rights philosophy and actual codification of rights protection, Jefferson and Madison, were Diests.  While they believed in a divine being, after creation this god was essentially absent from the world.  At their core they believed reason was superior to dogma which led to the Constitution establishing that religion and government must be separate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know what they BELIEVED. We're not debating what they believed. 

I'm telling you how rights ACTUALLY function. Same as religion. Religion doesn't come from God, it comes from HUMANS and it has certain functions. 

You can post all this irrelevant stuff, it doesn't change anything.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I know what they BELIEVED. We're not debating what they believed.



Well, you were posting all kinds of irrelevant stuff about religious beliefs and how religion informed the founders / framers consideration of rights.  It needed to be rebutted / corrected.



frigidweirdo said:


> I'm telling you how rights ACTUALLY function.



Rights function in all different ways under the myriad of political systems . . . This particular discussion is how they function under the US Constitution; that is not a question of great mystery or uncertainty.  You are free to adopt a personal belief that aligns with a modern collectivist political model that forces you to reject the founder's / framer's conception and codification of their inherent, individual rights theory . .  .  That doesn't make them "wrong" or you "right" it just makes you an ignorant, insular, ideologue.



frigidweirdo said:


> Same as religion. Religion doesn't come from God, it comes from HUMANS and it has certain functions.



Have I ever argued that rights are not a product of the human mind and reason?
It's philosophy for fucks sake . . . 



frigidweirdo said:


> You can post all this irrelevant stuff, it doesn't change anything.



It's interesting the stuff that proves you wrong you call irrelevant.

.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 23, 2022)

Johann said:


> Raw number is misleading…what’s that expenditure as a percentage of gdp?


Its less than what we spend on Medicare and Social Security.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce anything, because did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'.
> 
> View attachment 617460
> 
> ...



Yeah, maybe......

But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then.   Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 23, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Its less than what we spend on Medicare and Social Security.



In 2017, Democrats raised holy hell over 4 billion for the Southern Border Wall to protect US citizens..........

Then in 2022 gladly sent 13 Billion to the Ukraine

Is it just me or does it seem Democrats don't like Americans very much?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, you were posting all kinds of irrelevant stuff about religious beliefs and how religion informed the founders / framers consideration of rights.  It needed to be rebutted / corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'm thoroughly bored by this. Bye.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> My biggest problem is my denial of something you can't prove, doesn't exist and is nonsense.


I've provided you with plenty of proof that people have a right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

And the fact that arming the militia to do their job requires letting them have the sort of arms that they need to do their job is just straightforward logic.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I've provided you with plenty of proof that people have a right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.
> 
> And the fact that arming the militia to do their job requires letting them have the sort of arms that they need to do their job is just straightforward logic.



Yeah, from ENGLAND, in a time when most people couldn't have guns. 

And "straightforward logic" is..... well, you claiming there's a right to something because you think it should be this way. That's NOT logical.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, from ENGLAND,


Which is where we inherited our system of laws and rights from.




frigidweirdo said:


> in a time when most people couldn't have guns.


Wrong.  The laws there specifically allowed people to have guns.  That's where our right to keep and bear arms came from.




frigidweirdo said:


> And "straightforward logic" is..... well, you claiming there's a right to something because you think it should be this way. That's NOT logical.


That is incorrect.

Protecting the right to have arms for a specific purpose means letting people have the sort of arms that are appropriate for that given purpose.

If you can't accept logic, that's not on me.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Which is where we inherited our system of laws and rights from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but that doesn't mean all laws under England are the same under the US, does it?

Literally that's all you have is that in England some people, not most people, just some people, could carry arms. 

Wow. 

Yes, but the problem with your argument is that up until 1817 every single RBA clause said for COMMON DEFENSE of some kind. Not a single one bothered to mention that it might be for sticking a gun up your bum. 

We're dealing with LAW, not what you think it should be. I can't help you if you think law is whatever YOU think it is.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean all laws under England are the same under the US, does it?


The rights that we inherited from England do indeed continue in the US.




frigidweirdo said:


> Literally that's all you have is that in England some people, not most people, just some people, could carry arms.


