CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[NotfooledbyW]

Dale Smith, post: 19403129

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)

You said you are in the militia. We must therefore assume that in strict compliance with the Second Amendment that your militia is well regulated.

I must also assume that joining your militia requires the mere purchase of an assault rifle and a strong desire to play with it.

The Vegas and Parkland High shooters must therefore be considered members of your Second Amendment Militia.

Why won't you answer questions about what those militia members have done?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JBond, post: 19403172

Define assault rifle.

It's been defined by the DOD US Army in this thread. Why do you people insist on making this a semantics debate if your arguments are so strong.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JBond, post: 19403172

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

Let's be clear here. Was the intruder carrying an assault rifle?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JBond, post: 19403172

Liberal gun free zones failed.

The first cause leading to any subsequent failures was the manufacture and sale of a deadly firearm that serves no valid purpose, other than plaything, to be sold legally over the counter to practically anybody who wants one to play with. Eliminate failure number one, decrease exponentially the odds for failures down the road.

Let's do it. Give up your toys.

 

[fncceo]

Give up your toys.

Come and take it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

fncceo, post: 19403407

Come and take it.

I see it more as watching the assault rifle cult die its slow natural death. We can ban them without the need to take away the disaster you helped create on a one by one basis.

Are you in a well regulated militia?

I was asking you to give up your assault toys on a volunteer basis. Sixty-seven percent of your fellow freedom living citizens think you should, if you are hellbent on insisting that you are part of some constitutional well regulated militia, then the 'well regulated' part would certainly mean that you would certainly wish to heed the advice of the majority of the citizens you think you are defending.

 

[fncceo]

Are you in a well regulated militia?

I'm in a VERY well regulated militia.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

m in a VERY well regulated militia.

What/ whom is regulating the militia to which you belong?

 

[fncceo]

What/ whom is regulating the militia you belong to?

You don't even know the definition of well-regulated. Go buy a dictionary and we'll talk another day.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

fncceo, post: 19403429

You don't even know the definition of well-regulated. Go buy a dictionary and we'll talk another day.

Try me. What are you so afraid of? Your Second Amendment argument is not based on the Second Amendment at all. There is no militia is there.,its a pretend thing isn't it.

 

[ding]

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.

I already answered this.

The technology of the day that any light infantry should possess. And today that would be semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

 

[JBond]

JBond, post: 19403172

Liberal gun free zones failed.

The first cause leading to any subsequent failures was the manufacture and sale of a deadly firearm that serves no valid purpose, other than plaything, to be sold legally over the counter to practically anybody who wants one to play with. Eliminate failure number one, decrease exponentially the odds for failures down the road.

Let's do it. Give up your toys.

Sure thing kid. We know who you are. We understand your brand of national socialism. We undertand your hatred of the Constitution and why you want to leave law abiding citizens defenseless. You are trash.

 

[JBond]

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.

That was a pathetic rant. Absolutely pathetic. Not a single idea was presented regarding removing guns from criminals. Your facts are made up and you failed to offer anything that would help. Your ignorance is only topped by your arrogance.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Ask yourself how much damage I can do with my pump action 12 gauge shot gun that can fire six rounds and use buck shot?

What is my point?

If you do not know the damage of certain firearms can do then you need to study more and learn the AR-15 is a cheap way to get a firearm but believe me if someone want to kill then two pump action shotguns in a classroom can do a damn good job and believe me buck shot kills...

So why do I need a pump action shotgun?

Simple, I live in the rural regions of Texas but if I felt the AR-15 would do the job better I would own one because it is my constitutional right...

 

[Zander]

Sorry LWNJ's, you don't know what you are talking about - case law is settled.

The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an appositive phrase that does not act as a condition to bear arms. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court DC V Heller (2008). You can remove the phrase and the meaning of the amendment is clear:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Molon Labe

 

[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.

That was a pathetic rant. Absolutely pathetic. Not a single idea was presented regarding removing guns from criminals. Your facts are made up and you failed to offer anything that would help. Your ignorance is only topped by your arrogance.

When I'm pissing off the intransigent I must be doing something right. If nothing more than giving them a platform to express their intransigence.

 

[hadit]

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.

That was a pathetic rant. Absolutely pathetic. Not a single idea was presented regarding removing guns from criminals. Your facts are made up and you failed to offer anything that would help. Your ignorance is only topped by your arrogance.

When I'm pissing off the intransigent I must be doing something right. If nothing more than giving them a platform to express their intransigence.

New word of the day?

 

[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.

That was a pathetic rant. Absolutely pathetic. Not a single idea was presented regarding removing guns from criminals. Your facts are made up and you failed to offer anything that would help. Your ignorance is only topped by your arrogance.

When I'm pissing off the intransigent I must be doing something right. If nothing more than giving them a platform to express their intransigence.

New word of the day?

No. Just the oldest defense of the indefensible.

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

American courts have ruled that I am responsible for me:

" police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________

I cannot turn back the clock on technology and in order to be adequately armed against terrorists, criminals, and tyrants not to mention gangs - or anyone else that would assault me, I need the very best protection my budget and technology affords.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because ____________

we can see the breakdown in society and realize that America is going to go through an internal war to over-throw the Constitution from within

I absolutely need an assault rifle because ____________

in my neighborhood criminals come in numbers where a cell phone or a single shot weapon are insufficient and I have a Right to Life

Video shows woman shooting at invaders during Gwinnett home invasion

(That happened where I live. Thank God, that woman wasn't limited to six beans in a wheel.)

 

[Soupnazi630]

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..

Yes but still magazine fed.