A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[ChairmanGonzalo]

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

No, I was an NRA member for a year. Then I grew a brain

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Your emotional arguments really suck.

Countries without guns simply have more knife and clubbing crime.

If you keep up this drivel I will be forced to put you on the ignore list.

And as you know, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then it is dead.

 

[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

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.

It all depends on if Hillary can get a super majority in the Senate.

If she cannot then every SCOTUS nomination she makes will be filibustered.

That's my prediction.

Probably better than yours.

You are ranting like an old woman.

 

[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.

Your emotional arguments really suck.

Countries without guns simply have more knife and clubbing crime.

If you keep up this drivel I will be forced to put you on the ignore list.

And as you know, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then it is dead.

More knife crime means a few more injuries, but FAR FEWER DEATHS. And that's a good thing

 

[BlindBoo]

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.
.

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 progressives sure love to whine don't you. No, the Founders stated "ARMS" That implies small arms. In other words, rifles pistols etc. However, there still is a Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston that was founded in the 1650's. Private citizens buying artillery and training their members in the use of same. So, the Founders KNEW these men, and didn't write in a prohibition for artillery. So, what does that tell you? And for the record I used to own a .50 calibre machinegun. It got too expensive to feed so I sold it. Perfectly legal, just expensive.

Arms meant the weapons the militia's needed, period. They never imagined a county where every swinging dick could purchase a weapon that could kill dozens upon dozens of innocent civilians in a matter of minutes. What kind of license is required to own a .50 Cal. machine gun anyway?

 

[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?

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

20K gun deaths a year are by suicide. Do you think if they didn't have guns, they wouldn't kill themselves?
The answer is they would and could possible involve innocent people. Like throwing yourself out in front of a semi.
And no, it wasn't a lie. The top 2 reasons for American crime is suicide and gang members. Try looking something up.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Thank you! Beautifully and factually stated.

 

[TNHarley]

and I would still like some info on how you came up with ZERO gun crime in china.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

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.

Thank you! Beautifully and factually stated.

Thank you very much. One of the most important things I learned from my time in the 82nd is that guns are for ending lives, and ending lives only, and that civilians have no valid reason to carry one around in public

 

[Onyx]

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

That would not of been such a bad thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

No, I was an NRA member for a year. Then I grew a brain

No, I was an NRA member for a year. Then I grew a brain

You must have forgot to water it.....it died.

 

[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.

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

Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot? Actually, legal gun owners commit a tiny percent of the crimes. You're a liar making up your shit as you go. You were never in the military, you were never in the NRA. You're a blue city liberal elitist snob who if you ever touched a gun would giggle and turn red like a virgin her first time

 

[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

No, I was an NRA member for a year. Then I grew a brain

Liar. So you were a gun owner, conservative, patriot. Then one day out of the blue, bam, a complete epiphany. Democrats are right on every issue!

Why do you idiots make up this shit?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Sorry Skippy, there is no way they could have imagined the type of firepower we now have. The amendment is is to broad and we need to amendment the Constitution to clearly define the peoples gun rights for personal protection.

 

[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.

Your emotional arguments really suck.

Countries without guns simply have more knife and clubbing crime.

If you keep up this drivel I will be forced to put you on the ignore list.

And as you know, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then it is dead.

The US is so much more diverse than the rest of the world. We have open borders for criminals to enter freely. Then we have blue cities that ensure gangs are armed and civilians are not. Of course we have above average gun violence.

But the reaction of Communists like Chairman Gonzalo is to take away guns from the honest citizens. Then when it doesn't work, they scream how we didn't take enough guns ... from the honest citizens ...

 

[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 progressives sure love to whine don't you. No, the Founders stated "ARMS" That implies small arms. In other words, rifles pistols etc. However, there still is a Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston that was founded in the 1650's. Private citizens buying artillery and training their members in the use of same. So, the Founders KNEW these men, and didn't write in a prohibition for artillery. So, what does that tell you? And for the record I used to own a .50 calibre machinegun. It got too expensive to feed so I sold it. Perfectly legal, just expensive.

Arms meant the weapons the militia's needed, period. They never imagined a county where every swinging dick could purchase a weapon that could kill dozens upon dozens of innocent civilians in a matter of minutes. What kind of license is required to own a .50 Cal. machine gun anyway?

No license is needed provided you buy a "transferable" machinegun. The intent of the militia was indeed to be on a par with ANY military that we might be forced to fight. "FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC". How is it you can read the COTUS , yet only understand a small part of it? And yes, they could imagine that sort of country. They had witnessed it in their lives. You really think that this world is any different from theirs in actual relative terms?

I'm good with a sword. Very good in fact. If I were a nutjob I could kill a lot more people with a sword than I could with a gun. It's not the tool, it's the person using it. The Founders realized that the ultimate form of defense was for every person to be armed. Gun prohibitions don't prevent bad people from getting them. If that were true the massacre in France would not have happened, nor would the massacre in Norway, nor the massacre in Germany etc.

No one in their right mind wants bad people to have access to weapons. Period. The problem with that is there is no law that a criminal will obey. That's why they are called criminals. The only way to deal with violent people is to kill them when they are on their rampage, or incarcerate them for ever after they are done. That's it. Progressives universally seek to release violent criminals back out into the world . Why is that?

 

[kaz]

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.

Sorry Skippy, there is no way they could have imagined the type of firepower we now have. The amendment is is to broad and we need to amendment the Constitution to clearly define the peoples gun rights for personal protection.

So amend it. And there's a way to add your view to the Constitution, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. The founders never gave 5/9 the power to decide times have changed and to just change the Constitution

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

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

No, I was an NRA member for a year. Then I grew a brain

Liar. So you were a gun owner, conservative, patriot. Then one day out of the blue, bam, a complete epiphany. Democrats are right on every issue!

Why do you idiots make up this shit?

I'm NOT a democrat. Democrats are still WRONG on MANY issues, such as their weakness in the face of right wing obstruction or their military interventionism overseas, or their lack of support for reparations, a basic income for all citizens, etc.

They are a good deal better better than the republicans. That's not saying much.

 

[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.

Your emotional arguments really suck.

Countries without guns simply have more knife and clubbing crime.

If you keep up this drivel I will be forced to put you on the ignore list.

And as you know, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then it is dead.

More knife crime means a few more injuries, but FAR FEWER DEATHS. And that's a good thing

Your plan leaves the criminal with a gun and the victim with a knife since you've no idea how to get rid of guns from the criminals. So no, that's not a good thing

 

[westwall]

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.

Sorry Skippy, there is no way they could have imagined the type of firepower we now have. The amendment is is to broad and we need to amendment the Constitution to clearly define the peoples gun rights for personal protection.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT for personal protection, for the umpteenth time. The Bill of Rights are nine limitations on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the 2nd Amendment.