Reply With Quote
It's his shtick but I'm not sure his stupidity is intentional.
You’re just being intentionally stupid to derail the conversation
It's his shtick but I'm not sure his stupidity is intentional.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Arms" is pretty vague, tbh, unless specifically pointing to the human body. I mean, outside of fresh air, almost anything can be used as a weapon under the right cir stances.
Would be cool to see somebody challenge car insurance/registration/ les under a 2nd Amendment claim, just as sort of reverse test of the 2nd Amendment.
Recap of my position:
I think ARs should be banned to the general public. What is the need for them to be in the common persons hand? A handgun is all that is needed for personal protection.
the conservatives LOVE to be originalists, but, like bag Scalia, are only originalists when it suits their politics.
18th "arms" were muzzle loading muskets and hand guns.
"militias" were included satisfy the hole slave states, where "militias" were slave-hunting, slave-oppressing posses.
SCOTUS "activist" 5 divorced "arms" from "militias" in er, SCOTUS s actively refusing to be originaliss to enrich BigGun.
Any exemptions for the part of US you live in? I'd think you need more than a handgun in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, West Texas, etc. I'm not just talking about self defense from humans...packs of coyotes, wolves, bears, moose, mountain lions...
They have hunting rifles and shotguns for that. An AR that shoots rounds that can penetrate just about anything at 2000-3000 ft per second makes no sense. People are just searching for reasons to keep these ARs out there for anyone to buy.
sensible regulations wouldn't deny anyone from owning a gun, but they would make it more expensive, and very probably much less expensive that an annual cellphone cost (and replacement).
OK. One last question...do you think it is possible that the US is ever invaded by another country?
OK I lied about the last question...so hunting rifles like this are OK?
The Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment isn't about personal protection. It's not the "right to personal protection" but the "right to keep and bear arms". But I agree with you, the common man has no need for even a handgun. We also have no need for other things we have a right to. "Need" is a faulty argument.
Muh nukes
Well, I presented my case. If we leave things as they are, you will see many, many more AR mow downs.
That's stupid.
The AR shoots 5.56mm rounds, same as a .223 that is almost too small to hunt hill country deer with in Texas. a .308 aka 7.62 Nato will do far more damage but you're not going to walk around with a semi-auto .308 shoulder firing at running civilians.
Again, the lethality of the round is a poor argument. It's the same caliber used for youth weapons in hunting and is notorious for poking holes beyond the fragmentation envelope. The issue with the AR-15 is the attractiveness to non-hunting type shooters, largely due to its use in video games and movies. The gun is too heavy and ugly for any real civilian use and is easily trumped in the field by a Sako or even a Remington or Winchester rifle. So if there is going to be a ban, it would have to be for some aspect, not just the platform itself because you cannot technically differentiate between an assault style rifle and a semi-auto hunting rifle.
The gun ignorant folks among you that suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect are what keeps you from pushing forward any meaningful legislation.
Yes Cucky boy, the Moore/Coulter extreme is the right approach. Stick with that.
Black guns scary...Brown guns OK.
Same caliber, both semi-auto, both available with 30 round clips.
No, the dmc extreme of "ban all guns or ban no guns" is the genius approach.
The difference between your extreme and mine is that you're really serious.
Really.
I'm fine with banning both of thoseBlack guns scary...Brown guns OK.
Same caliber, both semi-auto, both available with 30 round clips.
touche'
You mufawkus take each point so literal. Just ban any high capacity AR or Rifle, I dont give two s if you hunt or not. You dont need a high capacity semi-auto to hunt. If you do, you cant shoot worth and shouldnt be hunting anyhow. Just go to HEB.
You see, when you've been here a while you'll notice that sometimes the conversation within a thread shifts. I tend to go with the flow. If you feel every response within a thread needs to branch directly from the OP, that's your business. I was not responding to the OP.
Haha...you pansies are so scared of big bad guns, most of which just sit in gun lockers all of their life. Banning high capacity AR or Rifles will not make anyone's chance of being killed by another person in the US any lower statistically. You just need to feel safe.
Last edited by KenMcCoy; 03-15-2018 at 10:56 AM.
Please give me a good reason that an ordinary citizen NEEDS an AR or high capacity rifle. I have not heard one yet. Its like trying to prove an ordinary citizen needs a tank. Just because they want one isnt good enough.
I never said ban all rifles or handguns, just ARs and high cap rifles.
yes because the proposed law would say "ban all black AR-15 looking thingies"Black guns scary...Brown guns OK.
Same caliber, both semi-auto, both available with 30 round clips.
i remember when regulations aimed at increasing auto fuel efficiency said "ban all hummer looking thingies"
- Defense from coyotes/wolves and other pack animals where 10 rounds from a handgun is not sufficient.
- Defense from potential US invasion from another country (dem Russians)
- Defense from potential authoritarian/fascist US government which is controlling the US military
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions