A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If you are indeed a vet and member of the engineering corps you would know that a semiautomatic rife is not a military grade "assault" rifle

Tell me is this an "assault" rifle ?

Wrong.

As a matter of law and public policy government determines what firearms are subject to regulatory measures and restrictions, and what firearms are not, regardless of their configuration, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The question therefore becomes what weapons are ‘in common use’ and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual,’ where the former are entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter are not.

Clearly AR platform rifles are ‘in common use,’ they are in no way ‘unusual,’ and are no more ‘dangerous’ than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Moreover, long guns make up less than 2 percent of gun crimes and violence, AR and AK/M platform rifles likely make up an even smaller percentage, rendering their prohibition devoid of a rational basis, devoid of any objective, documented evidence in support, pursuing no legitimate legislative end.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again: the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution ‘says’ – and the Second Amendment indeed acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm, consistent with lawful self-defense.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean to broad?

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

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.

Of course not.

Those would be examples of weapons considered dangerous and unusual, in no way in common use, and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

‘Liberal’ jurists consider Heller/McDonald settled and accepted case law, they have no reason to overturn current Second Amendment jurisprudence that is the progeny of those rulings, Second Amendment jurisprudence they support and agree with.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

With all due respect and appreciation for your military service I have to say that I am appalled at your ignorance and your willingness to shoot your mouth off so much about subjects about which you know so little. Who are you to decide what civilians or anybody else needs? Or to imply they shouldn't have what they don't need?

" 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?"

Pure ignorance. Amilitary rifles and almost any rifle round will pierce body armor or kill a deer. Most hunting weapons are every bit as deadly as is the AR-15 and many more so depending on how they are employed..Actual assault rifles were chambered for cartridges substantially less powerful than those used in standard battle rifles.

"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".

Then you weren't looking and totally disregard history. Ever hear of the American revolution? The War of !812? The Texas rebellion? The Civil war? The Viet Cong? All the assorted muslim militias in the ME and elsewhere? The Reds in Russia? Civilian militias have been and continue to be important and often win for their cause. And why do you assume the military would side with tyranny?

You go to great length to claim that civilians don't need an effective weapon for defense. For the majority you are probably right but it is just as true that most people will never need an effective fire extinguisher; that in no way means that it is wise not to have one.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Racist and nonsensical

Why are you calling Edward Cage racist and nonsensical? Just because you're a socialist and hate all conservatives and capitalists?

A fucking Uncle Tom sellout who would be happy to return to slavery if he had the choice. He is a shame to all people of color.

You are a sick twisted soul. No wonder your opinions are so thoughtless.

 

[Iceweasel]

I am most likely trying to study law or justice. I would love to be a civil rights lawyer, helping to strike down right wing bullshit such as voter-Id laws or marijuana prohibition.

Well good luck. Are you using your military benefits to pay for college, family helping out or did you win a scholarship? Paying tuition, room and board isn't easy.

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Discovered at bootcamp? You lying fuck, you washed out at bootcamp and come here pretending to be a veteran that knows the firearm world?

Yeah, you'd make a great spineless civil rights lyer going after cops that put themselves in harm's way. Or helping illegals vote Democrat and help the nation get stoned. No wonder you are so fucked up, you're a stoner that can't see what his thoughts look like to a lucid mind.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

I am most likely trying to study law or justice. I would love to be a civil rights lawyer, helping to strike down right wing bullshit such as voter-Id laws or marijuana prohibition.

Well good luck. Are you using your military benefits to pay for college, family helping out or did you win a scholarship? Paying tuition, room and board isn't easy.

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Discovered at bootcamp? You lying fuck, you washed out at bootcamp and come here pretending to be a veteran that knows the firearm world?

Yeah, you'd make a great spineless civil rights lyer going after cops that put themselves in harm's way. Or helping illegals vote Democrat and help the nation get stoned. No wonder you are so fucked up, you're a stoner that can't see what his thoughts look like to a lucid mind.

I am a veteran by any standard. I served continuously on active duty for over 180 days, during a time of war no less.

I trained enough with assault rifles, and learned enough about how they function, to know that no civilian needs one

 

[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.

Racist and nonsensical

Why are you calling Edward Cage racist and nonsensical? Just because you're a socialist and hate all conservatives and capitalists?

A fucking Uncle Tom sellout who would be happy to return to slavery if he had the choice. He is a shame to all people of color.

You are a sick twisted soul. No wonder your opinions are so thoughtless.

A person of color speaking in favor of policies which benefit only rich white men is by any standards a traitor to his own community

 

[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.

With all due respect and appreciation for your military service I have to say that I am appalled at your ignorance and your willingness to shoot your mouth off so much about subjects about which you know so little. Who are you to decide what civilians or anybody else needs? Or to imply they shouldn't have what they don't need?