No.  *ALL* people in England had the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns for the private defense of their homes.

Unless you mean convicted felons or something, but their rights were removed through due process.




frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, but the problem with your argument is that up until 1817 every single RBA clause said for COMMON DEFENSE of some kind.


That is not a problem for my argument.  I do not deny that people had guns for common defense.  They were also allowed to use their guns to defend their home.

It is a problem however for your argument, since the fact that the right is about common defense means that it is about those weapons which are most suitable for common defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> We're dealing with LAW, not what you think it should be. I can't help you if you think law is whatever YOU think it is.


I have provided clear evidence that the right to keep and bear arms includes having guns for the private defense of your home.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't think they do.  I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It depends on the department but most do keep their AR 15's in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.


A lot of SWAT teams have full-auto submachine guns.

I don't approve, for that hitting bystander reason.  Full-auto seems to me to be contrary to the goals of law enforcement.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't think they do.  I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It depends on the department but most do keep their AR 15's in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.


Open Bolt said:


> A lot of SWAT teams have full-auto submachine guns.
> 
> I don't approve, for that hitting bystander reason.  Full-auto seems to me to be contrary to the goals of law enforcement.


Swat teams don't drive patrol cars. You were talking about patrol officers not swat teams. And for that matter depending on the department not all swat teams are issued automatic weapons. Life isn't what you have seen in a movie.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The rights that we inherited from England do indeed continue in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?

Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.

For example: In the English Bill of Rights it says: ""Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law""

Not Catholics, not Muslims, not atheists, but ONLY Protestants. Does the US Bill of Rights give a big "fuck you" to anyone not a Protestant? This is only 102 years before the US Bill of Rights. 

Just to clarify, you did say "*ALL*" in capital letters and bold type, right?

The problem here comes when you THINK you know what's what, but it just isn't so. You don't understand rights in the UK in the 1600s.....So you've made a huge mistake in your argument.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.
> 
> No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.
> 
> ...


I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. That means I can carry a handgun concealed or I can carry a number of other weapons concealed. For example I can carry a switch blade knife concealed in my i pocket or a dagger concealed under my shirt As a neck knife.  Not all states that allow concealed carry allow weapons other than firearms. 









						Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 790.06 | FindLaw
					

Florida Title XLVI. Crimes   Section 790.06. Read the code on FindLaw




					codes.findlaw.com
				




_1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section.  Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee.  *For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9) . *Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 7 years from the date of issuance.  Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01 .  The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.  Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court._ … emphasis added


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. That means I can carry a handgun concealed or I can carry a number of other weapons concealed. For example I can carry a switch blade knife concealed in my i pocket or a dagger concealed under my shirt As a neck knife.  Not all states that allow concealed carry allow weapons other than firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?


----------



## Batcat (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?


There is an attempt to get Constitutional carry in Florida but it didn’t pass this year. Perhaps next. 

The biggest advantage for me would be it would make it easier to carry a full sized handgun such as a 1911 .45 Auto. While not impossible, the heat in Florida makes it challenging to conceal such weapons so you end up carrying a compact firearm. I usually carry a snub nosed .S&W 38+P revolver in a pocket holster. 









						What Happened to Passing Constitutional Carry in Florida? ~ VIDEO Update!
					

What happened with the passage of Constitutional Carry law in the state of Florida? The simple answer is Florida politicians dropped the ball for the 3rd year in a row.




					www.ammoland.com


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right....
> 
> There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense". You show me where this right has been enshrined.
> 
> ...




How many times do you morons have to be told the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with militia?

Up until the point where morons like you came along to do exactly what the Founders feared, disarming the citizens, everyone knew that people could own and carry guns for self defense, and they did just that...then, fascists like you realized you couldn't take control while people had guns....and the move to disarm people was created, and all of a sudden, the 2nd Amendment didn't mean people could own guns....

You totalitarian assholes are so predictable..


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?




The NRA isn't God...you doofus...

Permits are being challenged in the Courts right now.....the FOID in Illinois, pemitting processes in the Supreme Court.....and we have to contend with fascists like you wearing robes...like the 3 plus one in the Supreme Court.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.
> 
> ...




