CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[Nosmo King]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

Again, an AR platform rifle is actually not the best choice for home defense – a handgun or shotgun would be best.

There might be a few situations where an AR would be better, but those are very rare.

An assault weapon is whatever the law says it is, based on whatever criteria lawmakers consider to be appropriate, separate and apart from what the military might consider an a assault rifle to be – a select fire weapon chambered in an intermediate round.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

Using the 2nd amendment as the basis of your evidence, please detail which guns the 2nd amendment excludes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You don't want to get bogged down in "Semantics" because if you define things accurately, your entire thread goes down the toilet....

He was right, though. Just about every gun nut on the thread deflected to pissing around about definitions rather than addressing the question.

As someone already pointed out, the question is leading. Also, it is designed to put the respondent on the defensive right out of the gate.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't have one and I don't need one but if I wanted one, I don't need to justify it to anyone. All that is required of me as a potential AR-15 owner is that I pay for it, register it (depending on the state), use it safely, store it safely and not use it in an illegal manner.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

Actually it does – as in its case law.

All weapons can be subject to regulation and restrictions, some more than others:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The question is, therefore, in what category does an AR 15 belong – ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

AR 15s are certainly ‘in common use,’ there’s noting ‘unusual’ about them – but however common they’re nonetheless dangerous.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that banning AR 15s is Constitutional, and of course there are those of the opinion that it is not.

However loath the Supreme Court might be to address the issue, at some point it will have no choice but to determine if an AR 15 is a weapon ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to restrictions and bans.

 

[EGR one]

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Because no one on this board owns an 'assault rifle'.

And there you go!

It's apparently easier to obfuscate with semantics than honestly debate. Our understanding of the gun culture grows exponentially with your response. Some things are just too tough to justify.

I am attempting to explain my position but you keep coming up "tiny"................you are not interested in honest debate at all.

I understand your position. You're a survivalist. You want to defend yourself against the powers of corporations and a corrupt U.S. government. You believe that your gun will keep you safe and sound against these omniscient powers. You recommend that all responsible citizens gird their loins and prepare to defend against overwhelming and obscure powers that seem to have control of your life.

But I ain't buyin' it, Dale. I may be a serf in your eyes, but I'm a happy man who can go anywhere, buy whatever I can afford, address my government with any grievances and live as I choose.

Good luck with all that "Michigan Militia" stuff. I was already turned off to it even before Tim McVeigh became your poster boy.

Dale provided you with his reasons why he believes semi-automatic rifles are a need, and then you want to debate the validity of his perceived need. No one gives a crap how happy you are with life as it is, or the fact that you think resistance is futile.

I don't own a semi-automatic rifle, and I see no need for me to have one. That is my risk assessment. Others have the right to develop their own risk assessments and if they feel the need to own a semi-automatic rifle than so be it. Likewise, if they feel no need, but just desire to have one, then more power to them. It is not up to me, or you, to decide what other people need or want.

The military does not use AR-15's, or any other of the semi-automatic rifles that are so hated by left wing control freaks, so they are not assault weapons.

 

[EGR one]

ding, post: 1939389

Because peaceable law abiding citizens who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms in defense of their country should be armed and trained with the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess.

And today that would be semi-automatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

But why set the limit there?

If 'preserving liberty' actually depends on gun freaks playing with these high capacity human killing toys, there must be no limit to the power of the toys the loons can legally play with.

By acceptance of limits in place, the assault weapon cultists acknowledge they are merely, playing with toys.

The 'preserving liberty' justification is a fraud. A faked reality propagated for political and monetary gain.



You are not defending liberty. Not even close.

Those who perish in mass murders are denied liberty. What about their liberty? That's what GenZ is asking our generations that has failed them. WTF.

The thousands of children shot in the streets of our cities were denied their right to life, but you left wing nut jobs never seem to care unless a group of them are killed at the same time.

Last week a 7 year old boy was shot in his front yard, in Jacksonville, Fla. That death didn't even make the national news. The same day, a high school student was shot several times while walking past an elementary school. That didn't make the national news either.

Those parents care as much for their children, and suffer for them, just as much as any of the parents of mass shooting victims. Not enough numbers to make them useful in left wing gun grab plans.

 

[flacaltenn]

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

He killed a President, and wounded a Governor in a moving vehicle with a SINGLE SHOT rifle from 600 yards.. Multiple shots. I think that's part of the calculus of mayhem here.

Wrong.

It was not a single shot rifle. It was magazine fed. A single shot rifle is a weapon which can only be loaded with one round at a time.

It also was not 600 yards or even close.

All three shots he fired were from less than 100 yards.

It's bolt action. Not EVEN semi-auto..

 

[Dale Smith]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

Actually it does – as in its case law.

All weapons can be subject to regulation and restrictions, some more than others:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The question is, therefore, in what category does an AR 15 belong – ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

AR 15s are certainly ‘in common use,’ there’s noting ‘unusual’ about them – but however common they’re nonetheless dangerous.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that banning AR 15s is Constitutional, and of course there are those of the opinion that it is not.

However loath the Supreme Court might be to address the issue, at some point it will have no choice but to determine if an AR 15 is a weapon ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to restrictions and bans.

The District Of Columbia??????? LOL!!!!!!

 

[hunarcy]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because I have committed no crime and it's my right to own one.

The fact is I don't have to justify my choice to exercise my right to you or anyone else.

 

[Zander]

I don't know any "gun lovers".

