A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[hadit]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here

Yes the Constitution was made to be amended, but the right to bear arms hasn't been... well ever. The Second Amendment isn't there to say that civilians that serve in the military can have guns. It's meant as a protection so that civilians can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. ie. Like the British Empire.

When the government takes away guns, and then it creates the opportunity to take away more and more rights.

Your little AR15 isn't going to stop the U.S army, which has tactical nuclear missiles, M1 Abrams Tanks, and a fleet of drones.

And yes, I've served in the Army, so I know this very well

You're making the unfounded assumption that the military wouldn't side with the citizens.

I agree with that. I believe a significant portion would, and how many weapons depots would have to fall into the hands of the rebels to make the battle much more costly?

 

[hadit]

It isn't so much self defense and other reasons that bothers me so much, it's the love affair some seem to have with guns. A gun is a tool made to kill people.

You're always going to have those, no matter what tool you're talking about. And no, a firearm is made for a lot of purposes, from self defense against predators to hunting to target shooting. At its most basic, it's just a tool designed to throw a projectile at a high rate of speed.

 

[hadit]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here

Yes the Constitution was made to be amended, but the right to bear arms hasn't been... well ever. The Second Amendment isn't there to say that civilians that serve in the military can have guns. It's meant as a protection so that civilians can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. ie. Like the British Empire.

When the government takes away guns, and then it creates the opportunity to take away more and more rights.

Your little AR15 isn't going to stop the U.S army, which has tactical nuclear missiles, M1 Abrams Tanks, and a fleet of drones.

And yes, I've served in the Army, so I know this very well

Tell that to the Taliban or ISIS


They played the Russians and U.S. pretty tuff .


.

An armed populace makes it very difficult for an occupying force to control.

 

[Batcat]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

First thank you for your service.

People own firearms for different reasons. The AR-15 has been called the “Swiss Army knife of rifles” for good reason. It is a very versatile weapon that can be adapted by the owner for a variety of tasks. Adapting other rifles is impossible, impractical or requires the services of a gun smith and often the expenditure of a large quantity of money.

You argue. “The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor?” Ammo from a number of deer rifles will penetrate body armor depending on the rating of the armor. The armor most police wear is designed to stop handgun rounds.

10 Reasons Behind the AR 15’s Popularity

Are you curious about what makes the AR 15 so popular? American gunmakers produce and import between 1-2 million rifles every year. Among the various types of rifles that get circulated in the country, the most prevalent...

www.news9.com

The Top 10 Reasons You Should Own An AR-15 Rifle

Second to the muskets used in our revolutionary and civil wars, the AR-15 may be the most important firearm in American political history.

thefederalist.com

As for your opinions on concealed carry:

Civilians are Safer than Police

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Detroit police chief: Want crime to drop? Start carrying

hotair.com

 

[Rigby5]

It isn't so much self defense and other reasons that bothers me so much, it's the love affair some seem to have with guns. A gun is a tool made to kill people.

But the point is that the capability of being able to kill people is the only thing that prevents mass murder or worse.
If you do not have the tools to kill, then you will either be killed or enslaved.
History has proven there is no third option.
Either you have weapons and freedom, or don't have the weapons and are killed or enslaved.

 

[hjmick]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

^^^ got his constitutional law degree mail order. According to the natural rights tradition, which deeply influenced the American founders, individuals had an inalienable right to defend themselves against violence. It was to protect this right, among others, that society and government were formed. Within society, citizens had a right to defend themselves not only against private violence, but also against tyranny and oppression by the government itself. But this right could not be effectively exercised without arms. According to this view, the Second Amendment was intended, at least in part, to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense.

Fine. I have a shotgun, several rifles, and handguns. None are weapons of war. So if you think they are not adequate for self defense, just try kicking down my door.

How do you figure? Any firearm can be used as a "weapon of war." Yes, any. Especially the shotgun. It is used in the military to this day. The USCG, Marines, Army, and USAF all use a variety of 12ga models. I'm not sure if the Navy (SEALS) is still using shotguns or not...

In 1918, Germany protested the use of shotguns by the U.S. military: The 1918 Shotgun Protest


So how about you go peddle your bullshit somewhere else... mmmkay?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

I am an Air Force vet AFSC 81150 AND YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT
The Constitution does one thing makes sure the government protects the rights of citizens and the right to keep and bear arms is also a protected right

 

[Likkmee]

ChairmanGonzalo I KNEW Che was still alive.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

^^^ got his constitutional law degree mail order. According to the natural rights tradition, which deeply influenced the American founders, individuals had an inalienable right to defend themselves against violence. It was to protect this right, among others, that society and government were formed. Within society, citizens had a right to defend themselves not only against private violence, but also against tyranny and oppression by the government itself. But this right could not be effectively exercised without arms. According to this view, the Second Amendment was intended, at least in part, to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense.

Fine. I have a shotgun, several rifles, and handguns. None are weapons of war. So if you think they are not adequate for self defense, just try kicking down my door.

How do you figure? Any firearm can be used as a "weapon of war." Yes, any. Especially the shotgun. It is used in the military to this day. The USCG, Marines, Army, and USAF all use a variety of 12ga models. I'm not sure if the Navy (SEALS) is still using shotguns or not...

