CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[toobfreak]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Sway to go, Nosmo, you've hit the turf on this thread before you even got started off the ground with your FACE. NO ONE needs an assault rifle, because they have BEEN BANNED FOR DECADES from public sale and ownership. You need a federal stamp to buy one, so, get it straight right away that all these rifles that are ALL METAL and HIGH TECH LOOKING with multiple round cartridges that you see in the news and in stores, are no different from any wood rifle that holds multiple rounds (and most do except bolt-action), except BY APPEARANCE. None of them are assault rifles. You've been duped again by the gun-hating, ill-informed, left-wing media.

There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault rifle'. Refusal to recognize that betrays a mindset
High capacity magazines make the rate of fire so lethal. If a shooter is forced to reload or exchange magazines more often, there are, therefore, fewer rounds slamming into the bodies of the innocent.

So basically, your argument is that if the vast majority of imbeciles out there spoon fed garbage by a deliberately prejudiced media don't know JACK about a topic because they have no actual gun training or experience and just swallow the tripe on the CBS Evening News, that makes it a legitimate position? If you bothered to LOOK, you would find that an "assault weapon" (technically, there is no such thing and the term is just a carry over from a word coined by the Germans), you would find that they carry specifically defined characteristics. One of the most important is the RANGE that they can fire and their ability to SELECT fire. Not a single school shooting or mass killing in this country has ever been carried out with a select-fire weapon.

And the capacity of the magazine means little. You squeeze the trigger and it fires. ONCE. Even small capacity magazines carry about 10 rounds. Anyone with a little practice can change out a magazine so fast, it is amazing. With an AK-47 and a little practice you can release the old magazine, knock it out with the new one and slap in the new one in about a QUARTER SECOND. I'm sure you can find a YouTube video of someone doing it. Or you can simply switch to your other weapon. You don't know SHIT about what you are trying to lecture other people on what should, could and ought to be done to solve a problem in a situation where you don't even know the right questions to be asked.

So instead of trying to tell us about "assault rifles" (I just pointed out in another thread that of the past 49 mass shootings, 76% of them (3 out of 4) didn't even involve a rifle), and trying to tell us about magazines, cartridges and clips (know the difference?), and the bodies of the innocent, you ought to STFU and ASK the people here who actually know about firearms. And that ain't you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Because they cannot trust this corporate entity that lamely attempts to disguise itself as a legitimate governmental body that is owned by international bankers that doesn't trust it's serfs either. How much more details do you need in order for me drive that point home? You are the type of idiot that would go to Colonel Sanders (as a chicken) and say that he needed to implement "beak" control because you got "pecked". The Chinese government is on your side, btw.....they are trying to shame America into implementing their style of (snicker) "gun control" where the state is your momma and your daddy. Fuck you, punkinpuss....the last movie I watched where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the targets of Hitler as I recall as they were march into concentration camps, worked to death, starved and then eventually put into ovens. I have read diaries of those that perished there and said that they would have rather of died fighting even if it was futile than to live and die like they did. You are a blithering idiot and naive if you think that the end game that the elites have for us doesn't include that same scenario. There are over a 1,000 FEMA camps that have been built and it started in the late 70's for those that do not wish to be apart of the new world order. I know more than you.....infinitely more. You BETTER hope that President Trump is legit and that the white hats keep him protected.

Questions? Bring them on.......and don't give me the "tin foil hat" blow-off. I know exactly of what I speak. People need to learn how to live off the grid instead of staying so domesticated.

So you want to overthrow the government of the United States of America? Or you believe you can fend off the government with an assault rifle?

Is there another nation you might feel more comfortable in?

Overthrow this corporate entity that made us chattel via the Bankruptcy of March 1933 where our labor was pledged as surety against the debt? Are you saying that resistance is futile and therefore the poor serfs should just acquiesce and hope for the best and turn over any means to protect themselves? You sound like a fucking cowardly piece of shit to me.

65% of gun owners believe the public right to bear arms is protection against government tyranny. However this belief is not anchored in reality. Firearms in the hands of public is not going to be any protection against a tyrannical goverment.

If America experienced a widespread violent uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775. With 1.1 million law enforcement personnel and a military of 2 million active reserve personnel, any such uprising would be easily handled.

The overthrow of a large stable government supported by a large military can only be accomplished politically, not by citizens bearing arms.

