Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your link took me to Bearing Arms, not the Oxford English Dictionary. I went to the Oxford English Dictionary and couldn't find the information, but it sounds like them.No it doesn't.The OP and this guy have something in common:
"Sensible gun control laws"
Godwined, punk! Drink up, everybody!
"Well-regulated" means "in proper working order".
Next!
well-regulated
ADJECTIVE
well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
- Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.
Onnnnk!
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”"
"The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."
"Well-Regulated" - Bearing Arms - Second Amendment, Well-Regulated
I've done this a few times, OldLady.
It means fully functional.
If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, please try reading it again and don't skip over the first part that says "well regulated."That right being...?How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!
To keep and bear arms.
If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, please try reading it again and don't skip over the first part that says "well regulated."That right being...?How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!
To keep and bear arms.
How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!
Well, me poor ignorant clown, consider that there are all sorts of "guns" outlawed currently. Machine guns, military cannons and others. So, your concern about constitutional rights is stupid.
So, we just saw 14 students and 3 teachers killed in Florida. And dozens others elsewhere. All by guns we have come to know as assault rifles. So, you worry about your fucking constitutional rights, the right to shoot an "assault rifle" as being more important than the lives of children, and adults. Do you yet see how stupid you are?
I am concerned about the hundreds of lives of those shot at, and of those killed by, people who exercise their constitutional right to own these guns, and who use them to kill as many people as they can. No other weapon is as useful for killing lots of people as assault weapons. None. So, how do I know?
There are a number of ways. For one, I look at all the other advanced countries of the world, all of whom do not allow their citizens to buy assault weapons. And none have the number of deaths that we do from mass killings. Japan, France, the UK, and Germany have nearly none. No country has anything close to the number of mass shootings as we have. None have the number of deaths to gun use.
So, you worry about your ability to shoot an AR, or whatever. I worry about the lives lost to dipshits using AR's. I believe that lives of kids, and adults, are way more important than you having to use a bolt action or lever action, or pump rifle. I think you can get by fine with a 5 shot, or less, clip.
I own guns. Several., me boy. I hunt, have for years. But I have no need for an AR. At all. You see, if you are marginally capable of using a modern firearm, one shot is all you should need. Unless you want to kill a bunch of people Or perhaps you are simply really physically challenged, or a really, really, really bad shot.
So there you go, me boy. You worry about your "need" for an AR. I worry about human lives. Kids particularly. So, what is the most important? Or is that too complex for you?
Freedom isnt free, faggotHow can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!
Well, me poor ignorant clown, consider that there are all sorts of "guns" outlawed currently. Machine guns, military cannons and others. So, your concern about constitutional rights is stupid.
So, we just saw 14 students and 3 teachers killed in Florida. And dozens others elsewhere. All by guns we have come to know as assault rifles. So, you worry about your fucking constitutional rights, the right to shoot an "assault rifle" as being more important than the lives of children, and adults. Do you yet see how stupid you are?
I am concerned about the hundreds of lives of those shot at, and of those killed by, people who exercise their constitutional right to own these guns, and who use them to kill as many people as they can. No other weapon is as useful for killing lots of people as assault weapons. None. So, how do I know?
There are a number of ways. For one, I look at all the other advanced countries of the world, all of whom do not allow their citizens to buy assault weapons. And none have the number of deaths that we do from mass killings. Japan, France, the UK, and Germany have nearly none. No country has anything close to the number of mass shootings as we have. None have the number of deaths to gun use.
So, you worry about your ability to shoot an AR, or whatever. I worry about the lives lost to dipshits using AR's. I believe that lives of kids, and adults, are way more important than you having to use a bolt action or lever action, or pump rifle. I think you can get by fine with a 5 shot, or less, clip.
I own guns. Several., me boy. I hunt, have for years. But I have no need for an AR. At all. You see, if you are marginally capable of using a modern firearm, one shot is all you should need. Unless you want to kill a bunch of people Or perhaps you are simply really physically challenged, or a really, really, really bad shot.
So there you go, me boy. You worry about your "need" for an AR. I worry about human lives. Kids particularly. So, what is the most important? Or is that too complex for you?
Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
Your link took me to Bearing Arms, not the Oxford English Dictionary. I went to the Oxford English Dictionary and couldn't find the information, but it sounds like them.No it doesn't.The OP and this guy have something in common:
"Sensible gun control laws"
Godwined, punk! Drink up, everybody!
"Well-regulated" means "in proper working order".
Next!
well-regulated
ADJECTIVE
well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
- Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.
Onnnnk!
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”"
"The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."
"Well-Regulated" - Bearing Arms - Second Amendment, Well-Regulated
I've done this a few times, OldLady.
It means fully functional.
Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!
Well, me poor ignorant clown, consider that there are all sorts of "guns" outlawed currently. Machine guns, military cannons and others. So, your concern about constitutional rights is stupid.
So, we just saw 14 students and 3 teachers killed in Florida. And dozens others elsewhere. All by guns we have come to know as assault rifles. So, you worry about your fucking constitutional rights, the right to shoot an "assault rifle" as being more important than the lives of children, and adults. Do you yet see how stupid you are?
I am concerned about the hundreds of lives of those shot at, and of those killed by, people who exercise their constitutional right to own these guns, and who use them to kill as many people as they can. No other weapon is as useful for killing lots of people as assault weapons. None. So, how do I know?
There are a number of ways. For one, I look at all the other advanced countries of the world, all of whom do not allow their citizens to buy assault weapons. And none have the number of deaths that we do from mass killings. Japan, France, the UK, and Germany have nearly none. No country has anything close to the number of mass shootings as we have. None have the number of deaths to gun use.
So, you worry about your ability to shoot an AR, or whatever. I worry about the lives lost to dipshits using AR's. I believe that lives of kids, and adults, are way more important than you having to use a bolt action or lever action, or pump rifle. I think you can get by fine with a 5 shot, or less, clip.
I own guns. Several., me boy. I hunt, have for years. But I have no need for an AR. At all. You see, if you are marginally capable of using a modern firearm, one shot is all you should need. Unless you want to kill a bunch of people Or perhaps you are simply really physically challenged, or a really, really, really bad shot.
So there you go, me boy. You worry about your "need" for an AR. I worry about human lives. Kids particularly. So, what is the most important? Or is that too complex for you?
Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"
Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.
Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"
Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.
Seriously, there's literally millions of AR-owners.
Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"
Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.
Seriously, there's literally millions of AR-owners.
I have one myself. It’s fun to shoot. My whole family loves it. There must be something wrong with it though, it hasn’t shot anyone.
Yes, you do, he who has a grenade as an avi.Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.
Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.
It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.
It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.
Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?
Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction
"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"
Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.
Show off.View attachment 178149 I love my so call assault rifle. Took this one at around 200 yards.
Well, since we haven't got a goddamned "militia" anymore, I guess you can define it however you wish, Marion.OldLady, I can't find the Webster's but I did find this: (World Book)
"being what a thing should be".
