Skip to main content

Democratic Gun Control - Remove the capability to purchase assault type weapons and multi capacity weapons from law abiding Americans restricting the 2nd Amendment to hunting guns and single shot weapons, if that.

Republican Gun Control - AIM Well and HIT what you are Aiming at!

Now with that said I will offer up an opinion regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment was important enough that the founders made it second only to free speech and freedom of religion.  The founders were intent on giving citizens and citizen militias weapons capable of allowing citizens to take over their Government from one that had been taken over and run contrary to what the Constitution stated.  That means military type weapons or the same weapons as the Government itself would possess or have at it's means.  So I believe that means military type weapons available to all legal, law abiding citizens covered by the 2nd amendment. 

That said there are many things that the founders didn't foresee or couldn't have known such as weapons that were of the nature the one man could alone hold off many others or kill so many alone.  Still if you go with the intent of allowing citizens and citizen militias of taking back a Government stolen and run amuck then you have to conclude that whatever the Government can possess then the Citizens should have the ability to possess and obtain.  Background checks and some sanity in defining just who can obtain a weapon under the 2nd Amendment freedoms is rational and within the scope of what the founders would want but removing the ability to purchase certain type weapons and purchase ammunition I believe is not warranted. 

Many liberals want to remove American's 2nd Amendment rights either through the courts, judicially, or legislatively or by executive order.  Such a move, in my own opinion, would warrant just the insurrection and bring about just the citizen action that the 2nd Amendment was conceived for.  Mind you that' my own opinion.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

As to scenarios of government seizing firearms, there are several that apply.  The recent show Turn about George Washington's spy ring.  The location of Washington's encampment betrayed, the didn't just relocate, they attacked the Tory militia's fort, when the Tories were marching on the former camp, seizing cannon and field pieces. 

First, would the military obey an unconstitutional order -- some have indicated their duty would be to protect the citizens,  Consider the size if the military.  The army is down to about 470,000 with many overseas vs a population of 330 million.  I doubt the government would do anything as unconstitutional and unenforceable.

jtdavis posted:

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

The savages in the sand box sadly seem too.  I would argue much of it is because of our inept leadership in the White House.  This is America and thankfully I can and do own many of the rifles and mags you see no use for me to have.  I do not have any true "assault" rifles as my ARs are semi auto only.  Also, you have to live it,  just like I have to live with scum bags burning the American flag both are protected by the Constitution.  

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.---Jt

RIAN archive 58833 Withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.jpg

A bunch of ragtag tribesmen sure ran off the forces of the evil empire. At first they used bolt action rifles made in small Kyber Pass gun shops, but the Mujahideen picked up the weapons dropped by their enemy and the gun shops learned how to stamp steel for AK receivers.

Khyber Pass rifles - Pictures - Page 7

Last edited by Stanky
jtdavis posted:

A science fiction writer could not write a believable story based on the average Joe six pack could defeat the US military.                                                                            The average person does not need an assault rifle or 30 round magazines of any caliber.                                                                                                                                   The government can not take your guns without a constitutional amendment either. That ain't gonna happen.

Didn't realize they changed the name to "Bill of Needs". 

An "assault rifle" has select fire capability.  I do not know one single person who posesses an "assault rifle" and neither do you.

jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

That statement is concrete proof that you don't understand anything whatsoever about guns.  The 223 Rem/5.56 NATO is an intermediate power cartridge.  In many states, it's not powerful enough to hunt deer legally.  It produces a little over 1000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.  In comparison, most deer hunting calibers produce well over 2500 ft-lbs muzzle energy. 

It would serve you well to actually do a little research on the subject before posting something unfactual and ridiculous.

Stanky posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

 

The 5.56 NATO is based on a cartridge intended for groundhogs. The .30 Soviet shorty has a little less power than a 30-30. No, they ain't maximum damage cartridges.

Unfortunately, most will believe anything said to them by the news, true or false.

2nd Amendment "freedoms" are what Democrats keep trying to Chip Away. Next thing Democrats want to do, is Taxing Firearm and Ammunition to high level as Tobacco Taxes.. Hopefully, republican senate & House majority will prevent such a taxation on Firearm related items.

Kinda like Obama Care, If You Like Your Health Insurance, You Can Keep It.....Only you want be able to afford your old plan due to obamacare needing more of your money to support his dumbA** idea of healthcare....

jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

direstraits posted:
HIFLYER2 posted:
jtdavis posted:

If the gun uses a maximum damage bullet, it's an assault rifle. Even if it isn't fully automatic. 

This is the most stupid response ever and typical liberal thinking.   Maximum damage i.e. hollow point bullets are actually better for close quarters as they penetrate then expand vrs. copper jackets which pass through and might injure others.  Also, hollow points i.e. maximum damage bullets are almost always used in hunting rifles. 

Hollow points and soft point bullets don't cycle well thru semi and full auto rifles.

There are several American companies who manufacture semi-auto hunting rifles.  Hollow and soft point bullets are the only ones legal for hunting.  And they sell lots of them.  Favorite semi among hunt club members is the BAR .270.   Favorite [target] load for my M1A is a Sierra .308 168 grain HPBT.

Good firearm coupled with a good ammo = good results & no complaints.

Jes sayin'.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×