I have to wonder just who it is that you think is going to protect a tyrannical government from the very military and police you mention. Have you forgotten that they are also citizens and that they are sworn to protect the Constitution (not the government) "...against all enemies foreign and domestic." Who qualifies more as a domestic enemy of the Constitution than a tyrannical government? Actually I would be surprised if the military didn't just handle the matter before anyone else became involved as far as combat goes. Soldiers are NOT required to obey illegal orders.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Sway to go, Nosmo, you've hit the turf on this thread before you even got started off the ground with your FACE. NO ONE needs an assault rifle, because they have BEEN BANNED FOR DECADES from public sale and ownership. You need a federal stamp to buy one, so, get it straight right away that all these rifles that are ALL METAL and HIGH TECH LOOKING with multiple round cartridges that you see in the news and in stores, are no different from any wood rifle that holds multiple rounds (and most do except bolt-action), except BY APPEARANCE. None of them are assault rifles. You've been duped again by the gun-hating, ill-informed, left-wing media.

There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault rifle'. Refusal to recognize that betrays a mindset
High capacity magazines make the rate of fire so lethal. If a shooter is forced to reload or exchange magazines more often, there are, therefore, fewer rounds slamming into the bodies of the innocent.

So basically, your argument is that if the vast majority of imbeciles out there spoon fed garbage by a deliberately prejudiced media don't know JACK about a topic because they have no actual gun training or experience and just swallow the tripe on the CBS Evening News, that makes it a legitimate position? If you bothered to LOOK, you would find that an "assault weapon" (technically, there is no such thing and the term is just a carry over from a word coined by the Germans), you would find that they carry specifically defined characteristics. One of the most important is the RANGE that they can fire and their ability to SELECT fire. Not a single school shooting or mass killing in this country has ever been carried out with a select-fire weapon.

And the capacity of the magazine means little. You squeeze the trigger and it fires. ONCE. Even small capacity magazines carry about 10 rounds. Anyone with a little practice can change out a magazine so fast, it is amazing. With an AK-47 and a little practice you can release the old magazine, knock it out with the new one and slap in the new one in about a QUARTER SECOND. I'm sure you can find a YouTube video of someone doing it. Or you can simply switch to your other weapon. You don't know SHIT about what you are trying to lecture other people on what should, could and ought to be done to solve a problem in a situation where you don't even know the right questions to be asked.

So instead of trying to tell us about "assault rifles" (I just pointed out in another thread that of the past 49 mass shootings, 76% of them (3 out of 4) didn't even involve a rifle), and trying to tell us about magazines, cartridges and clips (know the difference?), and the bodies of the innocent, you ought to STFU and ASK the people here who actually know about firearms. And that ain't you.

Your argument is essentially, if you don't know what length of tack the upholsterer used, you should not comment on the quality of the sofa. Or if you don't know the correct timing sequence for a 305 small block V-8, you have no voice in automobile fuel efficiency.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ghost of a Rider, post: 19418119

on't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer.

(1) I'm not being rediculous. Assault rifle advocates here have declared themselves to be, at present, in the phony, fake, make-believe, Amendment Two Militia and cite that duty, as their necessity to play with military looking assault rifles.

I appreciate your response. Dont get much thoughtful replies from other assault rifle defenders. However, your argument is a very weak justification for the current legalized status of manufacturing and sale of assault rifles That is because you just wrote 'There is no militia until the government calls for one" which I must assume you mean the Federal Governnent and its massive apparatus of standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and domestic law enforcement.

Under your militia scenario, if we apply the current polling where two thirds of US citizens want assault rifles banned, there apparently is no reason not to ban them. Do you agree. If not why not.

For the sake of discussion, let's keep sticking strictly to the Second Amendment language calling for a well regulated militia. The assault rifle ban, most Americans want, fits very well under that language and your interpretation that the Federal Government is the regulator.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Sway to go, Nosmo, you've hit the turf on this thread before you even got started off the ground with your FACE. NO ONE needs an assault rifle, because they have BEEN BANNED FOR DECADES from public sale and ownership. You need a federal stamp to buy one, so, get it straight right away that all these rifles that are ALL METAL and HIGH TECH LOOKING with multiple round cartridges that you see in the news and in stores, are no different from any wood rifle that holds multiple rounds (and most do except bolt-action), except BY APPEARANCE. None of them are assault rifles. You've been duped again by the gun-hating, ill-informed, left-wing media.

There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault rifle'. Refusal to recognize that betrays a mindset
High capacity magazines make the rate of fire so lethal. If a shooter is forced to reload or exchange magazines more often, there are, therefore, fewer rounds slamming into the bodies of the innocent.

