A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[jon_berzerk]

to a leftard everything is at the root an assault rifle

 

[Skull Pilot]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

"The well regulated militia" refers to a group of volunteer citizenry who are trained and drilled in the use of arms to defend their homes. Aka the U.S military. I was a part of the "well regulated militia." A gun nut who owns 80 assault rifles in his basement is not.

What you fail to realize is the State mentioned in the second amendment is NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it is the individual States. The terms State and Federal Government are NEVER use interchangeably in the Constitution. Also no where does the Constitution use the terms for governments and the people (meaning individual citizens), interchangeably. So the second amendment says the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. The first portion of the amendment is not a limiter to the second. BTW what you think a person needs is irrelevant, an AR style weapon is good for a lot more than just killing people. I bet you were a Cat 4 on your ASFAB.

definition of State

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic,confederation, federation


So you see the word State can be used interchangeably with Country

 

[Iceweasel]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is a lie.......you can't post a link to that stat.......it is more common from a look at 5,000 stories of gun self defense by the Cato institute for the criminal to be disarmed than the victim....I can give you that link if you want it....

Please..post your link genius....and not by the gun grabber, the actual research......

We'll wait for it.......

Search up "Senator Evie Hudak." She ended up losing her job because she dared to speak against the NRA. This was in 2013, right after the Newtown and Aurora shootings

She may have lost her job but it would have been for denying Rights to her electorate....

Again..link to that statistic...

This story is the only somewhat unbiased one I could find that includes what she said.Colorado Gun Rights Activists Claim Another Scalp

In the article, it talks about how she told a gun nut that a woman was 81 times more likely to have the gun taken from her, than to use it in self defense

So the woman that used it to protect her has no Fucking right asshole?

That reminds me of a story of a kid picking up star fish and throwing one by one back into the ocean

A guy walks up and says son there are thousands of them..you can't save them all

The little kid picks up another throws it back and says " sure mister but I just saved this one"


I thought that was what you liberals and progressives are all about?

For every one woman who uses a gun to defend herself, there are Eighty ONE women who have died BECAUSE they were allowed to carry guns.

Concealed carry has killed 81 times more deaths than lives saved

If there was any doubt you were an idiot, you've just removed it.

 

[defcon4]

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

A former soldier who supposed to defend the Constitution. Basically your post constitutes treason and treachery.
OTOH, the AR15 is ideal for older folks since the recoil is almost nonexistent and the firearm can be operated even with one hand considering the small weight and mild recoil. Why do you hate the U.S. and the elderly population? Disarming the population was always a tool of dictatorships.

 

[BlindBoo]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

 

[jon_berzerk]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

they didnt care there already was rapid fire available at the time

they didnt exclude it them

 

[jon_berzerk]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

the SC was on it ways to do that

that is why they wondered if millers shotgun was useful to the military

and sent it back to the lower courts to find out

the question was never answered

 

[westwall]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

 

[washamericom]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

man, you are a force of nature in your first twenty four hours. anyway, i need my AR-15 for hunting.

 

[Iceweasel]

a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

 

[BlindBoo]

Times have changed and so has the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. They have found that individuals have a right to own guns without having to be in a militia. They also found that the Government has the right to restrict and regulate Guns as well.

The only real solution is to amend the Constitution.

Impossible as it seems.

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

No need to. No right is absolute, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No child has the right to carry a firearm onto the playground. Government has a role to play but denying citizens the right to bear arms violates the intent. Otherwise why even have the second?

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

 

[Oldstyle]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

The Second Amendment does not say anything about personal self defense. it only talks about a well organized armed force to defend the country: aka the military.

 

[rightwinger]

No it doesn't advocate it, it demands a well armed militia, and prohibits the feds from doing a damn thing about it.

The difference between you and I is that you see the government as the enemy.....while I do not......
However, I DO see the carnage that so many guns in the hands of morons can cause.

I won't apologize for sharing the founder suspensions of government, why do you think they placed so many restrictions on it? Many of which have been destroyed by the same government they created.

Some people don't realize that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for our government to get as big and powerful as it is today.

They intended for us to be a nice little agrarian country that was isolated from the world

 

[TNHarley]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

The Second Amendment does not say anything about personal self defense. it only talks about a well organized armed force to defend the country: aka the military.

There you go with your own interpretations again. Silly goose