" 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?"

Pure ignorance. Amilitary rifles and almost any rifle round will pierce body armor or kill a deer. Most hunting weapons are every bit as deadly as is the AR-15 and many more so depending on how they are employed..Actual assault rifles were chambered for cartridges substantially less powerful than those used in standard battle rifles.

"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".

Then you weren't looking and totally disregard history. Ever hear of the American revolution? The War of !812? The Texas rebellion? The Civil war? The Viet Cong? All the assorted muslim militias in the ME and elsewhere? The Reds in Russia? Civilian militias have been and continue to be important and often win for their cause. And why do you assume the military would side with tyranny?

You go to great length to claim that civilians don't need an effective weapon for defense. For the majority you are probably right but it is just as true that most people will never need an effective fire extinguisher; that in no way means that it is wise not to have one.

All the examples you listed either happened before nuclear bombs were invented, or where the U.S was not defending its own soil. If the U.S had to defend it's own territory against an inssurection, it would sure as hell use its sizeable nuclear arsenal

 

[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.

With all due respect and appreciation for your military service I have to say that I am appalled at your ignorance and your willingness to shoot your mouth off so much about subjects about which you know so little. Who are you to decide what civilians or anybody else needs? Or to imply they shouldn't have what they don't need?

" 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?"

Pure ignorance. Amilitary rifles and almost any rifle round will pierce body armor or kill a deer. Most hunting weapons are every bit as deadly as is the AR-15 and many more so depending on how they are employed..Actual assault rifles were chambered for cartridges substantially less powerful than those used in standard battle rifles.

"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".

Then you weren't looking and totally disregard history. Ever hear of the American revolution? The War of !812? The Texas rebellion? The Civil war? The Viet Cong? All the assorted muslim militias in the ME and elsewhere? The Reds in Russia? Civilian militias have been and continue to be important and often win for their cause. And why do you assume the military would side with tyranny?

You go to great length to claim that civilians don't need an effective weapon for defense. For the majority you are probably right but it is just as true that most people will never need an effective fire extinguisher; that in no way means that it is wise not to have one.

All the examples you listed either happened before nuclear bombs were invented, or where the U.S was not defending its own soil. If the U.S had to defend it's own territory against an inssurection, it would sure as hell use its sizeable nuclear arsenal

No, no it wouldn't. If that were true Iraq, Afghanistan, and places in Syria would already have been bombed.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well good luck. Are you using your military benefits to pay for college, family helping out or did you win a scholarship? Paying tuition, room and board isn't easy.

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Discovered at bootcamp? You lying fuck, you washed out at bootcamp and come here pretending to be a veteran that knows the firearm world?

Yeah, you'd make a great spineless civil rights lyer going after cops that put themselves in harm's way. Or helping illegals vote Democrat and help the nation get stoned. No wonder you are so fucked up, you're a stoner that can't see what his thoughts look like to a lucid mind.

I am a veteran by any standard. I served continuously on active duty for over 180 days, during a time of war no less.

I trained enough with assault rifles, and learned enough about how they function, to know that no civilian needs one

6 months and you have the nerve to call yourself a veteran? And after lying to get in? You have some nerve. And you had lots of training on rifles by then? That's some weak shit.

You should know damn good and well why a civilian would want one but the point is it isn't your call.

 

[Iceweasel]

Racist and nonsensical

Why are you calling Edward Cage racist and nonsensical? Just because you're a socialist and hate all conservatives and capitalists?

A fucking Uncle Tom sellout who would be happy to return to slavery if he had the choice. He is a shame to all people of color.

You are a sick twisted soul. No wonder your opinions are so thoughtless.

A person of color speaking in favor of policies which benefit only rich white men is by any standards a traitor to his own community

He probably thinks of himself as a person, not a community. And doesn't agree with your childish worldview about what's good for the economy.

 

[westwall]

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.

With all due respect and appreciation for your military service I have to say that I am appalled at your ignorance and your willingness to shoot your mouth off so much about subjects about which you know so little. Who are you to decide what civilians or anybody else needs? Or to imply they shouldn't have what they don't need?

" 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?"

Pure ignorance. Amilitary rifles and almost any rifle round will pierce body armor or kill a deer. Most hunting weapons are every bit as deadly as is the AR-15 and many more so depending on how they are employed..Actual assault rifles were chambered for cartridges substantially less powerful than those used in standard battle rifles.

"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".

Then you weren't looking and totally disregard history. Ever hear of the American revolution? The War of !812? The Texas rebellion? The Civil war? The Viet Cong? All the assorted muslim militias in the ME and elsewhere? The Reds in Russia? Civilian militias have been and continue to be important and often win for their cause. And why do you assume the military would side with tyranny?