I do know plenty of law abiding citizens who own firearms, myself included.

We don't need to justify why we own them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not enough numbers to make them useful in left wing gun grab plans.

Are those shooters using assault rifles?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

I saw some idiot actually decided to argue against your point. They have lost their minds.

 

[Nosmo King]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

I saw some idiot actually decided to argue against your point. They have lost their minds.

Either they don't know what they're talking about, or they hope you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[hunarcy]

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

I agree that if naive HS kids WANT restrictions on gun availability, they should be the 1st to give up THEIR rights until they are 21. Hate to see it.. But that MIGHT make a diff. Also have no use for bump stocks or clips over 30 rounds.

What would make a diff is for the govt to NOT BOTCH their basic job of investigating threats. MOST ALL of the recent terrorist instigators were KNOWN to the FBI.. Even REPORTED to them by gun store owners and the like.. Not to mention the fact that DOD had to apologize for Sutherland Springs because Military court records were not going to the Insta Check system that the NRA PUSHED for. So much MISSING from the current Insta Check because Congressional Dems are fixated on "terrorist watch list" which is a total piece of crap. It's missing gigantic amounts of data from LOCAL, County, State authorities.

Govt can't handle the EXISTING tools. We should keep it simple.

PERSONALLY -- I think it would be MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and accurate to have the Fed Firearms Licensed Gun Dealers do their OWN network of tips and information.. This gets around having the FEDS not being able to retain a lot of information without compromising legal owners privacy. They could compare purchases suspicious activity in various states and locales.. And only report to FBI what they deem to be a threat.

That is IN ADDITION to a better NICS. Insta-check and some new FBI employees that aren't from the filing cabinet, rotary phone, rolodex age..

Should,background checks extend to gunshow sales? Internet sales? Private sales? Commercial sales? Wholesale distribution? Importers?

They already do (except for private sales, though the law requires a private seller to not sell to someone who can't legally have one)

 

[Dale Smith]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

I saw some idiot actually decided to argue against your point. They have lost their minds.

No, it doesn't apply to rocket launchers or bazookas but semi-automatic weapons definitely fall under the second amendment and being well armed as it pertains to the militia (which is us) and not the military that works at the leisure of this corporate entity that we refer to as the federal "gubermint". Was the S.S a militia? Was the Gestapo the militia? You resume much but yet know very little.

 

[hunarcy]

The second amendment does not apply to all weapons.

I saw some idiot actually decided to argue against your point. They have lost their minds.

No, it doesn't apply to rocket launchers or bazookas but semi-automatic weapons definitely fall under the second amendment and being well armed as it pertains to the militia (which is us) and not the military that works at the leisure of this corporate entity that we refer to as the federal "gubermint". Was the S.S a militia? Was the Gestapo the militia? You resume much but yet know very little.

He doesn't know the difference between arms and ordinance. He's just spouting words with no idea of what they mean.

 

[Nosmo King]

Some folks say we can't do anything because whatever we try will not be 100% effective. Some say there are too many guns in citizen's hands, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Some deny there is anything like an assault weapon on the streets by defining assault weapon by means of a fully automatic firing system. They cannot deign to accept the generic term and would rather we be sidetracked in a maze of semantics. Some say there is simply nothing we can do unless we address mental health, as if Americans are exponentially crazier than every other population.

Any problem created by man can be solved by man.

Why is there not peace in the Middle East? Intransigence. Why are we plagued by gun violence here more than any other society? Intransigence.

It's pathetic when 97% of Americans want universal background checks. In a democracy, an issue with 97% approval by the people is on the table, legislators should be tripping over themselves to sponsor, vote on and approve such an issue. Why isn't it happening now? Intransigence.

The only way this world gets better is when the optimists get things done. The world has never been improved by intransigence.

 

[Dale Smith]

Some folks say we can't do anything because whatever we try will not be 100% effective. Some say there are too many guns in citizen's hands, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Some deny there is anything like an assault weapon on the streets by defining assault weapon by means of a fully automatic firing system. They cannot deign to accept the generic term and would rather we be sidetracked in a maze of semantics. Some say there is simply nothing we can do unless we address mental health, as if Americans are exponentially crazier than every other population.

Any problem created by man can be solved by man.

Why is there not peace in the Middle East? Intransigence. Why are we plagued by gun violence here more than any other society? Intransigence.

It's pathetic when 97% of Americans want universal background checks. In a democracy, an issue with 97% approval by the people is on the table, legislators should be tripping over themselves to sponsor, vote on and approve such an issue. Why isn't it happening now? Intransigence.

The only way this world gets better is when the optimists get things done. The world has never been improved by intransigence.

We are suppose to be living under a republic with certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away just because 50.1 can tell the other 49.9 that's how it is going to be. The Bill of Rights are not privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent corporate "gubermint"...they are rights we were born with.

This rash of false flags and staged mass shooting events ALWAYS follow the same M.O with the media in tow and before the alleged gun smoke has cleared or the alleged bodies are even cold? The talking heads are screaming "GUN CONTROL!!!" and they trot out crisis actors and they do their little psy-op using the Hegelian dialectic to try and sway the sheeple into disarming. It's bullshit and I see right through this charade and propaganda.

 

[JBond]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

Simple. Liberal gun free zones failed. Fed's/LEO's of any type show up after their failures.

Define assault rifle.

My father defended his family and home during a break in. Unfortunately I was forced to do the same.