A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[westwall]

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.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

You can buy your own tank if you wanted to ..



http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-55a





WEAPONS SYSTEMS CAN BE DISARMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF EACH STATE
DOZENS OF TANKS, ORIGINALLY FROM SERBIA, ARE IN STOCK. TANKS MADE IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RUSSIA AND POLAND ARE AVAILABLE FOR SAIL. LOW KM AND MTH VALUES.

Complete with Armor piercing DU rounds, machine-guns and ammo?

Kewl.

DU is only used in tank ammo, but other than that yeah. They are all LEGAL. Must piss you off huh...

 

[westwall]

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.

The only pinhead is you , sport. The language was MEANT to be broad. The Founders were far more intelligent than you or I and wanted to make sure that the PEOPLE would be unencumbered by a oppressive government for as long as possible. Nitwits like you are the reason we are seeing the death of this Constitutional Republic. You are happy to watch it die by a thousand cuts.

 

[williepete]

DU is only used in tank ammo, but other than that yeah. They are all LEGAL. Must piss you off huh...

To each his own. Have your DU. I'll take a drum full of HEI any day.

 

[Lewdog]

It's actually legal to own a tank... you just have to have the barrel made unusable. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about tanks!

It's also legal to own a flame thrower....

 

[defcon4]

It is getting tiresome to explain the 2nd over and over again. I am sure the attackers know full well what it means but they are lying about it to push their agenda. Soros & Co. payroll...

 

[Trump.Stamped]

.....

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle.

Because.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

The reason civi's need their own assault carbine is because the genie is out of the bottle and there are lots of them in circulation now.

That's why.

If the Feds had stopped Colt from selling AR-15's to the public back when it all began then you might have been able to plug the hole in the dike.

But now it is too late.

So you better go get your own before Hillary slaps another Federal ban on them like Billy Boy did back in 1993.

Do it now. Move move move!

That's Army talk for hurry up.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

The reason civi's need their own assault carbine is because the genie is out of the bottle and there are lots of them in circulation now.

That's why.

If the Feds had stopped Colt from selling AR-15's to the public back when it all began then you might have been able to plug the hole in the dike.

But now it is too late.

So you better go get your own before Hillary slaps another Federal ban on them like Billy Boy did back in 1993.

Do it now. Move move move!

That's Army talk for hurry up.

Leave Rosie O'donnell out of this.

 

[yiostheoy]

It is getting tiresome to explain the 2nd over and over again. I am sure the attackers know full well what it means but they are lying about it to push their agenda. Soros & Co. payroll...

Honestly Defcon it is not purely a 2A issue.

If it were purely a 2A issue then we could all also own submachine guns and belt fed machine guns.

The Feds however have been controlling those since the 1930's.

This issue is where do you draw the line between force magnification for firearms ?!

The SCOTUS has allowed this issue to proceed irrespective of the 2nd A.

And the present court of 8 is inclined by 6 to 2 to let assault weapons bans by states and cities to stay in effect.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

You need to read Scalia's write up of Heller v. DC before you sing any more like a canary.

You are way out of tune.

Here I'll even give you a reference to look it up so you can start reading, my boy:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[yiostheoy]

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

So they got it wrong for the last 240 years and we needed post modern socialists to enlighten us? It says"the people" odd term for an army.

ARs are great defensive weapons, you obviously are full of shit and never shot one. The founders wanted an armed population, and expressed their thoughts on the subject, we don't need to to tell us what they thought. An armed population is made of citizens. Unarmed populations are subjects.

I've shot the M4 carbine and the M16 rifle, both of which are exactly the same as the AR15, with an additional burst mode which we never used once in the military, sicne the semi automatic mode was even MORE effective at killing large numbers of people in a short period of time

Not even relevant.

 

[yiostheoy]

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Right now the 4 communist judges on the SCOTUS would completely agree with you.

Ginsberg would even kiss you.

The other 4 who are patriots disagreed about this militia thing.

You need to read Scalia's write up of Heller v. DC same as the other kid does.

Here it is:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[kaz]

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

So you think in the bill of rights, they gave a power ... to government?

They'd already authorized the military, why would they have possibly felt that ... government ... needed it's right to have guns protected? Were they afraid government would decide not to have any guns and they wanted to make sure they didn't do that?

That's categorically ridiculous

 

[kaz]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Right now the 4 communist judges on the SCOTUS would completely agree with you.

Ginsberg would even kiss you.

The other 4 who are patriots disagreed about this militia thing.

You need to read Scalia's write up of Heller v. DC same as the other kid does.

Here it is:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Doesn't fucking matter. There eventually will be a new justice on the court, and that new justice will be far more educated and enlightened than Scalia was, and not under the thumb of the nra.

Heller vs DC will be overturned, just like Plessy vs. Ferguson.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

 

[kaz]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

China is a totalitarian State that doesn't have to give it's citizens Constitutional rights in pursuing crime. You want that? Seriously? Then why did you join our military instead of theirs?

 

[TNHarley]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

zero gun crime? Care to back that up, mao?
Did you know the top two reasons for gun crime her\e is suicide and gangs? How many gang members do you think have guns legally?

 

[kaz]

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

Liar

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

...

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous

What if you're defending yourself from someone with an AR 15?

Here's what's wrong with your argument. Criminals don't have any problem getting illegal guns. Here's the insight, they are criminals, they are willing to break the law. Wow, who saw that coming, huh?

Tell me why in China, where guns are illegal, there is zero gun crime.

zero gun crime? Care to back that up, mao?
Did you know the top two reasons for gun crime her\e is suicide and gangs? How many gang members do you think have guns legally?

That's a lie. Most gun violence is committed by legal gun owners