And we fixed that.......you are the asshole who wants to take guns away from people....

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...see, we fixed that defect from English monarchy....


----------



## Batcat (Mar 24, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Yeah, maybe......
> 
> But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then.   Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???


Before the Assault Weapons ban the AR15 style rifles had a terrible reputation from Vietnam. They were considered underpowered and unreliable. 

Once the ban happened the manufacturers removed a couple features and continued to produce the semi-automatic AR-15. A couple  regular shooters at my pistol range decided to buy one to see what the fuss was about. They reported back that the AR-15 was actually a great rifle and worth buying. 

Soon almost every regular shooter at my range had an AR-15 or several. Aftermarket parts that could be installed by the owner not requiring a gunsmith became available and the popularity of the weapon increased. High cap magazines made before a certain cut off date were also available but very expensive. Of course all the AR-15 owners had one or several high capacity magazines. 

It was the Assault Weapons Ban that made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in the US. Banning stuff always makes it interesting. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Assault Weapons Ban stopped the sale of the AR-15 or other military style semi-automatic rifles. The fact that gun crime was dropping may well have been caused by the spread of shall issue concealed carry laws across the nation that was happening in the same time frame as the Assault Weapons Ban. 

In passing, I never did buy an AR-15 or any other semi-auto black rifle. I am more of a handgun shooter. 









						How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle
					

The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute




					www.nbcnews.com
				












						Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase
					

Two new reports, one from the FBI and the other from the Crime Prevention Research center, show violent crime declining as concealed carry increases.




					bearingarms.com
				












						Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
					

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Batcat said:


> There is an attempt to get Constitutional carry in Florida but it didn’t pass this year. Perhaps next.
> 
> The biggest advantage for me would be it would make it easier to carry a full sized handgun such as a 1911 .45 Auto. While not impossible, the heat in Florida makes it challenging to conceal such weapons so you end up carrying a compact firearm. I usually carry a snub nosed .S&W 38+P revolver in a pocket holster.
> 
> ...



The point is that if something is a protected right in the Constitution, it can't have a limit like a permit put on it.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> You've literally come along, completely ignored the conversation that was going on and started a new conversation that is pointless. Waydago.


It doesn't fucking matter if the 2nd doesn't mention self defense so your insistence that it matters to the validity of either the right to bear arms or the right to self defense is BULLSHIT


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It doesn't fucking matter if the 2nd doesn't mention self defense so your insistence that it matters to the validity of either the right to bear arms or the right to self defense is BULLSHIT



I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.


I'll say what I want when I want

If you don;t like it piss off


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I'll say what I want when I want
> 
> If you don;t like it piss off



Fine, then I'll block you so I never see the crap you're writing.

Hmmmkay? (That means, bye)


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Fine, then I'll block you so I never see the crap you're writing.
> 
> Hmmmkay? (That means, bye)


Bye good riddance


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And for that matter depending on the department not all swat teams are issued automatic weapons. Life isn't what you have seen in a movie.


I've seen a lot of credible reporting of it happening over the years.

I suppose there could be a lot of SWAT teams that don't have full-auto weapons, but there are definitely some who do.

And maybe there is some argument for full-auto that I am unaware of.  But all I can see coming of full-auto is more bullets missing the intended target and hitting more bystanders.  Plus the full autos used by SWAT teams tend to fire pistol caliber ammo, which also means more bullets resisted by the bad-guys' Kevlar.

If I were picking weapons for a SWAT team, instead of something that fired pistol bullets on full-auto, I would pick something that fired rifle bullets on semi-auto.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?


The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.




frigidweirdo said:


> Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.
> For example: In the English Bill of Rights it says: ""Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law""
> Not Catholics, not Muslims, not atheists, but ONLY Protestants. Does the US Bill of Rights give a big "fuck you" to anyone not a Protestant? This is only 102 years before the US Bill of Rights.
> Just to clarify, you did say "*ALL*" in capital letters and bold type, right?


ALL people in England had the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.




frigidweirdo said:


> The problem here comes when you THINK you know what's what, but it just isn't so.


Except, it is so.




frigidweirdo said:


> You don't understand rights in the UK in the 1600s.....


