Guys, please educate me on this 2nd Amendment Issue, I'm trying to understand

[BlindBoo]

Gun control can work, but this country is too bought and paid for my lobbyists and the NRA for anything to ever change.

We had a competent president in office when dozens of children were murdered at school and not only did nothing change, gun laws on the whole become more lenient as a result.

So there is NO way anything is changing knowing the president we have and the fact that our government is still bought and paid for.

Na, firearms have no control over people. People kill people not firearms

Unless it was the Fast an furious weapons, then it's Obama!!!!!

It looks like the Obama justice dept dropped the ball on these "bump stock" devices too.

Looks like Obama did not want any kind of fight with the NRA.

Please, if Obama had raised that issue the NRA dudes would have freaked smooth out...............Le Pier would be pounding his shoe like Khrushchev and foaming at the mouth.

 

[otto105]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Hardly a simpleton "defend ourselves from the government"

Of course I'm an originalist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that people should only have the guns available to them at the TIME of the 2nd Amendments signing. The Constitution is a dead document that requires all issues be viewed only from the perspective and technology available to the founders.

 

[sartre play]

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

That is a complete and utter falsehood.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
—Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
—George Washington

"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to liberty."
—George Washington

"The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
—James Madison

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
—James Madison

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ... The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home..If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
--President James Madison

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"
—Benjamin Franklin

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect its country from its government."
—Thomas Paine

I don't get your meaning? you think we should all have tanks, battle ships jet fighter planes & nukes? incase we want to overthrow our government?


Our founders UNEQUIVOCALLY AND ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY believed in keeping the power to overthrow our government for fear of replacing one form of tyranny (British Crown) with another.

We have a 2nd Amendment PRIMARILY to prevent tyranny in our own government.

WE CANNOT PREVENT OUTRIGHT TYRANNY WITHOUT EQUAL ARMS.

 

[BlindBoo]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Hardly a simpleton "defend ourselves from the government"

Of course I'm an originalist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that people should only have the guns available to them at the TIME of the 2nd Amendments signing. The Constitution is a dead document that requires all issues be viewed only from the perspective and technology available to the founders.

Kewl, they had cannons back then didn't they. It doesn't say guns but Arms.

 

[BlackSand]

Of course I'm an originalist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that people should only have the guns available to them at the TIME of the 2nd Amendments signing. The Constitution is a dead document that requires all issues be viewed only from the perspective and technology available to the founders.

Well ... It's nice to know you wouldn't mind me have a fast sailing ship with up to 8 cannons.
That was among the many things a private citizen was allowed to own after the Constitution was ratified.

And ... It wasn't for hunting or sport ...

.

 

[sakinago]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Well first, it must be remembered that the 2nd wasn't put into place just for self defense, or because guns and hunting are cool, but because you cannot have a free society if the government has a monopoly of power/force. You do need a government in place to insure that rights and justice are upheld...but the first and very familiar enemy of human rights is governments themselves, so it is imperative they do not have a monopoly of force. And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military, they were a civilian ran "military", intended to protect locally whether it was from its own government, or foreign force. And back then, there wasn't any difference between a civilian rifle vs military rifle, and militias/civilians could own cannons, which were the supreme firepower of the time. So that was the intention of the 2nd amendment, to prevent government from having a monopoly of force, and doing pretty much what they want with citizens.

Now under our current laws (that I don't agree with, that are unconstitutional), bump stocks probably shouldn't be legal...but it doesn't really matter anywho. Why? BC if someone wants to commit mass murder...they don't need a bump stock to do it. Hell 9/11 was carried out with box cutters. Not to mention if you're planning on taking out as many ppl as possible with an automatic rifle, you're gonna take illegal steps to either get your hands on an automatic, or modify a rifle to make it automatic, which isn't all that difficult, getting a bump stick was probably just easier for paddock...who was also planning on using 50lbs of explosives that would've probably caused A LOT more damage if he had the chance. All the guns laws in France did not stop guys with automatics having hay days with masses of unarmed folk...and they took out double what this guy was able to do.

Now if you look at the flip side of France. In Switzerland you are practically issued an automatic assault rifle (should you choose to keep it), and can freely move about town with it on your shoulder...no ones scared, cops don't get jumpy, and better yet Switzerland is one of the safest places on earth. Why is that? And to further contrast this point, look at Mexico, the 2nd most dangerous place on earth, more dangerous than freaking Afghanistan...again all the gun control laws in the world, yet you'd be better off in Afghanistan. Why is that?

