Gun Control & Military Style Weapons

[Wry Catcher]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

 

[tjvh]

Landmines? Not this liberal buffoonery again...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Why does ANYONE need a weapon when we have Police, Gov't and Military there to protect us?

Maybe those Redneck gun owners are trying to compensate for their small d*cks?

 

[martybegan]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

So many falsehoods in one post.

Automatic weapons are not outlawed, they are strictly regulated unde the 1934 firearms act, which requires sign off from your local law enforcement, and payment of a specifc tax.

Please provide a link showing where the NRA has ever had stated that homeowners should have landmines, anti-tank weapons, or SAM's.

What you believe when it comes to firearms covered under the 2nd amendment has no bearing unless you get enough support to repeal said amendment.

Your last paragraph prior to your question is nothing but typical gunaphobe tripe that does not address any of the issues normally found when it comes to gun violence.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

So many falsehoods in one post.

Automatic weapons are not outlawed, they are strictly regulated unde the 1934 firearms act, which requires sign off from your local law enforcement, and payment of a specifc tax.

Where did I write the word "outlawed"? Where is that "falsehood" fully autos are controlled!

Please provide a link showing where the NRA has ever had stated that homeowners should have landmines, anti-tank weapons, or SAM's.

LOL, I don't need to, hyperbole is a rhetorical device to make a point.

What you believe when it comes to firearms covered under the 2nd amendment has no bearing unless you get enough support to repeal said amendment.

Not true. The USSC has ruled the control of arms has limits.

Your last paragraph prior to your question is nothing but typical gunaphobe tripe that does not address any of the issues normally found when it comes to gun violence.

"gunaphobe tripe"? In the face of current events I would characterize your remark as denial. We've gone this route before, you and I will never agree on the issue. But please try to make sense and knock off the personal attacks. You may start if you can by answering the question which followed my "gunaphobe tripe".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court has been clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type weapons. There have been numerous rulings supporting that.

 

[martybegan]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

So many falsehoods in one post.

Automatic weapons are not outlawed, they are strictly regulated unde the 1934 firearms act, which requires sign off from your local law enforcement, and payment of a specifc tax.

Where did I write the word "outlawed"? Where is that "falsehood" fully autos are controlled!

Please provide a link showing where the NRA has ever had stated that homeowners should have landmines, anti-tank weapons, or SAM's.

LOL, I don't need to, hyperbole is a rhetorical device to make a point.

What you believe when it comes to firearms covered under the 2nd amendment has no bearing unless you get enough support to repeal said amendment.

Not true. The USSC has ruled the control of arms has limits.

Your last paragraph prior to your question is nothing but typical gunaphobe tripe that does not address any of the issues normally found when it comes to gun violence.

"gunaphobe tripe"? In the face of current events I would characterize your remark as denial. We've gone this route before, you and I will never agree on the issue. But please try to make sense and knock off the personal attacks. You may start if you can by answering the question which followed my "gunaphobe tripe".

So pointing out your falsehoods is now a personal attack. Lol. Also YOU USED THE WORD OUTLAWED IN YOUR POST. I bolded it for you for your own reference.

Considering your posts don't make any sense, I can see why you can't fathom my points.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So many falsehoods in one post.

Automatic weapons are not outlawed, they are strictly regulated unde the 1934 firearms act, which requires sign off from your local law enforcement, and payment of a specifc tax.

Where did I write the word "outlawed"? Where is that "falsehood" fully autos are controlled!

Please provide a link showing where the NRA has ever had stated that homeowners should have landmines, anti-tank weapons, or SAM's.

LOL, I don't need to, hyperbole is a rhetorical device to make a point.

What you believe when it comes to firearms covered under the 2nd amendment has no bearing unless you get enough support to repeal said amendment.

Not true. The USSC has ruled the control of arms has limits.

Your last paragraph prior to your question is nothing but typical gunaphobe tripe that does not address any of the issues normally found when it comes to gun violence.

