A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[westwall]

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.

No, you're a douchebag socialist. We all know that.

 

[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?

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.

Sure you're not ...



I like how you proved you're not a Democrat by rattling off a bunch of things you agree with Democrat talking points on, Chairman Mao

 

[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.

Sure you're not ...



I like how you proved you're not a Democrat by rattling off a bunch of things you agree with Democrat talking points on, Chairman Mao

How many democrats do you know support withdrawing ALL our military bases overseas? Or increasing gas to $7 a gallon to help fund public transportation and decrease carbon emissions? Or abolishing the idea of "states" altogether?

 

[kaz]

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.

Sure you're not ...



I like how you proved you're not a Democrat by rattling off a bunch of things you agree with Democrat talking points on, Chairman Mao

How many democrats do you know support withdrawing ALL our military bases overseas? Or increasing gas to $7 a gallon to help fund public transportation and decrease carbon emissions? Or abolishing the idea of "states" altogether?

How many democrats do you know support withdrawing ALL our military bases overseas? Democrats flip flop on the military based on who is in power.

'Or increasing gas to $7 a gallon to help fund public transportation and decrease carbon emissions?

- Actually Obama advocated higher prices before he opposed them (when he became President)

Or abolishing the idea of "states" altogether?

- Democrats want the States to be a line with a sign post and all power in DC, so yeah, Democrats do support that

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Every State has the right to form a State Militia or Guard. California and Texas are two of the few that have. That fulfills the 2nd amendment requirements.

 

[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

Every State has the right to form a State Militia or Guard. California and Texas are two of the few that have. That fulfills the 2nd amendment requirements.

Gotcha. In the Bill of Rights which the Founding Fathers wanted to send a clear message to government that they do not have unlimited powers, they decided to dedicate one amendment to grant power ... to ... government.

So why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were afraid government would take away it's own guns? Why were they worried about it if they did? You know Adams disbanded the military saying if he didn't than he'd need an army to disband the army.

Yet he then said OMG, we forgot to put in the Constitution that government can have guns? Seriously? We better put it in the Bill of Rights then. Damn it, government, you will NOT take away your right to have guns!

 

[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.

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.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

.

Star Chamber

That would help destroy SCROTUS, which is just another layer of the Establishment's tyranny.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Every State has the right to form a State Militia or Guard. California and Texas are two of the few that have. That fulfills the 2nd amendment requirements.

Gotcha. In the Bill of Rights which the Founding Fathers wanted to send a clear message to government that they do not have unlimited powers, they decided to dedicate one amendment to grant power ... to ... government.

So why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were afraid government would take away it's own guns? Why were they worried about it if they did? You know Adams disbanded the military saying if he didn't than he'd need an army to disband the army.

Yet he then said OMG, we forgot to put in the Constitution that government can have guns? Seriously? We better put it in the Bill of Rights then. Damn it, government, you will NOT take away your right to have guns!

Being Necessary for the Security of Untaxed Wealth

Follow the money. The unpatriotic Chickenhawk 18th Century plutocracy was too cheap to pay and arm a standing army.

 

[westwall]

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

Every State has the right to form a State Militia or Guard. California and Texas are two of the few that have. That fulfills the 2nd amendment requirements.

Wrong again buckwheat. The militia is EVERYONE. Not governmental entities. You've been reading too much propaganda.

 

[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.

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.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you idiots always resort to lying by omission?

Here's the full text that you chopped to fit your predetermined line of BS... Next time you try this bit of bullshit remember this skippy. We're a hell of a lot smarter, and better educated than you.

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[defcon4]

Wrong again buckwheat. The militia is EVERYONE. Not governmental entities. You've been reading too much propaganda.

I posted this a while back:

From the founding of the country to 1934 the Second Amendment was understood by the populace and the Courts as it was intended to be by architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The National Firearms Act changed that in order to "fight" gang wars during the Prohibition era. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the people have the right to own contemporary weapons. Illustrated below:

"On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[117]"
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armed citizenry is supposed to be the militia.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Translation: No, I never swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Fuck all of you losers who joined the military.

Dude, you go from "a collective right for civilians to form an armed forced" to the U.S military is a militia? WTF? Maybe if you'd enlisted or went to a quality high school you'd have a better understanding of our Constitution.

 

[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

Every State has the right to form a State Militia or Guard. California and Texas are two of the few that have. That fulfills the 2nd amendment requirements.

Gotcha. In the Bill of Rights which the Founding Fathers wanted to send a clear message to government that they do not have unlimited powers, they decided to dedicate one amendment to grant power ... to ... government.

So why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were afraid government would take away it's own guns? Why were they worried about it if they did? You know Adams disbanded the military saying if he didn't than he'd need an army to disband the army.

Yet he then said OMG, we forgot to put in the Constitution that government can have guns? Seriously? We better put it in the Bill of Rights then. Damn it, government, you will NOT take away your right to have guns!

Being Necessary for the Security of Untaxed Wealth

Follow the money. The unpatriotic Chickenhawk 18th Century plutocracy was too cheap to pay and arm a standing army.

You should actually study history and John Adams. I hope you're not American. Our government educational system is deplorable

 

[Divine Wind]

....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. ......


...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?.....

With all respect to this guy's alleged service, he's either lying or stupid. Saying there's no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a M-4 carbine except the burst switch is exactly the difference between any magazine fed civilian rifle and an automatic military rifle.

His argument about the 5.56mm is equally unsound since many states ban it from hunting deer. Why? Not powerful enough for an immediate. Not exactly the deadly armor-piercing round this idiot describes. Can ArmaLite Rifles AR-15 be Used to Hunt Deer?

It's no small wonder why you didn't link the source of the article nor the author's name since his record could be checked.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Once you understand the reason for the Second Amendment and the Founder's distrust of all powerful government then you'd understand they'd want "We, the People" to have equivalent armaments as those seeking to disarm them.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Once you understand the reason for the Second Amendment and the Founder's distrust of all powerful government then you'd understand they'd want "We, the People" to have equivalent armaments as those seeking to disarm them.

Nobody not even Scalia believed this extreme view.

They (all the SCOTUS justices) drew a line between "legitimate firearms to which the 2nd A. applies" versus "destructive devices".

Then they put the sawed off shotguns into the destructive device category since they presumed it is not a legitimate firearm.

That opens the can of worms about submachine guns, belt fed machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and so forth.

So you cannot justify what you have said DW.

Sorry about that.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you idiots always resort to lying by omission?

Here's the full text that you chopped to fit your predetermined line of BS... Next time you try this bit of bullshit remember this skippy. We're a hell of a lot smarter, and better educated than you.

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

As usually, shoot first, ask questions later Sparky?

• McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]

In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]

 

[yiostheoy]

....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. ......


...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?.....

With all respect to this guy's alleged service, he's either lying or stupid. Saying there's no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a M-4 carbine except the burst switch is exactly the difference between any magazine fed civilian rifle and an automatic military rifle.

His argument about the 5.56mm is equally unsound since many states ban it from hunting deer. Why? Not powerful enough for an immediate. Not exactly the deadly armor-piercing round this idiot describes. Can ArmaLite Rifles AR-15 be Used to Hunt Deer?

It's no small wonder why you didn't link the source of the article nor the author's name since his record could be checked.

I hate the lie that the AR's are legitimate hunting weapons. They are not.

A bow and arrow are more legitimate hunting weapons than an AR will ever be.

 

[westwall]

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.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you idiots always resort to lying by omission?

Here's the full text that you chopped to fit your predetermined line of BS... Next time you try this bit of bullshit remember this skippy. We're a hell of a lot smarter, and better educated than you.

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

As usually, shoot first, ask questions later Sparky?

• McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]

In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]

It's YOU who altered the quotation dude. You can't back out of it. Just stop. You're only digging yourself deeper. None of what you are linking to rescues you. The 2nd is VERY CLEAR. The SC merely restated what intelligent people already knew. Live with it.