A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[irosie91]

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

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

oh gee-----now I understand-----RIGBY is a muslim. Muslims are actually taught that
the OT and the NT are just FRAUDULENTLY PERVERTED VERSIONS OF THE REAL THING
WHICH (are you ready? ) IS THE KHARAHAN as dictated in the bat cave by JIBRIL.
Jibril is GABRIEL famous for meeting Jacob on the LADDER-----and changing his name
to ISRAEL after a little arm-wrestling.

No, I am Ashkenazi Jew, from Austria and the Netherlands.

^^^^ bull shit-----well you do know the islamo nazi propaganda
very well-------almost as well as do I. But I do not present that crap
as "FACT"

 

[irosie91]

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

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

If you do not know that the 12 Hebrew tribes went to Arabia after the Roman Diaspora Decree, than you really don't know anything about Jewish history.
That is about the most significant time period in Jewish history.
All I can suggest is that you read up a little:

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews? | Islam Ahmadiyya

www.alislam.org

Here are the tribe names:
{...
Some of the Jewish tribes of Arabia historically attested include:

• Banu Harith or Bnei Chorath[3][4][5]
• Banu Qaynuqa[3][4]
• Banu Shutayba[3][4]
• Jafna Clan of the Banu Tha'laba who were exiled members of the Banu Ghassan - while both tribes were not Jewish, they did have Jewish members; whereas the Jafna Clan was solely Jewish[3][4][6][unreliable source?]
• Banu Zaura[7]
• Banu Zurayq[3][4] In Islamic lore, Labid ben Asam was a Jewish sorcerer who cast a spell on Muhammad that made him ill for several months and prevented him from having sexual relations with his wives[8]
• Banu Quda'a — Himyarite tribe of converts to Judaism[9]
• Banu Qurayza — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Nadir — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Juw — sub-clan of the Banu Qaynuqa, Fled to North Africa.
• Banu Aws
• Banu Awf

...}

As to Sharia, thing like stoning adulterers is not in the Quran.
Clearly the Quran says that only beheading is to be used for executions, because it is quickest and least painful.
Stoning adulterers comes instead from the Judaic Old Testament.

There has never been any denial of weapons or horses to any religion, by Moslems.
In fact, when the Crusaders invaded, Jews fought along side Moslems against the Crusaders.
We know because they were massacred by the Crusaders when captured, and this is well recorded fact.

you are "learning" about islamic history and the history of jews from those wiki
articles WRITTEN BY MUSLIM SOURCES . There are jews who are THAT NAIVE
AND STUPID. Try to keep in mind-----my very own hubby was born in a very classical
shariah shit hole which------actually can be considered PART OF ARABIA. Your statements
about "shariah" and the history of jews of the Roman empire are PSYCHOTIC. Jewish villages
in "palestine" and the sorrounding lands were massacred by crusaders----but not in arabia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Define an assault Rifle,

My favorite topic.

The term "assault rifle" comes from the Sturmgewehr 44, a new class of hybrid battle rifle developed in WWII by Germany to merge building-to-building combat weapons with open-field weapons:

The name "Sturmgewehr" literally means "Storm Rifle" but actually translates as "Assault Rifle." It was a merger of the close quarters combat capabilities of the full-auto, 9mm pistol caliber MP44:

And the open-field capabilities of the large caliber Gewehr 98:

An "Assault Rifle" is a select-fire weapon (capable of both semi-auto and full-auto or burst) with an intermediate sized cartridge.

Civilian AR15s are, by industry definition, NOT assault rifles because they are only capable of semi-auto fire.

 

[Rigby5]

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

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

If you do not know that the 12 Hebrew tribes went to Arabia after the Roman Diaspora Decree, than you really don't know anything about Jewish history.
That is about the most significant time period in Jewish history.
All I can suggest is that you read up a little:

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews? | Islam Ahmadiyya

www.alislam.org

Here are the tribe names:
{...
Some of the Jewish tribes of Arabia historically attested include:

• Banu Harith or Bnei Chorath[3][4][5]
• Banu Qaynuqa[3][4]
• Banu Shutayba[3][4]
• Jafna Clan of the Banu Tha'laba who were exiled members of the Banu Ghassan - while both tribes were not Jewish, they did have Jewish members; whereas the Jafna Clan was solely Jewish[3][4][6][unreliable source?]
• Banu Zaura[7]
• Banu Zurayq[3][4] In Islamic lore, Labid ben Asam was a Jewish sorcerer who cast a spell on Muhammad that made him ill for several months and prevented him from having sexual relations with his wives[8]
• Banu Quda'a — Himyarite tribe of converts to Judaism[9]
• Banu Qurayza — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Nadir — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Juw — sub-clan of the Banu Qaynuqa, Fled to North Africa.
• Banu Aws
• Banu Awf

...}

As to Sharia, thing like stoning adulterers is not in the Quran.
Clearly the Quran says that only beheading is to be used for executions, because it is quickest and least painful.
Stoning adulterers comes instead from the Judaic Old Testament.

