It's ILLEGAL to shoot GAME in several states with an ASSAULT weapon.

[rjhenn]

If I'm not mistaken the Dayton shooter didn't use a semiautomatic .22LR nor a pellet gun. If you are so stupid you can't the difference you have no business owning a gun. In your case your fear keeps you away from all guns.

The whole point of the 2nd was to see that all citizens were familiar with firearms. We've managed to screw that up, as the blatant ignorance displayed by virtually all of the control freaks demonstrates.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

are you a member of a well regulated State militia?

There's nothing in the 2nd that makes that a requirement.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I don't have to KNOW asshole, the GUN MANUFACTURERS and LAWMAKERS have to know. This isn't a discussion on what the fuck a gun LOOKS LIKE.
It's about how many B U L L E T S (meant to kill people) come out of a GUN and how fast? This isn't hard.

Does this deflection shit work with your ilk? It does NOT work here!!

Ok dickhead then why do you only talk about "assault rifles" when the civilian versions have exactly the same rate of fire and clip availability as the hunting rifle you buy at Walmart? Sorry fuck face wrong again. It's the appearance that scares the shit out of you.

 

[Earl]

The word “need” does not appear in the Second Amendment.

Just the word “right.”

Clip capacity, rate of fire and color are not mentioned.

 

[Cypress]

Again, the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hunt, it isn't about hunting at all. I would agree however that anybody hunting duck or quail with an AK-47 is an idiot, it is certainly not a reason to curtail a natural right of a citizen. And while state governments certainly have a right to regulate the type and number of rounds you can use to hunt with, that doesn't change that I have a personal right to own and bear arms that has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

Yes, I have heard the other "reason" is that some paranoid individuals claim they need arms in case thye have to violently overthrow a tyrannical government by military force.

Which is why I can't figure out why conservatives have suddenly and belatedly become so reticent to call these weapons assault rifles, or acknowledge their design and legacy for military grade application and ballistics.

If you are going to take on the armed forces of a tyrannical government, would you not need weapons approaching military grade design, aka assault rifles?


Here is my two cents: Your right to own high-powered and dangerous "arms" ends when it becomes an unsustainable and unnecessary threat to public health and safety. I do not believe you need to have flame throwers, grenades, machine guns, bump stock, or high powered semi auto rifles with 40 round ammunition capacity.
I know literally zero people who have any problem whatsoever with shot guns, revolvers, pistols, vintage military collectibles, and traditional hunting rifles.

 

[domer76]

Your silly question was answered back on page 9, dickhead. Why can't you read?

Sure wasn’t

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, I have heard the other "reason" is that some paranoid individuals claim they need arms in case thye have to violently overthrow a tyrannical government by military force.

Which is why I can't figure out why conservatives have suddenly and belatedly become so reticent to call these weapons assault rifles, or acknowledge their design and legacy for military grade application and ballistics.

If you are going to take on the armed forces of a tyrannical government, would you not need weapons approaching military grade design, aka assault rifles?


Here is my two cents: Your right to own high-powered and dangerous "arms" ends when it becomes an unsustainable and unnecessary threat to public health and safety. I do not believe you need to have flame throwers, grenades, machine guns, bump stock, or high powered semi auto rifles with 40 round ammunition capacity.
I know literally zero people who have any problem whatsoever with shot guns, revolvers, pistols, vintage military collectibles, and traditional hunting rifles.

 

[Airstrip One]

Yep, as we have previously discussed:

The .223 caliber bullet of the AR-15 used to make the rifle illegal for hunting big game, because it was considered too weak to make for a humane kill.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/another-misfire-at-the-new-york-times/

 

[Centerleftfl]

The whole point of the 2nd was to see that all citizens were familiar with firearms. We've managed to screw that up, as the blatant ignorance displayed by virtually all of the control freaks demonstrates.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

What RJHENN said including his/her signatures.

 

[Centerleftfl]

You know, I'm sitting here typing on my device and I was typing on my desktop earlier. If I spend10 hours of awake time a day on my devices, I will still NOT come anywhere near the slavish devotion that many in this society and ON THIS board show toward their GUNS.

I just don't get it!!

 

[rjhenn]

You know, I'm sitting here typing on my device and I was typing on my desktop earlier. If I spend10 hours of awake time a day on my devices, I will still NOT come anywhere near the slavish devotion that many in this society and ON THIS board show toward their GUNS.

I just don't get it!!