You go to great length to claim that civilians don't need an effective weapon for defense. For the majority you are probably right but it is just as true that most people will never need an effective fire extinguisher; that in no way means that it is wise not to have one.

All the examples you listed either happened before nuclear bombs were invented, or where the U.S was not defending its own soil. If the U.S had to defend it's own territory against an inssurection, it would sure as hell use its sizeable nuclear arsenal

You're a retard. The US won't use nukes against a insurrection you moron. Progressives nitwits like you might indeed try and round up all of those you hate and then nuke them to save the grave digging costs, but the military would tell any politician who told them to nuke this country to go fuck themselves.

 

[westwall]

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Discovered at bootcamp? You lying fuck, you washed out at bootcamp and come here pretending to be a veteran that knows the firearm world?

Yeah, you'd make a great spineless civil rights lyer going after cops that put themselves in harm's way. Or helping illegals vote Democrat and help the nation get stoned. No wonder you are so fucked up, you're a stoner that can't see what his thoughts look like to a lucid mind.

I am a veteran by any standard. I served continuously on active duty for over 180 days, during a time of war no less.

I trained enough with assault rifles, and learned enough about how they function, to know that no civilian needs one

6 months and you have the nerve to call yourself a veteran? And after lying to get in? You have some nerve. And you had lots of training on rifles by then? That's some weak shit.

You should know damn good and well why a civilian would want one but the point is it isn't your call.

It took the Army that long to figure out he was batshit crazy and discharge him as an undesirable. My guess is he got a "Entry Level Separation", if not a "Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge". His level of discourse is so ridiculous that no one would want to work with this nitwit.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors by Lawyers for the 1%

You quote the Founding Fodder as if their self-serving opinions were inspired by some infallible Supreme Being. We don't need to make politics a religion serving as a totalitarian theocracy. Second, treating the Constitution as a Bible is either a superstition or heresy.

Good luck in whatever country you move to.

What Really Put the Crack in the Liberty Bell

The fact that we don't just ask whether a proposed bill is good for the country and that's all we have to decide, but first we have to ask whether it is Constitutional proves that being obstructed by a Constitution is not good for the country.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The fact that we don't just ask whether a proposed bill is good for the country and that's all we have to decide, but first we have to ask whether it is Constitutional proves that being obstructed by a Constitution is not good for the country

Actually it is excellent proof of just the opposite. It helps stop legislation that only benefits a particular agenda rather than the Country as a whole. Don't like what the Constitution says? People can change it if enough agree. Be advised that there are many Americans sworn to defend the Constitution.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

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.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors by Lawyers for the 1%

You quote the Founding Fodder as if their self-serving opinions were inspired by some infallible Supreme Being. We don't need to make politics a religion serving as a totalitarian theocracy. Second, treating the Constitution as a Bible is either a superstition or heresy.

Good luck in whatever country you move to.

What Really Put the Crack in the Liberty Bell

The fact that we don't just ask whether a proposed bill is good for the country and that's all we have to decide, but first we have to ask whether it is Constitutional proves that being obstructed by a Constitution is not good for the country.

I agree that it is flat out retarded that rich white men 200 years ago can affect what laws we have today

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Discovered at bootcamp? You lying fuck, you washed out at bootcamp and come here pretending to be a veteran that knows the firearm world?

Yeah, you'd make a great spineless civil rights lyer going after cops that put themselves in harm's way. Or helping illegals vote Democrat and help the nation get stoned. No wonder you are so fucked up, you're a stoner that can't see what his thoughts look like to a lucid mind.

I am a veteran by any standard. I served continuously on active duty for over 180 days, during a time of war no less.

I trained enough with assault rifles, and learned enough about how they function, to know that no civilian needs one

6 months and you have the nerve to call yourself a veteran? And after lying to get in? You have some nerve. And you had lots of training on rifles by then? That's some weak shit.

You should know damn good and well why a civilian would want one but the point is it isn't your call.

It took the Army that long to figure out he was batshit crazy and discharge him as an undesirable. My guess is he got a "Entry Level Separation", if not a "Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge". His level of discourse is so ridiculous that no one would want to work with this nitwit.

General Under Honorable Conditions. Which means I am still able to receive service at VA hospitals

 

[Unkotare]

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.

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Written Behind Closed Doors by Lawyers for the 1%

You quote the Founding Fodder as if their self-serving opinions were inspired by some infallible Supreme Being. We don't need to make politics a religion serving as a totalitarian theocracy. Second, treating the Constitution as a Bible is either a superstition or heresy.

Good luck in whatever country you move to.

What Really Put the Crack in the Liberty Bell

The fact that we don't just ask whether a proposed bill is good for the country and that's all we have to decide, but first we have to ask whether it is Constitutional proves that being obstructed by a Constitution is not good for the country.

I agree that it is flat out retarded that rich white men 200 years ago can affect what laws we have today

Bye