So basically, your argument is that if the vast majority of imbeciles out there spoon fed garbage by a deliberately prejudiced media don't know JACK about a topic because they have no actual gun training or experience and just swallow the tripe on the CBS Evening News, that makes it a legitimate position? If you bothered to LOOK, you would find that an "assault weapon" (technically, there is no such thing and the term is just a carry over from a word coined by the Germans), you would find that they carry specifically defined characteristics. One of the most important is the RANGE that they can fire and their ability to SELECT fire. Not a single school shooting or mass killing in this country has ever been carried out with a select-fire weapon.

And the capacity of the magazine means little. You squeeze the trigger and it fires. ONCE. Even small capacity magazines carry about 10 rounds. Anyone with a little practice can change out a magazine so fast, it is amazing. With an AK-47 and a little practice you can release the old magazine, knock it out with the new one and slap in the new one in about a QUARTER SECOND. I'm sure you can find a YouTube video of someone doing it. Or you can simply switch to your other weapon. You don't know SHIT about what you are trying to lecture other people on what should, could and ought to be done to solve a problem in a situation where you don't even know the right questions to be asked.

So instead of trying to tell us about "assault rifles" (I just pointed out in another thread that of the past 49 mass shootings, 76% of them (3 out of 4) didn't even involve a rifle), and trying to tell us about magazines, cartridges and clips (know the difference?), and the bodies of the innocent, you ought to STFU and ASK the people here who actually know about firearms. And that ain't you.

Your argument is essentially, if you don't know what length of tack the upholsterer used, you should not comment on the quality of the sofa. Or if you don't know the correct timing sequence for a 305 small block V-8, you have no voice in automobile fuel efficiency.

No, I think it's more like you need to at least know the the difference between a sofa and a clock or a car from a bus before you start dreaming up laws to regulate them. A rifle must be capable of firing full automatic to be considered an actual assault rifle. End of story. Cosmetic add-ons do not and cannot change a simi-auto rifle into an assault rifle.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that.)

I have not presented an argument that presumes such a belief. I assume that those in need of collecting, owning, stockpiling and playing with legally sold ''assault rifles' for any reason are more inclined than most other type of gun owners, to fancy themselves as part of some Amendment Two sons of liberty militia mania.

They do have 'assault rifle' ownership in common with the Parkland High shooter. There is that connection which brings me to my point that the Second Amendment most certainly does not interfere with the majority of America's citizens right to ban 'assault rifles' if that can be politically achieved.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Ghost of a Rider, post: 19418119

on't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer.

(1) I'm not being rediculous. Assault rifle advocates here have declared themselves to be, at present, in the phony, fake, make-believe, Amendment Two Militia and cite that duty, as their necessity to play with military looking assault rifles.

I appreciate your response. Dont get much thoughtful replies from other assault rifle defenders. However, your argument is a very weak justification for the current legalized status of manufacturing and sale of assault rifles That is because you just wrote 'There is no militia until the government calls for one" which I must assume you mean the Federal Governnent and its massive apparatus of standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and domestic law enforcement.

Under your militia scenario, if we apply the current polling where two thirds of US citizens want assault rifles banned, there apparently is no reason not to ban them. Do you agree. If not why not.

For the sake of discussion, let's keep sticking strictly to the Second Amendment language calling for a well regulated militia. The assault rifle ban, most Americans want, fits very well under that language and your interpretation that the Federal Government is the regulator.

Both legally and historically militias may, or may not be, formed by government at any level. They may also be formed by private individuals or groups. A militia is simply a group of armed men formed for some particular purpose. That is all entirely beside the point because the 2nd Amendment is an individual right as ruled by the Supreme Court of the US and as it was always intended.

I do not for a second believe that you speak for two thirds of US citizens. But if you think you do feel free to go for a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9thIDdoc, post: 19419644

A rifle must be capable of firing full automatic to be considered an actual assault rifle.

Why does anyone need an actual assault rifle 'look-alike' to defend thenselves from evil doers as card carrying members of the Amendment Two (well regulated) militia.

Well regulated means you accept what the political majority of citizens in this country decide it should be. Lookalikes are not a type of firearm that deserves Second Amendment protections just like fully automatic assault rifles do not get that protection,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Both legally and historically militias may, or may not be, formed by government at any level. They may also be formed by private individuals or groups. A militia is simply a group of armed men formed for some particular purpose. That is all entirely beside the point because the 2nd Amendment is an individual right as ruled by the Supreme Court of the US and as it was always intended.

Can you stick to the fact that the SA refers to a 'well regulated militia' and the courts have not altered that language. Any, unregulated by state and federal government, group of armed men formed for some particular purpose is not necessarily protected by the SA. All laws must be obeyed by them as well.