There has never been any denial of weapons or horses to any religion, by Moslems.
In fact, when the Crusaders invaded, Jews fought along side Moslems against the Crusaders.
We know because they were massacred by the Crusaders when captured, and this is well recorded fact.

you are "learning" about islamic history and the history of jews from those wiki
articles WRITTEN BY MUSLIM SOURCES . There are jews who are THAT NAIVE
AND STUPID. Try to keep in mind-----my very own hubby was born in a very classical
shariah shit hole which------actually can be considered PART OF ARABIA. Your statements
about "shariah" and the history of jews of the Roman empire are PSYCHOTIC. Jewish villages
in "palestine" and the sorrounding lands were massacred by crusaders----but not in arabia.

I did not say the Jews in Arabia were massacred by Crusaders.
But it is well known the Jews in Palestine and anywhere the Crusaders went, were massacred by Crusaders, so the Jews fought along side the Moslems and against the Crusaders.
So they could not have been forbidden weapons by the Moslems.
And there is nothing in the Quran ever about anyone being forbidden weapons or horses.
And in fact it would be impossible for anyone to survive without weapons or horses, as they would be essential in the Mideast.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

LINK???

 

[Esdraelon]

I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

Thanks for your service. I respect your right to an opinion. Hopefully, you can return that respect. I totally disagree with your take on 2A and I have a simple question I hope you'll answer after some serious consideration.
Since tens of millions of Americans take 2A to be a DEADLY SERIOUS unalienable RIGHT, what level of carnage and bloodshed are you willing to see occur if the government decides to FORCIBLY remove firearms like the AR and AK platforms from the public?
It's my assumption that most who are for such rules either simply don't believe Americans would fight and die for this right OR that so few would do it that there would be an "acceptable" level of killing by our government to bring about this "assault weaponless" utopia. Where are your "lines" drawn on this issue?

 

[Rigby5]

Define an assault Rifle,

My favorite topic.

The term "assault rifle" comes from the Sturmgewehr 44, a new class of hybrid battle rifle developed in WWII by Germany to merge building-to-building combat weapons with open-field weapons:

The name "Sturmgewehr" literally means "Storm Rifle" but actually translates as "Assault Rifle." It was a merger of the close quarters combat capabilities of the full-auto, 9mm pistol caliber MP44:

And the open-field capabilities of the large caliber Gewehr 98:

An "Assault Rifle" is a select-fire weapon (capable of both semi-auto and full-auto or burst) with an intermediate sized cartridge.

Civilian AR15s are, by industry definition, NOT assault rifles because they are only capable of semi-auto fire.

That is all correct.
However, the reality is that what dictates the characteristics of an assault rifle is it use.
An assault weapon is just one for a head on attack that is usually at close range, so then you want something with a maximum about of projectiles, but each one does not need to be high power.
So then there was always a favorite assault weapon in all wars.
In the Revolutionary period, it would be the blunderbuss, (coach-gun), which is capable of wounding or killing dozens of people in a single trigger pull.
In the Civil War, it likely would be the pair of percussion cap revolvers often used by cavalry for an attack.
In WWI it likely would be the pump shotgun, trench weapon.
In WWII for US forces it likely was the M-1 or M-2 carbine.

The AR-15 has no significant characteristic itself that has any military application.
The only unusual thing about it is that it can take the surplus large capacity magazines that were intended for military use.
But magazine switches are not difficult enough to make that significant.
A person likely could kill more people with a pair of pistols than they could with an AR-15, since a pair of Glock 21s would give you 42 shots and allow reloading while always able to fire the other pistol.

 

[Esdraelon]

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

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

These anti-2A types refuse to deal with the MULTIPLE essays in the Federalist Papers that clearly point to the desire for civilians to be armed in defense against the rise of tyrannical government. They don't even attempt to argue from this information. IMO, former military or not, these are people who desire a strong government that can CRUSH the liberty of its citizenry, and they, like many from our Founding, want a government that can take everything from them IF that government will bring them comfort and security. IMO, if they aren't misguided and ignorant of our history then they are weak-minded fools. The Founders called them out for being weak, and even cowardly.

 

[Staidhup]

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

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Your position is very apparent, however, if it wasn’t for the Constitution, as it was written,
I doubt seriously your exercise of the freedom to speak your mind would not exist and we would be nothing more than a British colony, or possibly a German or Japanese province.