"gunaphobe tripe"? In the face of current events I would characterize your remark as denial. We've gone this route before, you and I will never agree on the issue. But please try to make sense and knock off the personal attacks. You may start if you can by answering the question which followed my "gunaphobe tripe".

So pointing out your falsehoods is now a personal attack. Lol. Also YOU USED THE WORD OUTLAWED IN YOUR POST. I bolded it for you for your own reference.

Considering your posts don't make any sense, I can see why you can't fathom my points.

No, calling me a liar (So many falsehoods in one post) and my post "gunaphobe tripe" are what I consider non responsive and personal affronts. Some military style arms are outlawed unless you can demonstrate where I can legally buy a surface to air missile, an anti-tank rifle or a non-inert fragmentation grenade. I'm no expert on such weapons and if I'm wrong will so acknowledge. But, that wouldn't change my opinion that such weapons do not belong in the custody or control of civilians.

 

[NoNukes]

The Supreme Court has been clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type weapons. There have been numerous rulings supporting that.

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

 

[legaleagle_45]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

There is a distinction between "military style" weapons and "military grade" weapons. Military style weapons look like military grade weapons, but are not. Further, while all arms are weapons, not all weapons are arms as that term is employed in the 2nd Amend.

Arms are single person portabable and use items of offense or defense commonly carried or worn so as to be prepared for man on man combat.

Stinger missles and anti tank weapons are not something a person would commonly carry around to fight another person... thus, not arms

 

[kwc57]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

It is a bill of rights, not a bill of NEEDS. You don't get to decide what I want or need. End of story.

 

[martybegan]

"gunaphobe tripe"? In the face of current events I would characterize your remark as denial. We've gone this route before, you and I will never agree on the issue. But please try to make sense and knock off the personal attacks. You may start if you can by answering the question which followed my "gunaphobe tripe".

So pointing out your falsehoods is now a personal attack. Lol. Also YOU USED THE WORD OUTLAWED IN YOUR POST. I bolded it for you for your own reference.

Considering your posts don't make any sense, I can see why you can't fathom my points.

No, calling me a liar (So many falsehoods in one post) and my post "gunaphobe tripe" are what I consider non responsive and personal affronts. Some military style arms are outlawed unless you can demonstrate where I can legally buy a surface to air missile, an anti-tank rifle or a non-inert fragmentation grenade. I'm no expert on such weapons and if I'm wrong will so acknowledge. But, that wouldn't change my opinion that such weapons do not belong in the custody or control of civilians.

The thing is we all know you are talking about semi automatic rifles, which from you previous posts, you consider military firearms (although they are not). Yes, the SAM/AT4/Claymore post was hyperbole, but by nature it is a falsehood.

Also federal law allows ownership of destructive devices same as full auto weapons.

Destructive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court has been clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type weapons. There have been numerous rulings supporting that.

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

The word "abortion" does not exist in the constituion. The words "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the consitution, and yet progressives find some right to an abortion in the document, and no right to arms in it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Supreme Court has been clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type weapons. There have been numerous rulings supporting that.

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

Of course Roe v. Wade has some controls on abortions, RGS is stating that the Second has been found by the Supreme Court to be sacrosanct which it is not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Supreme Court has been clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type weapons. There have been numerous rulings supporting that.

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

The word "abortion" does not exist in the constituion. The words "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the consitution, and yet progressives find some right to an abortion in the document, and no right to arms in it.

Marty, please define "arms"