In 1918, Germany protested the use of shotguns by the U.S. military: The 1918 Shotgun Protest


So how about you go peddle your bullshit somewhere else... mmmkay?

I have sat back and listened. Now it's my turn.

The Shotgun has roots not just to war. It also has roots in civilian use for game and home defense. In fact, it's at least (or older) than the single shot musket. And when you ran out of shot, you just grabbed whatever was around and crammed that into the barrel and fired that and called it grape shot. Yes, the shotgun was a formidable weapon for short range. And it could pump (get it?) out about 10 rounds as fast as you could pump the thing. I grew up on a Remington Model 850 which would have been called a trench gun and it originally held 8 rounds but later had to have a plug installed to reduce it to 5 rounds. Although that same weapon was used in a limited use in the Military, it's purpose was to put meat on the table. The Shotgun really hasn't evolved that much from the old Remington Model 1885 to today's model 850 outside of the metallurgy, magnum ammo and dependability. It was never designed for war but it could do the job in a limited manner when called on. And if you think that the Remington Model 850 is inferior to the more expensive Model 1100 or the Semi Auto Versions you would be wrong. In the hands of a seasoned 850 shooter, the 850 could go tooth and nail with any of them. I prefer an 850 over the more expensive ones and am more accurate and faster with it because that's what my body is trained to use. I am not as good with the more expensive ones because I automatically jump the barrel while riding out the recoil. It's a way that you eject the spent shell out of a pump and load in a new round without being aware you are doing it.

Now, the AR is a special case. Stoner of Armalite Arms, in the 1950s, designed the absolute perfect battle rifle, the AR-10. It went into production in 1957 and was exported to various nations in the 7.62 Nato Round. In 1959, Armalite scaled it down into an AR-15 Model 601 using the .556 Nato Round. The Air Force adopted to purchase the AR-15 in 1962. In the end, they purchased over 14,000 of them. The reasons for purchase over the M-14 were.

1. Weight.
2. Number of rounds by weight
3. Ease of operation
4. Dependability

An 18 year old kid with little training, scared out of his wits, could fire, reload, fire, reload many times in a fire fight faster than any other light battle rifle ever made. The VC, early on, learned to avoid the little black rifles unless they had an extreme numerical advantage.

Now before you go off on how undependable the original M-16 was, the original AR-15 Model 601 was built right. The Army ordered the Model 602 and left out the cleaning kits and some of the chromium coating. The AF used factory Ammo meanwhile, the Army reloaded their own using surplus powder that was dirty.

If you believe the 601 was a different rifle than the 602 you would be wrong. About the only differences were the chamber release and the shape of the charging t-handled (the 601 had a triangle charging handle). Plus the 601, when it was upgraded to the 603, it got the same rails as the M-16 and a stamp added to it calling it an AR-15 Model 601 (M-16). The 601 was in service until about 1992.

In 1962, a semi auto version of the AR-15 was offered by Colt; the AR-15 Model 750. For a few years, Colt couldn't give them away. The AR Cult hadn't been created yet. We'll come back to this rifle in a second.

Full auto was gotten rid of in the Model 603 and 604 because troops were running out of ammo. And the 11th Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Run out of Ammo Lest you end up DEAD". IN the 603 and 4, they went to a 3 shot burst. But it's been found that only the first round is on target. Remember the 11th Commandment. In shootoffs between the Model 604 and a real decent AR-15 Aftermarket, it's been found that the AR-15 does better overall using the same ammo.

The AR was designed for war. Not one ounce for sport. I can fish with TNT but the Warden really frowns on that even when I break it down to small sections that only kills one fish at a time.

Now, to the legal part. You can't put the term "Assault Rifle" in the gun laws. It's already been found that that goes against the Gist of Heller V DC since that would also affect pure hunting rifles as well. Your law can't be generic like that. It has to be specific. While "Assault Rifle" has been thrown out of court the phrase "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has withstood the federal court rulings. What I find stupid is that Oregon and California are still trying to use the "Assault Rifle" term in their laws and then wondering why their laws end up being bounced. Here's yer Stupid.

 

[Richard-H]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

An AR-15 was NOT designed for the battlefield, you mental midget.

The AR-15 is a copy of the M-16 in all ways except that it is not fully automatic.

You know that. You're just a lying bag of shit.

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Define assault weapon. If you cannot do that, please STFU about this topic.

Here ya go:

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NightFox]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

The right to SELF DEFENSE is inalienable and thus it only follows that so is the right to obtain the means for self defense.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The term assault weapon is used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud

So obviously there is no single universal definition for the term. Did you bother to read your link?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

An AR-15 was NOT designed for the battlefield, you mental midget.

The AR-15 is a copy of the M-16 in all ways except that it is not fully automatic.

You know that. You're just a lying bag of shit.

are you trying to make a point?
Weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment
That is if you were trying to make that as your point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Define assault weapon. If you cannot do that, please STFU about this topic.

Here ya go:

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

wikipedia is not a very good source if you trying to say that assault weapons are protected by the second amendment.