A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[yiostheoy]

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.

18 to 45 for civilians.

To 65 for military vets.

 

[westwall]

....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.

And a bow hunter wounds and causes more suffering to animals than hunters using AR's do. If your goal is a clean, painless hunt, then an AR is a perfect firearm for certain critters.
On the other hand if you want to cause needless pain and suffering then by all means use your primitive weapon. Just don't try and convince us that you care about the animals you are harvesting.

 

[Divine Wind]

...
So you cannot justify what you have said DW.

Sorry about that.

Disagreed. The fact our nation has bowed to a Federal government since 1865 only to see freedoms eroded is a sad thing, not a thing to be rejoiced.

Secondly, the purpose of government is not to limit rights, but to protects people's rights from each other. The whole philosophy behind "the right to swing my fist..." You right to own a nuke conflicts with my right to not have an idiot set it off and ruin the neighborhood. Obviously there's an upper and lower limit to this concept. Machine guns are legal, but the law is such that they are strictly controlled and, mostly, only the rich have them. Similarly, if Hillary, Feinstein and other Democrats had their way, they'd ban all guns but retain the right to have armed body guards.

The right of self-defense has a long history and is well recognized by many governments. This includes a right of self-defense against an oppressive or dictatorial government.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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?

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

 

[Divine Wind]

18 to 45 for civilians.

To 65 for military vets.

Same for the right of free speech? How about voting?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Actually, the state militia would be the National Guard.

 

[Divine Wind]

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

Or you're a lousy swordsman.

Good way to kill a socialist, eh?
The Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma

 

[ABikerSailor]

....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.

And a bow hunter wounds and causes more suffering to animals than hunters using AR's do. If your goal is a clean, painless hunt, then an AR is a perfect firearm for certain critters.
On the other hand if you want to cause needless pain and suffering then by all means use your primitive weapon. Just don't try and convince us that you care about the animals you are harvesting.

Actually, a decent compound bow with aluminum shaft arrows and broadhead tips will bring down an animal at a decent range. I know, my family hunted with bows and arrows as well as guns.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, the state militia would be the National Guard.

To an extent. Take away the Fed's power to take control of the National Guard and we'd have a militia like the Founders envisioned.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

Or you're a lousy swordsman.

Good way to kill a socialist, eh?
The Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma

I guarantee you could wipe out more people with an AK47 or some other semi automatic rifle than you could with a sword. Especially if you start shooting when they're 100 ft. away.

 

[westwall]

....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.

And a bow hunter wounds and causes more suffering to animals than hunters using AR's do. If your goal is a clean, painless hunt, then an AR is a perfect firearm for certain critters.
On the other hand if you want to cause needless pain and suffering then by all means use your primitive weapon. Just don't try and convince us that you care about the animals you are harvesting.

Actually, a decent compound bow with aluminum shaft arrows and broadhead tips will bring down an animal at a decent range. I know, my family hunted with bows and arrows as well as guns.

Yeah? So? They also wound far more critters than guns do. Your argument is a loser.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, a decent compound bow with aluminum shaft arrows and broadhead tips will bring down an animal at a decent range. I know, my family hunted with bows and arrows as well as guns.

Which is why, once guns are banned, the anti-freedom "for your own good" Left would seek to ban bows, spears, knives longer than 4 inches and running with scissors.

 

[Divine Wind]

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

Or you're a lousy swordsman.

Good way to kill a socialist, eh?
The Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma

I guarantee you could wipe out more people with an AK47 or some other semi automatic rifle than you could with a sword. Especially if you start shooting when they're 100 ft. away.

At a time? Yes, but if one is stealthy, they could kill even more with a sword, knife or poison. AK's make a lot of fucking noise.

 

[westwall]

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

Or you're a lousy swordsman.

Good way to kill a socialist, eh?
The Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma

I guarantee you could wipe out more people with an AK47 or some other semi automatic rifle than you could with a sword. Especially if you start shooting when they're 100 ft. away.

Bullshit. In a crowded mall I could kill way more. Gunshots tell the people where you are. A sword strike doesn't. All it comes down to is skill with the weapon. And that ultimately is the only issue. They are tools. The only variable are the people who use them. You wish to disarm the innocent knowing that the criminals will suffer no effect at all. That is stupid, and heartless.

 

[westwall]

Actually, a decent compound bow with aluminum shaft arrows and broadhead tips will bring down an animal at a decent range. I know, my family hunted with bows and arrows as well as guns.

Which is why, once guns are banned, the anti-freedom "for your own good" Left would seek to ban bows, spears, knives longer than 4 inches and running with scissors.

In the UK they are already trying to ban pointy kitchen knives. Idiots are idiots the world over.

 

[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.

Actually, the state militia would be the National Guard.

Wrong again Tojo. My gosh you are a truly ignorant person.

 

[westwall]

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?

The effective range of a sword is MUCH LESS than the effective range of a gun. You say you could kill more people with a sword than you could with a gun?

Guess you're a really lousy shot.

No, I'm a good shot, but I also know tactics, clearly you don't.

 

[defcon4]

....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.

You need to read Divine Wind's post. He did not argue for the AR 15 be a hunting rifle, however the AR15 is a good hunting rifle. Your assumption comes from the AR15 being chambered only for the .223 Rem (or 5.56x45 NATO cartridge.) The .223 Rem is used for coyote, fox, prairie dog, or other similar small-sized game. For larger game hunting larger size bullet chambering such as for the 6.8SPC or .308 bullets. Deer or Elk hunters may choose a .308 or .338 Lapua cartridge and the rifle is still an AR15. Look into the issue before you post.

 

[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

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.

I am a veteran of the 82nd airborne division. I qualified as marksman on my M4 Carbine during 12B OSUT, even when my weapon malfunctioned: twice, during the qualification test.

 

[defcon4]

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.

Actually, the state militia would be the National Guard.

Your ignorance is amazing. The National Guard is a part of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The U.S. National Guard is not a state militia:
"The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state.."
National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia