Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well then, AR15's don't apply.

 

The FIRST sentence: "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle," and well, that right there ends it. AR15's are NOT select fire.

Beat me to it.

 

 

An "assault rifle" is a small arm which fires an intermediate cartridge with a select fire operating system consisting of fully automatic and semi automatic cycles.

 

With you definition mike the only literal "assault" rifle is the sturmgewehr.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

The senate defined assault rifles legally in the 80's? Early 90's maybe. Military also defined assault rifles. Military definition included full auto capability, senate did not. Senates definition is what stands legally. Easy to look up. Posting a picture of a Ruger mini14 is a piss poor example of your point. That gun was designed after an M16. Just because it also comes in a wooden stock so you can post a picture of an innocent looking gun does not make your point true. I hunt with a 30/30. No magazine needed. And for protection a fucking revolver is as effective as anything else. but handguns are generally all acceptable. The reasons for owning all those toys remind me of shitheads excuses for their medical marijuana licenses. Be honest. It's fun. Tickles your machismo. Not hunting/protection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Honestly, I’m not grabbing an auto loader if it ever comes down to it. A nice pump shotgun works for me, or revolver, as you stated.

 

And I couldn’t give a shit what the Senate defines or not. Legislators make dumb ass laws up all the time. There’s a senator in MA trying to abolish daylight savings time right now. They could define my turd as a lincoln log for all I care.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

If you were going on a killing rampage, would you take an AR15 or a garand? Come on man these a very clear difference.

 

The 2nd amendment does not define what constitutes "A well armed militia". In 1789 there was no national guard, many townships had no official police force and guns were ball and powder. The writers of this amendment were putting the responsibility of protection in the hands of the states and the individual. They had no idea were gun technology would go. 

You realize that logic doesn't apply to the gun crowd.They're understanding of the 2nd is "it's my right to bear arms" that's it.I said basically the same thing 40 pages ago.You would think at some point in time the pro gun crowd (those that think anything goes) would maybe just compromise or change the attitude a little bit.The gun crowd is a very small percentage of our society yet have more power than the government when it comes to gun laws.I know many don't agree with that but the reality is you can still get pretty much anything you want and use it.None of the gun nuts i know have had any weapons taken from them.Nobody's come to question what they have.

Link to comment

If you were going on a killing rampage, would you take an AR15 or a garand? Come on man these a very clear difference.

 

The 2nd amendment does not define what constitutes "A well armed militia". In 1789 there was no national guard, many townships had no official police force and guns were ball and powder. The writers of this amendment were putting the responsibility of protection in the hands of the states and the individual. They had no idea were gun technology would go. 

 

That's a Mini 14 in the example offered. Not a Garand, but based off the same style platform in a smaller caliber and magazine fed. 

Link to comment

I looked it up for you. No great credible sources, but the percentage of households hovers around 30%, so a third of the population. Pretty small, huh.

Gun nuts vs gun owners I think is the thought. Plenty own guns who are fine with legislation limiting arms.

 

And there has been compromise in the past. Lines get drawn and that's appropriate. Gun nuts have solid foundation in their belief that guns are part of a healthy community.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Right, a clip and magazine are two completely different things. If someone tells me they have a 30 round clip, I immediately know they don't have a clue about firearms. 

 

Jerry Miculek, god love 'im.

 

 

Taping a 30-06 caliber M1 Garand clip to an 5.56mm AR15 clone shows what an ass hole this "demonstration" really is !

  • Like 1
Link to comment

This says nothing about how many of what types of weapons I can own. Period. 

 

Enough concessions have been made over the years regarding gun ownership. And I am tired of giving up more and more every year, thanks to narrow minded shithead liberal cry babies. 

 

Enforce the laws we already have, by actually using all the taxes and fees we are charged for being gun owners instead of building bullet trains and defending criminal illegal aliens with my taxes. 

 

gnnAztP.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Most gun owners, myself included, believe that guns should be kept out of the hands of people not responsible enough to own/operate them. That includes background checks and the appropriate documentation to weed out unsuitable individuals. I have nothing to hide, so I’m fine with that.

 

And, aren’t guns a part of a healthy community? They certainly can be. Don’t police have guns? I’m sorry, but we don’t live in a utopia. Sometimes guns protect us from bad guys. Guns put food on the table. That sounds pretty healthy to me.

Link to comment

If you were going on a killing rampage, would you take an AR15 or a garand? Come on man these a very clear difference.

 

The 2nd amendment does not define what constitutes "A well armed militia". In 1789 there was no national guard, many townships had no official police force and guns were ball and powder. The writers of this amendment were putting the responsibility of protection in the hands of the states and the individual. They had no idea were gun technology would go. 

 

The 2nd amendment says "a well regulated militia" not well armed. To my mind "well regulated" means what recruits used to spend a full day on the firing range with their firearms.  Regulating your firearm means learning to adjust the sights, stock fit and your mental attitude so that you can shoot straight!  [Not the today point and spray attitude.]

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Posting a picture of a Ruger mini14 is a piss poor example of your point. That gun was designed after an M16. Just because it also comes in a wooden stock so you can post a picture of an innocent looking gun does not make your point true.