It's not "slavish devotion". It's attention to reality, something that the control freaks consistently ignore.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Yes, I have heard the other "reason" is that some paranoid individuals claim they need arms in case thye have to violently overthrow a tyrannical government by military force.

Which is why I can't figure out why conservatives have suddenly and belatedly become so reticent to call these weapons assault rifles, or acknowledge their design and legacy for military grade application and ballistics.

If you are going to take on the armed forces of a tyrannical government, would you not need weapons approaching military grade design, aka assault rifles?


Here is my two cents: Your right to own high-powered and dangerous "arms" ends when it becomes an unsustainable and unnecessary threat to public health and safety. I do not believe you need to have flame throwers, grenades, machine guns, bump stock, or high powered semi auto rifles with 40 round ammunition capacity.
I know literally zero people who have any problem whatsoever with shot guns, revolvers, pistols, vintage military collectibles, and traditional hunting rifles.

Yet many on the control freak side have stated that their ultimate goal is the removal of all guns. And a real assault rifle is a military weapon with selective fire, meaning that, with the flip of a lever, it can be switched from semiautomatic to automatic fire. It's not guns that are "an unsustainable and unnecessary threat to public health and safety." It's gangs and whatever it is that motivates mass killers. Those are where we need to devote our attention. Focusing on guns will only make things worse.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Damocles]

Yes, I have heard the other "reason" is that some paranoid individuals claim they need arms in case thye have to violently overthrow a tyrannical government by military force.

Which is why I can't figure out why conservatives have suddenly and belatedly become so reticent to call these weapons assault rifles, or acknowledge their design and legacy for military grade application and ballistics.

If you are going to take on the armed forces of a tyrannical government, would you not need weapons approaching military grade design, aka assault rifles?


Here is my two cents: Your right to own high-powered and dangerous "arms" ends when it becomes an unsustainable and unnecessary threat to public health and safety. I do not believe you need to have flame throwers, grenades, machine guns, bump stock, or high powered semi auto rifles with 40 round ammunition capacity.
I know literally zero people who have any problem whatsoever with shot guns, revolvers, pistols, vintage military collectibles, and traditional hunting rifles.

It's not about "need" either. It is my right. That you may choose to eschew the right doesn't mean that I need a reason that you think is "valid" to practice the right.

 

[Centerleftfl]

to own and bear arms in a well regulated militia

nice cherry picking pilgrim

Amazing how they always leave that out. A gun, a pickup and an ATTITUDE does not a militia make...

I GUESS these 'militias' are "well regulated". Wonder what the FBI thinks?

High tech rednecks? Alabama Rambo?

READING MATERIAL....

 

[Centerleftfl]

A truly clear statistical GRAPH, don't you think?


SOURCE, Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[Sailor]

A truly clear statistical GRAPH, don't you think?


SOURCE, Southern Poverty Law Center

SPLC. What a fucking joke!

 

[Centerleftfl]

SPLC. What a fucking joke!

Yepper, they probably JUST MADE 'EM UP. Out of whole cloth. Didn't consult the FBI or Homeland Security or state law enforcement or on-line tracking or or or. Just made it all up! You believe that right posters?

And this guy was LYING about the same, what 2 weeks ago, tops? SPLC probably put him up to it. It's all a part of the DEEP state and a conspiracy against WHITE MEN. Sure that's it.

 

[rjhenn]

Amazing how they always leave that out. A gun, a pickup and an ATTITUDE does not a militia make...

I GUESS these 'militias' are "well regulated". Wonder what the FBI thinks?

High tech rednecks? Alabama Rambo?

READING MATERIAL....

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that restricts the right to service in a militia.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Centerleftfl]

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that restricts the right to service in a militia.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Even the 'guard' and GET PAID FOR IT!

 

[Sailor]

Yepper, they probably JUST MADE 'EM UP. Out of whole cloth. Didn't consult the FBI or Homeland Security or state law enforcement or on-line tracking or or or. Just made it all up! You believe that right posters?

And this guy was LYING about the same, what 2 weeks ago, tops? SPLC probably put him up to it. It's all a part of the DEEP state and a conspiracy against WHITE MEN. Sure that's it.

I am sure they did. You might want to look into the SPLC and their monies in overseas bank accounts as well as actual monies spent on their "cause" vs. what they bring in. They went from an organization with a meaning to a complete sham. I realize it maybe hard for you, but try and get your head out of your ass. You will not only see things clearer you will breathe better.