As far as individual rights go, it is decided that individuals do not have the right to bear any arms they so desire. That being the case, an assault (look alike) rifle ban is very much on the table.

The line between banned and legal has been arbitrarily set and is due for adjustment because it has become more politically viable since GenX is coming to adulthood realizing what a mess the NRA, Courts and politicians have made of their world,

 

[9thIDdoc]

9thIDdoc, post: 19419644

A rifle must be capable of firing full automatic to be considered an actual assault rifle.

Why does anyone need an actual assault rifle 'look-alike' to defend thenselves from evil doers as card carrying members of the Amendment Two (well regulated) militia.

Well regulated means you accept what the political majority of citizens in this country decide it should be. Lookalikes are not a type of firearm that deserves Second Amendment protections just like fully automatic assault rifles do not get that protection,

"Why does anyone need an actual assault rifle 'look-alike' to defend thenselves from evil doers as card carrying members of the Amendment Two (well regulated) militia."

More importantly what makes you think you should have the right to dictate what someone needs? I may want something whether actually need it or not. Freedom.

Well regulated means you accept what the political majority of citizens in this country decide it should be. Lookalikes are not a type of firearm that deserves Second Amendment protections just like fully automatic assault rifles do not get that protection,

Absolutely untrue. Stupid and nasty to boot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9thIDdoc, post: 1941966

I do not for a second believe that you speak for two thirds of US citizens. But if you think you do feel free to go for a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment. Just revert to the original assault weapons ban. Congress can do that. I speak for myself, but I am in agreement with the two thirds majority according to recent polling.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9thIDdoc, post: 19419702

More importantly what makes you think you should have the right to dictate what someone needs? I may want something whether actually need it or not. Freedom.

You've accepted that you do not have the right as a civilian to easily bear arms as lethal as the fully automatic assault rifle,

The lines are drawn by public and political will. That's up to the will of the people. I thought you respect the will of a free people.

 

[fncceo]

I thought you respect the will of a free people.

Things that were once the will of a free people ...

Slavery

Jim Crow

No suffrage for women

Internment of Japanese US citizens

Any attempt to deprive citizens of their right to self defense would be an unjust law

 

[9thIDdoc]

9thIDdoc, post: 1941966

I do not for a second believe that you speak for two thirds of US citizens. But if you think you do feel free to go for a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment. Just revert to the original assault weapons ban. Congress can do that. I speak for myself, but I am in agreement with the two thirds majority according to recent polling.

If you're that delusional you go right ahead and I don't think Congress or President Trump are that politically suicidal and there is a strong possibility-given recent rulings-that the Supreme Court would agree that so-called black guns are indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment anyway. But, hey, I'm sure your efforts will be worth many horse-laughs so again knock yourself out.

 

[9thIDdoc]

9thIDdoc, post: 19419702

More importantly what makes you think you should have the right to dictate what someone needs? I may want something whether actually need it or not. Freedom.

You've accepted that you do not have the right as a civilian to easily bear arms as lethal as the fully automatic assault rifle,

The lines are drawn by public and political will. That's up to the will of the people. I thought you respect the will of a free people.

"You've accepted that you do not have the right as a civilian to easily bear arms as lethal as the fully automatic assault rifle,"

I neither said nor believe that. I carried one or more in Vietnam and didn't find them any more lethal than a 12ga. shotgun used by hunters the world over. I found that auto. fire increases the rate of malfunctions and burns through precious ammo quickly. Running out of ammo in the middle of a firefight tends to be terminally embarrassing. I rarely used the full auto function.

Actually I think the lines you see are are drawn in your imagination aided and abetted by political action shills in an effort to get your money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I neither said nor believe that. I carried one or more in Vietnam and didn't find them any more lethal than a 12ga. shotgun used by hunters the world over. I found that auto. fire increases the rate of malfunctions and burns through precious ammo quickly. Running out of ammo in the middle of a firefight tends to be terminally embarrassing. I rarely used the full auto function.

Actually I think the lines you see are are drawn in your imagination aided and abetted by political action shills in an effort to get your money.

This post may well be the most accurate and well positioned in almost 300 posts...

Well said...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ridgerunner, post: 19419752

This post may well be the most accurate and well positioned in almost 300 posts

If a 12 Shotgun is so grea for self defense why the uproar over the semi automatic assault rifle ban. The poster does not address that.? Nor does he address tacit acceptance of the fully automatic firearm bans in place,

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

All courts are incorporated and all judges are nothing but administrators for their corporate master that owns USA.INC which is currently the International Monetary Fund that is owned by the same bankers that on all central banks and the Bank for International Settlements as well as the Global Bank. All towns, cities are subsidiaries of the counties...all counties are subsidiaries of the state and all states are subsidiaries of USA.INC whose headquarters are in the city/state of Washington, District of Columbia.....what is it a district of? The answer would surprise you if not make you utterly sick.