 

[irosie91]

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

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

If you do not know that the 12 Hebrew tribes went to Arabia after the Roman Diaspora Decree, than you really don't know anything about Jewish history.
That is about the most significant time period in Jewish history.
All I can suggest is that you read up a little:

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews? | Islam Ahmadiyya

www.alislam.org

Here are the tribe names:
{...
Some of the Jewish tribes of Arabia historically attested include:

• Banu Harith or Bnei Chorath[3][4][5]
• Banu Qaynuqa[3][4]
• Banu Shutayba[3][4]
• Jafna Clan of the Banu Tha'laba who were exiled members of the Banu Ghassan - while both tribes were not Jewish, they did have Jewish members; whereas the Jafna Clan was solely Jewish[3][4][6][unreliable source?]
• Banu Zaura[7]
• Banu Zurayq[3][4] In Islamic lore, Labid ben Asam was a Jewish sorcerer who cast a spell on Muhammad that made him ill for several months and prevented him from having sexual relations with his wives[8]
• Banu Quda'a — Himyarite tribe of converts to Judaism[9]
• Banu Qurayza — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Nadir — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Juw — sub-clan of the Banu Qaynuqa, Fled to North Africa.
• Banu Aws
• Banu Awf

...}

As to Sharia, thing like stoning adulterers is not in the Quran.
Clearly the Quran says that only beheading is to be used for executions, because it is quickest and least painful.
Stoning adulterers comes instead from the Judaic Old Testament.

There has never been any denial of weapons or horses to any religion, by Moslems.
In fact, when the Crusaders invaded, Jews fought along side Moslems against the Crusaders.
We know because they were massacred by the Crusaders when captured, and this is well recorded fact.

you are "learning" about islamic history and the history of jews from those wiki
articles WRITTEN BY MUSLIM SOURCES . There are jews who are THAT NAIVE
AND STUPID. Try to keep in mind-----my very own hubby was born in a very classical
shariah shit hole which------actually can be considered PART OF ARABIA. Your statements
about "shariah" and the history of jews of the Roman empire are PSYCHOTIC. Jewish villages
in "palestine" and the sorrounding lands were massacred by crusaders----but not in arabia.

I did not say the Jews in Arabia were massacred by Crusaders.
But it is well known the Jews in Palestine and anywhere the Crusaders went, were massacred by Crusaders, so the Jews fought along side the Moslems and against the Crusaders.
So they could not have been forbidden weapons by the Moslems.
And there is nothing in the Quran ever about anyone being forbidden weapons or horses.
And in fact it would be impossible for anyone to survive without weapons or horses, as they would be essential in the Mideast.

well---you happen to be wrong-----of course MERCENARY slaves did use weapons and YOU are right-----life in arabia is impossible without weapons and horses and camels which is why
persons under EXTREME OPPRESSION like the jews of arabia were DENIED the use of weapons
and horses and camels. keep in mind I have relatives who LIVED THE FILTH YOU SO LOVE.
As to the jews in arabia-----the GENOCIDE was comprehensive in the arabian Peninsula----
but not in the part of arabia called Yemen. Gee you are so ignorant of reality. Somehow you
believe the HISTORY ACCORDING TO WIKKI

 

[Esdraelon]

A person likely could kill more people with a pair of pistols than they could with an AR-15, since a pair of Glock 21s would give you 42 shots and allow reloading while always able to fire the other pistol.

Exactly. This is also why the semi-auto pistols in our nation aren't being attacked by the Left...YET... Those who are pushing to disarm Americans are fully aware of the real threat to their desires and they know that rifles of ANY description are responsible for far fewer fatalities than fists or feet.
I asked the OP a direct question I hope he'll honor it with a thoughtful answer.

The Left in America stole an election and as they implement massive changes in the coming months I predict they will lose ALL fear of the ballot box. The only way they succeed in that effort will be to ditch the filibuster and ram through legislation that changes our means and safeguards for elections as well as straight-up seizures of weapons or the criminalizing of millions of us who refuse to hand them over. A VERY DANGEROUS period is ahead for us all.
FTR...
WE WILL NOT COMPLY... WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED!

 

[initforme]

America is all about greed and guns. That's ok people are free to believe what they want. If you don't shoot a bolt action you are not allowed to even be within a mile of our hunting land.

 

[Rigby5]

I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

Thanks for your service. I respect your right to an opinion. Hopefully, you can return that respect. I totally disagree with your take on 2A and I have a simple question I hope you'll answer after some serious consideration.
Since tens of millions of Americans take 2A to be a DEADLY SERIOUS unalienable RIGHT, what level of carnage and bloodshed are you willing to see occur if the government decides to FORCIBLY remove firearms like the AR and AK platforms from the public?
It's my assumption that most who are for such rules either simply don't believe Americans would fight and die for this right OR that so few would do it that there would be an "acceptable" level of killing by our government to bring about this "assault weaponless" utopia. Where are your "lines" drawn on this issue?

There are 20 to 30 million ARs out there because it is one of the most familiar and inexpensive modern weapons.
To attempt to ban them would instantly result in an civil war that the government could not possibly survive.
There would be no taxes to pay soldiers with, and most soldiers would turn against the government I think.
The first time the BATF tried to break down the door of an AR owner and ended up shooting them, the BATF would be number one on everyone's list to eradicate.
People still are angry about the BATF attacks on Randy Weaver and David Koresh.

 

[Esdraelon]

e

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

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

In YOUR mind. The people that wrote it say different. Your emotional appeal is pathetic. Yeah, some great debater you are..

He's nuts, I'm telling ya

Unfortunately, especially if he's telling the truth, it just goes to show how deluded the Left is when even former military members buy that defeatest rhetoric. I'm no longer wasting time trying to convince any of them to change their views on outlawing weapons.

I think the political divide, pushed by a 5th column media, is too great now to change direction. I DO like to ask them to be honest about just how many DEAD AMERICANS they feel it would be worth to realize their dreams about disarming America. The answer, if honest, will show anyone just how irrational they've become.

 

[Rigby5]

America is all about greed and guns. That's ok people are free to believe what they want. If you don't shoot a bolt action you are not allowed to even be within a mile of our hunting land.

I don't even know anyone who still has a bolt action rifle any more?
It is not even humane to not be able to put a quick second shot into an animal to put it out of suffering, in case the first shot was not perfect.
Not to mention the need for more rapid shooting if attacked by a large bear.

 

[Desperado]

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.

Seriously, you are a disgrace to all combat engineers. I cannot believe someone like you is actually in the US Army. They have really lowered their standards.... BTW when you took your oath it was to defend the Constitution.

 

[Esdraelon]

America is all about greed and guns. That's ok people are free to believe what they want. If you don't shoot a bolt action you are not allowed to even be within a mile of our hunting land.

I'm not aware of any state that allows hunting of large game with .223. I use .308 or occasionally 6.5. Vortex optics. The eyes aren't what they were...
No insult intended but this topic really isn't about hunting, at least that isn't what the Left is arguing about. Their political party and its propaganda arm (MSM) are pushing to disarm Americans and anyone who does not believe that is either deluded or not paying close attention.

Ask yourself a simple question: IF the danger from semi-auto handguns is FAR GREATER than the danger posed by semi-auto, hi-cap magazine-fed weapons (AR/AK), WHY aren't they coming for the largest threat first? IMO, it's because they know the resistance would be far greater because far more Americans own such weapons purely for self-defense. Our legal system, I no longer refer to it as a"Justice System", operates through precedent. It will be much easier to continue coming after weapons one at a time once any of them are outlawed.

The final reality to mention is that the Left knows full well that with between 300-400 MILLION guns in this country there is simply no way to remove them and that even if it were possible it would still be impossible to keep people from buying them on the black market. Anybody that denies this should ask a teen or young adult how difficult it is to buy illegal drugs in any American city.

The legislation is a means to criminalize dissent and to use coercion to shut down speech because people who know they risk many years in prison for the weapons they hold illegally are far less likely to ever raise their opinions so that it brings attention to themselves.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

America is all about greed and guns. That's ok people are free to believe what they want. If you don't shoot a bolt action you are not allowed to even be within a mile of our hunting land.

I don't even know anyone who still has a bolt action rifle any more?
It is not even humane to not be able to put a quick second shot into an animal to put it out of suffering, in case the first shot was not perfect.
Not to mention the need for more rapid shooting if attacked by a large bear.

I inherited my grandfather's Remington 788. That's it. I have a pump-action 12 gauge. All else is semi-auto.

Except, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident on the Sabine River. I have none.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

Not a word of that is true.

The Warlord Muhammad (shit be upon him) was a vicious scumbag who made Genghis Khan look peace loving. He murdered, raped, and pillaged across the Middle East.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't even know anyone who still has a bolt action rifle any more?
It is not even humane to not be able to put a quick second shot into an animal to put it out of suffering, in case the first shot was not perfect.
Not to mention the need for more rapid shooting if attacked by a large bear.

I have a Weatherby Vanguard Deluxe 30/06 which is by far the most deadly weapon I own. 4 round magazine. Deadly at 700 yards. A 5.56 with a 30 round magazine is no threat, I just stay back, well out of their range.