Wrong. It was designed after the M14, which was also a select-fire rifle that could be full auto. Completely different than the Armalite M16. And it was a good example, because, yet again, the Mini-14 is not select fire...and entirely different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Honestly, I'm exhausted by the gun rights argument. Especially when engaging with people who have very little experience and (sorry Mike) foreigners. Most people would not necessarily assume I'm a gun owner at first meeting. Maybe, maybe not. Apparently, from my observations in 'Cuz, I'm a gun nut. So rather than argue guns, please allow me to give some broader perspective.

How would it feel to be constantly told by bicyclists that we shouldn't be allowed to drive? "But we love our Datsuns and we aren't hurting anyone." Bicyclists say you can keep your Datsun but no one needs 6 cylinders...or dual carbs...or 5 speeds...or wide tires. Only the police and military can be trusted with those types of cars. Bicyclists make a bunch of noise and pass restrictive laws banning those features that really don't make the cars any more or less harmful. No more Zs or typically upgraded 510s because they look too fast and scary. Then some asshole who's lost his license for hit and run illegally drives a 620 into a park bench and kills someone. Instead of blaming the driver, the bicyclists make more noise. Now high capacity fuel tanks and large caliber displacements (you know, >1.5 liters) are banned. Oops! A criminal stole a 520 and runs over his wife who was fucking his boss. Bicyclists are certain that requiring all Datsun owners to have a background check and waiting period at the gas station will prevent this from ever happening again. Uh oh! A crazy homeless person breaks into a garage and steals a B210 and the voices tell him to drive into a bus stop. Obviously, the only solution is that Datsun owners relinquish their cars to the bicyclists. No more Datsuns is clearly the cure for crime, domestic abuse and mental illness. Because common sense dictates that bicyclists know what's best for drivers.

Yes I realize it's not a perfect comparison -- Because the constitution gives me specific rights to firearms but not to Datsuns.

  • Like 5
Link to comment

 

 

And, aren’t guns a part of a healthy community? They certainly can be. Don’t police have guns? I’m sorry, but we don’t live in a utopia. Sometimes guns protect us from bad guys. Guns put food on the table. That sounds pretty healthy to me.

 

If the community you live in needs guns to be healthy there is something seriously wrong.

 

 

The 2nd amendment says "a well regulated militia" not well armed. To my mind "well regulated" means what recruits used to spend a full day on the firing range with their firearms.  Regulating your firearm means learning to adjust the sights, stock fit and your mental attitude so that you can shoot straight!  [Not the today point and spray attitude.]

 

Regulated means under control or supervised.

Militia means a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. It can also be a rebel force in opposition to the regular army.

 

This is probably why the words 'well regulated' were used. Also the right to bear arms is important as the militia isn't likely to supply the arms and the civilian populace was expected to grab the family rifle and show up armed and ready to go.

 

DRIVEN.... I'm not that far off from what everyone else wants. But as soon as you point out that the present system doesn't work the gun nut side gets all bent, digs their heels in and suddenly I'm denying second amendment rights. Seems to me the right for citizens to carry self protection would have been much farther down the amendment line while the protection of the state would have been much more important and closer to the first.... and I think it is. Arguably, it does say you can bear arms, and that's fine, but gun nuts never mention 'well regulated' yet is says that right there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Honestly, I'm exhausted by the gun rights argument. Especially when engaging with people who have very little experience and (sorry Mike) foreigners. Most people would not necessarily assume I'm a gun owner at first meeting. Maybe, maybe not. Apparently, from my observations in 'Cuz, I'm a gun nut. So rather than argue guns, please allow me to give some broader perspective.

How would it feel to be constantly told by bicyclists that we shouldn't be allowed to drive? "But we love our Datsuns and we aren't hurting anyone." Bicyclists say you can keep your Datsun but no one needs 6 cylinders...or dual carbs...or 5 speeds...or wide tires. Only the police and military can be trusted with those types of cars. Bicyclists make a bunch of noise and pass restrictive laws banning those features that really don't make the cars any more or less harmful. No more Zs or typically upgraded 510s because they look too fast and scary. Then some asshole who's lost his license for hit and run illegally drives a 620 into a park bench and kills someone. Instead of blaming the driver, the bicyclists make more noise. Now high capacity fuel tanks and large caliber displacements (you know, >1.5 liters) are banned. Oops! A criminal stole a 520 and runs over his wife who was fucking his boss. Bicyclists are certain that requiring all Datsun owners to have a background check and waiting period at the gas station will prevent this from ever happening again. Uh oh! A crazy homeless person breaks into a garage and steals a B210 and the voices tell him to drive into a bus stop. Obviously, the only solution is that Datsun owners relinquish their cars to the bicyclists. No more Datsuns is clearly the cure for crime, domestic abuse and mental illness. Because common sense dictates that bicyclists know what's best for drivers.

Yes I realize it's not a perfect comparison -- Because the constitution gives me specific rights to firearms but not to Datsuns.

That's a horrible analogy (in my opinion) Datsun's vs. guns ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.