People often ask me why does it matter if all government entities are "incorporated" and why does that matter? Because when you incorporate something, the jurisdiction changes from Law Of The Land" to that of Admiralty. i.e Commerce/ Statutory acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" and none of it is constitutional because the constitution is the law of the LAND. Go into a Admiralty court with the gold fringed flag and talk about your constitutional rights and watch the judge threaten you with "contempt of court" because it does not apply. You have to know legalese and know Black's Law dictionary because they speak their own language. You nor anyone else gets to determine what others may have in order to defend themselves. If you feel so strongly about disarming the masses? Put your ass out there on the front line in a "door to door" disarming operation........

Actually, I had very little direct knowledge of what you're talking about. So, when someone on one of these boards accused me of being one of those "gold fringed types," I started researching it. Lo and behold, there ARE legal requirements for the United States flag.

So, how is it people can put a gold fringe on the flag and claim it is just decorative? Such dishonesty! My own independent research turned this up:

• 
  "The American Flag of Peace of the united States of America is described as red, white and blue, with thirteen alternating red and white horizontal stripes, and a blue field (union) with 50 stars, one to represent each of the several States. The Flag is proportional, (1 X 1.9) . This proportion is easily determined by measuring the length (fly) and dividing by the measurement of the width (hoist). The length divided by the width should be very nearly 1.9. If the flag is not to the correct 1 X 1.9 proportion, it is not an official Title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 American Flag of Peace of the united States of America.
  Title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 and Presidential Executive Order 10834, found in the Federal Register at Vol. 24. No. 166, P.6365 - 6367.
  
  Title 4 U.S.C. 3 provides that anything put on the title 4 U.S.C., 1, 2 American Flag such as gold fringe MUTILATES the Flag and carries a one-year prison term. This is confirmed by the authority of title 36 U.S.C. 176 (g). The gold fringe is a fourth color and represents "color of law" jurisdiction and when placed on the title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 Flag, mutilates the Flag and suspends the Constitution and establishes "color of law" jurisdiction (Refer to title 18 U.S.C. 242, see Black's Law Dictionary).

As per what you said relative to the Inc. status, I worked as a DFACS asset. When children needed to be put into foster care, I went and got them and put them in my home. I was in a private contract with a company that was incorporated. The Dept. of Public Safety is managed by an incorporation where I live. The county probation office is a private corporation. It's not theory any longer when you can prove it as fact.

It only surprised me that I was one of those "conspiracy theorists" while working within the system and didn't even realize it.

 

[Humorme]

Ghost of a Rider, post: 19418119

on't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer.

(1) I'm not being rediculous. Assault rifle advocates here have declared themselves to be, at present, in the phony, fake, make-believe, Amendment Two Militia and cite that duty, as their necessity to play with military looking assault rifles.

I appreciate your response. Dont get much thoughtful replies from other assault rifle defenders. However, your argument is a very weak justification for the current legalized status of manufacturing and sale of assault rifles That is because you just wrote 'There is no militia until the government calls for one" which I must assume you mean the Federal Governnent and its massive apparatus of standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and domestic law enforcement.

Under your militia scenario, if we apply the current polling where two thirds of US citizens want assault rifles banned, there apparently is no reason not to ban them. Do you agree. If not why not.

For the sake of discussion, let's keep sticking strictly to the Second Amendment language calling for a well regulated militia. The assault rifle ban, most Americans want, fits very well under that language and your interpretation that the Federal Government is the regulator.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed and I've pointed out why more than once in this thread.

I realize the answer isn't a bumper sticker slogan, but it is highly accurate and we should address the facts. You need not keep repeating errors already addressed.

 

[Humorme]

9thIDdoc, post: 19419644

A rifle must be capable of firing full automatic to be considered an actual assault rifle.

Why does anyone need an actual assault rifle 'look-alike' to defend thenselves from evil doers as card carrying members of the Amendment Two (well regulated) militia.

Well regulated means you accept what the political majority of citizens in this country decide it should be. Lookalikes are not a type of firearm that deserves Second Amendment protections just like fully automatic assault rifles do not get that protection,

This has been asked and answered. Again, my post was long, but it did contain the FACTS. Regulation of a militia has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. What was the great object to be attained? That is the meaning of the regulation of the militia.