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

In a reply to you, American Communist.
Yes. The police and military exist to protect us, but:
1. The military defends the nation as a whole, not the individuals in their homes or on the streets.
2. The police are largely a reactionary force. They get the call that a crime is in progress or has occured and they go to the site as quickly as possible. That is "after" you or your neighbor have already become the victim. They cannot be everywhere at once and in the vast majority of cases, they arrive after the person has been assaulted, robbed, or murdered.
Thus, common sense dictates that you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself. If the assailant has a weapon and of course, no criminal is going to turn in his or her firearm, no matter what laws are enacted, you are at the receiving end of the weapon, unless you have a viable means of defending yourself. If he/she has a knife and are fairly certain that you can escape, do so. However, if he/she has a firearm, you cannot outrun a bullet, no matter how fast you can run.
Possessing a firearm gives you a fighting chance, especially if you are the victim of a home invasion, which often involves multiple assailants.
Of course, then there are hunters who use them for hunting and eating their kill, as well as farmers/ranchers who own rifles to defend their livestock from predators.
Then there are individuals like myself who are sportsmen. I grew up around firearms, spent a career in the military and own several, enjoying them at the range. A firearm is only as dangerous as its owner. My personal opinion is that there should be a one time safety class for those seeking to own a firearm, along with a background check.
As for you, by your title, you are a communist and communism is an oppressive style government that forbids other styles, offering its people only one type of candidate (communist) and has a habit of sending its citizens to "re-education" camps if they don't wish to go along with that style of government and it also has a habit of shooting its own people who try to leave its borders.
True communism in its purest form is found in North Korea.
China maintains a communist party, but has incorporated capitalism into its fold to allow for improvements (i.e., military). Yet, they still do not really allow other parties.
Communism is a good example of why citizens should continue the right to bear arms, so they aren't forced into such a government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In a reply to you, American Communist.

Yes. The police and military exist to protect us, but:

1. The military defends the nation as a whole, not the individuals in their homes or on the streets.

2. The police are largely a reactionary force. They get the call that a crime is in progress or has occured and they go to the site as quickly as possible. That is "after" you or your neighbor have already become the victim. They cannot be everywhere at once and in the vast majority of cases, they arrive after the person has been assaulted, robbed, or murdered.

Thus, common sense dictates that you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself. If the assailant has a weapon and of course, no criminal is going to turn in his or her firearm, no matter what laws are enacted, you are at the receiving end of the weapon, unless you have a viable means of defending yourself. If he/she has a knife and are fairly certain that you can escape, do so. However, if he/she has a firearm, you cannot outrun a bullet, no matter how fast you can run.

Possessing a firearm gives you a fighting chance, especially if you are the victim of a home invasion, which often involves multiple assailants.

Of course, then there are hunters who use them for hunting and eating their kill, as well as farmers/ranchers who own rifles to defend their livestock from predators.

Then there are individuals like myself who are sportsmen. I grew up around firearms, spent a career in the military and own several, enjoying them at the range. A firearm is only as dangerous as its owner. My personal opinion is that there should be a one time safety class for those seeking to own a firearm, along with a background check.

As for you, by your title, you are a communist and communism is an oppressive style government that forbids other styles, offering its people only one type of candidate (communist) and has a habit of sending its citizens to "re-education" camps if they don't wish to go along with that style of government and it also has a habit of shooting its own people who try to leave its borders.

True communism in its purest form is found in North Korea.

China maintains a communist party, but has incorporated capitalism into its fold to allow for improvements (i.e., military). Yet, they still do not really allow other parties.
Communism is a good example of why citizens should continue the right to bear arms, so they aren't forced into such a government.

I added paragraphs to your post to make reading easier. Since your post was directed to another I will add only a couple of comments.

Police can only do so much; under the Second Amendment all American Citizens have the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun within their own home or business to protect themselves, their family and employees and their property.

Police will take a report and crimes of violence are a number one priority. Maybe they won't respond in time to protect a reporting party, but they usually catch such violent offenders and prevent further crimes. Keep in mind most crimes of violence occur within one's own social structure. Raving bands mostly exist in fiction, though Manson and other such miscreants exist.

N. Korea is a Totalitarian Regime, it surly doesn't provide for its peoples needs. The former Soviet Union was an Authoritarian Regime, as were it's satellites in Eastern Europe. They were Republics in name only. China too remains an Authoritarian nation but is clearly in transition. In none of these nations did the workers have any influence on government policy.

 

[martybegan]

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

The word "abortion" does not exist in the constituion. The words "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the consitution, and yet progressives find some right to an abortion in the document, and no right to arms in it.

Marty, please define "arms"

An "Arm" is a personal firearm. At the time of the consitution it was a muzzle loading musket, and maybe a pistol or sword for an officer.

