Question for gun enthusiast.

[bigrebnc1775]

Of Course I do

Funny shit

 

[rightwinger]

The funniest part is that if ol' King George had granted the colonies a seat in Parliament, we might still be a British colony.

But the Colonists were uneducated savages

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, I don't see why this seems complicated. Of course, the2nd is what it is. this question has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, or bump stocks. Bump stocks are just a way to increase firing rate, which is legal anyway. I am not asking for any kind of justification for anything. Perfectly legal high capacity and rate weapons are ideal for self-defense. As a practical matter, many guns are used for non-self-defense purposes. Most guns used for non-self-defense don't have a high rate and capacity anyway. Would those non-self-defense guns serve their purpose any better with a higher rate or capacity, or are they suited to their purpose without those things? Is a high rate of fire normally USED in target practice, or deer hunting? Is that high rate and capacity mostly only used for self-defense? Again, I know the 2nd allows it, and I don't question that. That has nothing to do with the question.

I addressed your question in my very first line:
There doesn't need to be a "reason".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But the Colonists were uneducated savages

Uneducated savages that created the foundation of greatness the Republic form of government that protects your right to spew ignorance.

 

[LibertyKid]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

The 2nd amendment has been always about protecting freedoms and liberty from a tyranny, foreign or domestic. Period. Personal Protection has always been a secondary benefit provided by the 2A. So the question should be, what type of Arms should the people be able to bear to defend our liberties and freedoms prescribed by the constitution when tyranny is present?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment has been always about protecting freedoms and liberty from a tyranny, foreign or domestic. Period. Personal Protection has always been a secondary benefit provided by the 2A. So the question should be, what type of Arms should the people be able to bear to defend our liberties and freedoms prescribed by the constitution when tyranny is present?

Those which have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and/or a part of ordinary military equipment -- weapons which could contribute to the common defense.

 

[rightwinger]

Uneducated savages that created the foundation of greatness the Republic form of government that protects your right to spew ignorance.

Brits were still not going to treat them as equals

 

[hadit]

The funniest part is that if ol' King George had granted the colonies a seat in Parliament, we might still be a British colony.

It's funny how the same people ranting and raving about how "insurrectionists" need to be put in prison for the rest of their lives and be completely destroyed are going to celebrate July 4th with fireworks and be proclaiming patriotically how brave the Founding Fathers were to throw off the British crown, all the while completely missing the irony.

 

[hadit]

Brits were still not going to treat them as equals

Do you want the government to treat J6 protestors as equal to you, afford them the same rights and freedoms as you, treat the riot as just that, a riot? Or are you going to continue to insist that they be completely destroyed because they "tried to overthrow the gubmint"?

 

[rightwinger]

Do you want the government to treat J6 protestors as equal to you, afford them the same rights and freedoms as you, treat the riot as just that, a riot? Or are you going to continue to insist that they be completely destroyed because they "tried to overthrow the gubmint"?

YES

The next time I attack the Capitol, I expect to be prosecuted to the fullest

 

[bigrebnc1775]

YES

The next time I attack the Capitol, I expect to be prosecuted to the fullest

Did you riot at anytime during the summer of love?

 

[hadit]

YES

The next time I attack the Capitol, I expect to be prosecuted to the fullest

And I'm sure all you'll be doing at the Capitol is walking around, waving a small flag, for which we expect at least 5 years.

 

[rightwinger]

And I'm sure all you'll be doing at the Capitol is walking around, waving a small flag, for which we expect at least 5 years.

As much as you try to rewrite history, Trump was trying to seize control of the government. That is an insurrection

Biden was going to be inaugurated in Two Weeks
Jan 6 was the day Congress and the VP certified the election results.

Trump ordered his Mob to “Stop the Steal” and prevent Congress from allowing Biden to be certified. He didn’t tell them how…just that THEY had to do it

Trumps intent was to allow Jan 20 to pass without Biden being inaugurated and that HE would continue as President until such time as he was satisfied that Biden had won.

An insurrection

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As much as you try to rewrite history, Trump was trying to seize control of the government. That is an insurrection

Biden was going to be inaugurated in Two Weeks
Jan 6 was the day Congress and the VP certified the election results.

Trump ordered his Mob to “Stop the Steal” and prevent Congress from allowing Biden to be certified. He didn’t tell them how…just that THEY had to do it

Trumps intent was to allow Jan 20 to pass without Biden being inaugurated and that HE would continue as President until such time as he was satisfied that Biden had won.

An insurrection

absolutely no evidence to support that bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As much as you try to rewrite history, Trump was trying to seize control of the government. That is an insurrection

Biden was going to be inaugurated in Two Weeks
Jan 6 was the day Congress and the VP certified the election results.

Trump ordered his Mob to “Stop the Steal” and prevent Congress from allowing Biden to be certified. He didn’t tell them how…just that THEY had to do it

Trumps intent was to allow Jan 20 to pass without Biden being inaugurated and that HE would continue as President until such time as he was satisfied that Biden had won.

An insurrection

Your propaganda bullshit ain't doing what you want it to do.

 

[rightwinger]

absolutely no evidence to support that bullshit.

OK…..Maybe you can provide a better explanation of what Trump was trying to accomplish on Jan 6

What did he want Congress and the VP to do?
What did he want to happen on Jan 20?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK…..Maybe you can provide a better explanation of what Trump was trying to accomplish on Jan 6

What did he want Congress and the VP to do?
What did he want to happen on Jan 20?

he wanted to challenge the states he thought cheated which is absolutely legal and constitutional to do. He had nothing to do with the riot

 

[rightwinger]

he wanted to challenge the states he thought cheated which is absolutely legal and constitutional to do. He had nothing to do with the riot

And Trump already did that through the Constitutional means of witnessing the counting, demanding recounts and court challenges. As per the Constitution, the States ratified their Electoral Votes
When legal means failed….He turned to insurrection

 

[marvin martian]

A Declaration of Independence says otherwise

No it doesn't. In fact, it lays out the grounds for the founders' insurrection.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And Trump already did that through the Constitutional means of witnessing the counting, demanding recounts and court challenges. As per the Constitution, the States ratified their Electoral Votes
When legal means failed….He turned to insurrection

wrong