Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed, which is why the anti-gun Left wants to redefine the meaning of the Second Amendment.As a hunter I have heard this same rhetoric for 30 years...they are gonna take your guns. Some will buy into anything. A real hunter uses a bolt action. Not an assault rifle. The 2nd amendment protects my right to own my hunting guns. Its all fear rhetoric.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose | Tenth Amendment Center
.....James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
Australia is an island. Are you ready to build a huge wall against Mexico??
Oh....and your link from Vox has been proven inaccurate.
The Australian Gun Ban Conceit
Even Bill O'Reilly confirmed Australia's gun ban as a success. And obviously you have no better analogy except to state that Australia is an island? Wrong again, twit. It's a continent. Please don't try to lecture liberals...about anything.
This is America not Australia dumbass
Australia is an island. Are you ready to build a huge wall against Mexico??
Oh....and your link from Vox has been proven inaccurate.
The Australian Gun Ban Conceit
Even Bill O'Reilly confirmed Australia's gun ban as a success. And obviously you have no better analogy except to state that Australia is an island? Wrong again, twit. It's a continent. Please don't try to lecture liberals...about anything.
That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.
Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.
Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.
??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.
And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....
I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights."I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.
Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.
And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....
I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.
"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights."I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.
Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?
What are the gun grabbers going to do when THIS technology continues to improve too?
They will regulate printers for sure.
LOL!
Good luck with that!
No doubt they'll ban the making, but the Left loves to pass unenforceable laws. It makes them feel good.
The left? How many laws have been passed to make a legal abortion more difficult, and how many have been overturned by the courts? How many abortions have been prevented, and how many unwanted pregnancies from law which restrict the ability to obtain contraceptives?
June 8, 2015, 9:32 AM
Abortion rate declines in almost every state
"Several of the states that have been most aggressive in passing anti-abortion laws - including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma - have seen their abortion numbers drop by more than 15 percent since 2010. But more liberal states such as New York, Washington and Oregon also had declines of that magnitude, even as they maintained unrestricted access to abortion.
Nationwide, the AP survey showed a decrease in abortions of about 12 percent since 2010."
Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.
??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
Thanks, Chuz, but the anti-gun Left doesn't give a shit about facts. We're already seen that a few times on this thread alone.
Agreed. Let's not forget they were trying ban M855 .223 ammo last year. Even law enforcement were scratching their heads wondering WTF? Think they won't look for other ways to encroach on our rights?Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.
And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....
I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.
"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.
You have to love these liberals. I mean seriously. They scream that "no one is trying to take your rights away" while they are praying that our rights are taken away...
I would almost bet you a buck that within the next week - there will be an outcry from the communists on the left to limit magazine size nationwide. Doesn't bother me - I have all I'll ever need - but just watch - if that fails - look for his Royal Highness to bring back the EO on "assault rifles" - just like the rapist Bill Clinton did.
And the left wonders why it is that their histrionics bring gun and ammunition sales tho record highs.......
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
This is very wordy. You can do better.
Allow me to translate for the people who don't have time to sort through your incoherence.
Tom Brokaw claims that the 2nd Amendment protects access to guns not "weapons of war".
Tom Brokaw calls for a ban on the AR 15, which he labels a "weapon of war".
OP thinks that Tom Brokaw is incorrect for suggesting that the AR 14 is a weapon of war. In support of this point he provides evidence that the AR 14 is less deadly than some guns.
He further demonstrates liberal confusion with the musket example. Liberals claim the 2nd Amendment originally covered just muskets, but, he continues, this is a category mistake because muskets were considered weapons of war.
He thinks liberals are morons.
Thanks Obama!132.1: Rise in stock market value of gun-maker Smith & Wesson throughout 2015. The shares of gun-makers Strum Ruger and Vista also performed extraordinarily well last year, rising 72.1 and 29.9 percent, respectively.
-------
11 million: Number of guns made in the U.S. in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook massacre. That’s more than twice as many as the 5.4 million firearms produced in 2010.
Agreed. Heck, the rifle Omar used wasn't even an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX. A nice little civilian sporting rifle.Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
This is very wordy. You can do better.
Allow me to translate for the people who don't have time to sort through your incoherence.
Tom Brokaw claims that the 2nd Amendment protects access to guns not "weapons of war".
Tom Brokaw calls for a ban on the AR 15, which he labels a "weapon of war".
OP thinks that Tom Brokaw is incorrect for suggesting that the AR 14 is a weapon of war. In support of this point he provides evidence that the AR 14 is less deadly than some guns.
He further demonstrates liberal confusion with the musket example. Liberals claim the 2nd Amendment originally covered just muskets, but, he continues, this is a category mistake because muskets were considered weapons of war.
He thinks liberals are morons.
Your point?
For one Brokaw is a moron. The AR-14 isn't the issue. It's the AR-15. I've never even seen a gun called an AR-14.
Next...the 2nd Amendment covered weapons of war.
Next...the left calls an AR15 a weapon of war.
Finally...yes...I think the AR15 is overrated. It's not that great of a gun for hunting or self defense. And...many soldiers don't like it in a war zone because it's tiny bullet often doesn't stop enemy fighters.
I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.
Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.
The rest of your post I completely disagree with.
Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?
Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.
See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?
I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.
Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.
The rest of your post I completely disagree with.
Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?
Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.
See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?
Damn, another God Damned liar.Agreed. Heck, the rifle Omar used wasn't even an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX. A nice little civilian sporting rifle.Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
This is very wordy. You can do better.
Allow me to translate for the people who don't have time to sort through your incoherence.
Tom Brokaw claims that the 2nd Amendment protects access to guns not "weapons of war".
Tom Brokaw calls for a ban on the AR 15, which he labels a "weapon of war".
OP thinks that Tom Brokaw is incorrect for suggesting that the AR 14 is a weapon of war. In support of this point he provides evidence that the AR 14 is less deadly than some guns.
He further demonstrates liberal confusion with the musket example. Liberals claim the 2nd Amendment originally covered just muskets, but, he continues, this is a category mistake because muskets were considered weapons of war.
He thinks liberals are morons.
Your point?
For one Brokaw is a moron. The AR-14 isn't the issue. It's the AR-15. I've never even seen a gun called an AR-14.
Next...the 2nd Amendment covered weapons of war.
Next...the left calls an AR15 a weapon of war.
Finally...yes...I think the AR15 is overrated. It's not that great of a gun for hunting or self defense. And...many soldiers don't like it in a war zone because it's tiny bullet often doesn't stop enemy fighters.
The gun the Orlando shooter used was not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.