Sure I do.




frigidweirdo said:


> So you've made a huge mistake in your argument.


No mistake.




frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
> But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?


Shall issue permitting isn't unconstitutional.




frigidweirdo said:


> The point is that if something is a protected right in the Constitution, it can't have a limit like a permit put on it.


Shall issue permitting is not a limit.




frigidweirdo said:


> I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.


Blues Man knows exactly what he is talking about.  The Second Amendment does not have to mention private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.  And that includes the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed it protects the right to keep and bear arms for any or no reason at all.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 24, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Yeah, maybe......
> But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then.   Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???


The 1994 AWB was the last federal gun control act.
Since then, numerous states have moved to shall-issue, and then, no need to issue concealed carry systems.
Of course, NY and CA and HI and NJ all have passed more unnecessary and ineffective laws, but that's what happens when Demcorats know they don't havew to worry about losing power.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I've seen a lot of credible reporting of it happening over the years.
> 
> I suppose there could be a lot of SWAT teams that don't have full-auto weapons, but there are definitely some who do.
> 
> ...


I have no argument for or against having an automatic firearm but it is my position if you feel like you need One it should be your right to have one or as many as you want.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, you're making claims that just aren't true. 

For example the right to petition the king, er....

Keeping a standing army in times of peace is against the law, er....

Only protestants can have arms, er....

Jurors in trials need to be freeholders, er....

You keep just making stuff up and it's getting annoying.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I have no argument for or against having an automatic firearm but it is my position if you feel like you need One it should be your right to have one or as many as you want.


I don't need one.  But I'd love to have a German MG-34 and MP-34 just to shoot tin cans with in my back yard.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Again, you're making claims that just aren't true.


That is incorrect.  My claims are true.




frigidweirdo said:


> For example the right to petition the king, er....
> Keeping a standing army in times of peace is against the law, er....
> Only protestants can have arms, er....
> Jurors in trials need to be freeholders, er....


I do not recall saying any of those things.

What I say is:

People have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

People have the right to enough firepower to provide an effective defense.




frigidweirdo said:


> You keep just making stuff up and it's getting annoying.


I am not making anything up.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  My claims are true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nonsense. I've literally shown you that they're not true and you ignore it all.

I can't be bothered. 

Bye.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Nonsense. I've literally shown you that they're not true and you ignore it all.


You have done no such thing.

It is not even possible to show that the right to have guns for the defense of your home isn't true, because the right very clearly does exist.

Of course I ignore imaginary posts.  Try making real posts, and I'll pay attention to those.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't need one.  But I'd love to have a German MG-34 and MP-34 just to shoot tin cans with in my back yard.


Rights aren't based on needs. You should have the right without government intrusion have Access to any firearm you want.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rights aren't based on needs. You should have the right without government intrusion have Access to any firearm you want.


The Heller ruling is unlikely to extend to full-auto weapons though.  It is focused on self defense and not the militia.  So the courts are not soon going to give me unrestrained access to machine guns.

That's not to say I'm not happy with Heller as a good first step.  It's much better than the courts not doing anything at all.  And if they apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment this summer we will see a lot of gun control laws being struck down soon.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Heller ruling is unlikely to extend to full-auto weapons though.  It is focused on self defense and not the militia.  So the courts are not soon going to give me unrestrained access to machine guns.
> 
> That's not to say I'm not happy with Heller as a good first step.  It's much better than the courts not doing anything at all.  And if they apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment this summer we will see a lot of gun control laws being struck down soon.


You are mistaken RIGHTS are to be protected not granted by the government. Congress or the courts have no authority over rights.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You are mistaken RIGHTS are to be protected not granted by the government. Congress or the courts have no authority over rights.


The courts are the bodies that enforce our rights.  Without the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, what use would our rights be?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The courts are the bodies that enforce our rights.  Without the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, what use would our rights be?


But to dictate a right that you had before the bill of rights were written they do not have that authority


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> But to dictate a right that you had before the bill of rights were written they do not have that authority


I'm not sure what you mean by dictate.

Surely they have the authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional if those laws conflict with a right that I had even before the Bill of Rights.


----------