As the constitution was written by smart men, who could forsee technological development, they used a generic term for a firearm, and wholly assumed that the people would retain access to modern firearms as the times advanced.

Wry Catcher, again, please tell me how abortion is a right when the word isnt even in the consitution, yet the government according to you can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms without an amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

This is a good rope-a-dope tactic, and most ‘gun rights’ extremists get suckered into it, wearing themselves out with meaningless, irrelevant anecdotal accounts of mothers defending their helpless children from hoards of home invading rapists and murderers with an AR 15.

Of course the extremists succeed in only making themselves out to be indeed extreme, driving more voters into the arms of gun control advocates.

Of course there is no ‘need’ for a fully automatic weapon, or a magazine with a capacity in excess of ten rounds.

Anyone who argues there is, is a fool.

On the other hand, one is not required to justify the exercising of a Constitutional right, that burden lies with the state in its desire to limit an activity protected by the Constitution. What evidence can the state produce that documents the banning of AR 15s or limiting magazine capacity will result in an actual decrease in gun crime and death?

There is none, particularly given the fact the vast majority of gun deaths result from handguns, not rifles; handguns that are singled-out by the Heller Court as a protected class of weapons.

Let’s consider instead America’s violent culture, its violent history, and why violence is perceived in America as a legitimate means of conflict resolution; addressing those problems will get us much further toward a truly safe and healthy society than realized by ineffective bans and restrictions.

 

[asaratis]

How does one comport "arms" and "military style weapons"? Already laws exist which outlaw military style weapons. In IMO, and that of most citizens, no civil society can exist without some common sense control of weapons.

If one were accept the NRA's position land mines would be the first line of defense for the paranoid homeowner, antitank weapons would be necessary to prevent the evil government from violating one's privacy - even when the Fourth was honored - and of course what patriot would be without surface to air missiles to keep the black helicopters away.

I don't believe a citizen needs fully automatic arms, large capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) with high velocity easily trained long guns, speed loaders or any weapon designed for mass killing of other human beings.

Do you? If so why?

You don't need to be posting here. That's just my opinion. Of course you have a right to post here, whether you need to or not...so I'll have to let you post whatever you want.

My right to bear arms is not subject to your interpretation of my needs.

Having read the entire thread up to my last quote, I see that you have had your ass soundly whipped by persons of knowledge concerning arms and the bearing thereof. Some of my comments will ditto theirs.

Why does ANYONE need a weapon when we have Police, Gov't and Military there to protect us?

Maybe those Redneck gun owners are trying to compensate for their small d*cks?

Police arrive after you've been robbed, mugged, raped, shot and left for dead. You are dreaming of a utopian society where only the police have guns...doesn't work AT ALL in the USA!

"gunaphobe tripe"? In the face of current events I would characterize your remark as denial. We've gone this route before, you and I will never agree on the issue. But please try to make sense and knock off the personal attacks. You may start if you can by answering the question which followed my "gunaphobe tripe".

So pointing out your falsehoods is now a personal attack. Lol. Also YOU USED THE WORD OUTLAWED IN YOUR POST. I bolded it for you for your own reference.

Considering your posts don't make any sense, I can see why you can't fathom my points.

No, calling me a liar (So many falsehoods in one post) and my post "gunaphobe tripe" are what I consider non responsive and personal affronts. Some military style arms are outlawed unless you can demonstrate where I can legally buy a surface to air missile, an anti-tank rifle or a non-inert fragmentation grenade. I'm no expert on such weapons and if I'm wrong will so acknowledge. But, that wouldn't change my opinion that such weapons do not belong in the custody or control of civilians.

You missed the definition of "arms" by the legaleagle_45 dude.

And it has ruled in favor of abortion, but this does not stop right wingers from constantly bringing it up in arguments concerning other subjects.

The word "abortion" does not exist in the constituion. The words "arms" and "shall not be infringed" are in the consitution, and yet progressives find some right to an abortion in the document, and no right to arms in it.

Marty, please define "arms"

You missed the definition of "arms" by the legaleagle_45 dude.