 

[BlindBoo]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

 

[sakinago]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

Don't just wander in and make stuff up. Militias were around before the revolutionary war, and they started out as recruits govenors and localities would enlist to help protect against French and Indian attackers, kind of like a national guard, just more local. They did this BC the crown couldnt effectively send its regulars in places of need, because there wasn't any cars, trains, etc. just good ole fashioned sailing ships, and horses. Once the war actually started, Washington started a standing army called continentals, these were the uniformed regulars. After the war, militias and a standing army were kept in place. Since a standing army would be very dangerous to "free society" in a Ceaser crossing the rubicon type of way, they needed to be balanced by something e.g. Militias. A standing army, loyal to one man, or the government as a whole would have its way with people, which is why militias were necessary, loyal only to their localities and the leaders of their militias they freely elected. Very hard to be corrupted by both the government and some power hungry charismatic leader. A defense for the local people against both the standing army regulars, and any other threats out there.

Do the slightest bit of research before you wantonly make claims

 

[BlindBoo]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

Don't just wander in and make stuff up. Militias were around before the revolutionary war, and they started out as recruits govenors and localities would enlist to help protect against French and Indian attackers, kind of like a national guard, just more local. They did this BC the crown couldnt effectively send its regulars in places of need, because there wasn't any cars, trains, etc. just good ole fashioned sailing ships, and horses. Once the war actually started, Washington started a standing army called continentals, these were the uniformed regulars. After the war, militias and a standing army were kept in place. Since a standing army would be very dangerous to "free society" in a Ceaser crossing the rubicon type of way, they needed to be balanced by something e.g. Militias. A standing army, loyal to one man, or the government as a whole would have its way with people, which is why militias were necessary, loyal only to their localities and the leaders of their militias they freely elected. Very hard to be corrupted by both the government and some power hungry charismatic leader. A defense for the local people against both the standing army regulars, and any other threats out there.

Do the slightest bit of research before you wantonly make claims

The militia's were still under command of the President. There was no standing army. Those are both in our Constitution. The militias were not there to protect against the Government of the people.They were the countries first line of defense until an army could be raised.

 

[sakinago]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

Don't just wander in and make stuff up. Militias were around before the revolutionary war, and they started out as recruits govenors and localities would enlist to help protect against French and Indian attackers, kind of like a national guard, just more local. They did this BC the crown couldnt effectively send its regulars in places of need, because there wasn't any cars, trains, etc. just good ole fashioned sailing ships, and horses. Once the war actually started, Washington started a standing army called continentals, these were the uniformed regulars. After the war, militias and a standing army were kept in place. Since a standing army would be very dangerous to "free society" in a Ceaser crossing the rubicon type of way, they needed to be balanced by something e.g. Militias. A standing army, loyal to one man, or the government as a whole would have its way with people, which is why militias were necessary, loyal only to their localities and the leaders of their militias they freely elected. Very hard to be corrupted by both the government and some power hungry charismatic leader. A defense for the local people against both the standing army regulars, and any other threats out there.

Do the slightest bit of research before you wantonly make claims

The militia's were still under command of the President. There was no standing army. Those are both in our Constitution. The militias were not there to protect against the Government of the people.They were the countries first line of defense until an army could be raised.

Dude the transcripts of the debates on the subject of militia vs standing army are all over the place. It was extensively debated and recorded. And no they did not want a standing army up, FOR THE VERY REASONS I STATED EARLIER. A standing army is a threat to free society, and armed citizens are the only defense to a standing army. But Madison saw the advantages of a standing army, vs a band of militias when it comes to foreign invaders, and he decided to upkeep and maintain a standing army. But civilian run militias were to remain in place because of the threat of a standing army, like I said balance was needed.

This is another example of someone trying to put their own words and motives into the founders works, just to try to find a loophole around the constitution. You can very easily go back and look up the actual founders motivations and words, all their debates, letters etc. to find what the founders actually meant with 2nd, and why they wanted it that way. It's very clear, and if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd and install your own new amendment. The 2nd is very clear on its own, even if you're doing mental gymnastics to get around it, those mental gymnastics are void when you actually read what the founders meant it to be...even though you shouldn't have too.

Appeal to ignorance coming in 5...4...3...

 

[BlindBoo]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

Don't just wander in and make stuff up. Militias were around before the revolutionary war, and they started out as recruits govenors and localities would enlist to help protect against French and Indian attackers, kind of like a national guard, just more local. They did this BC the crown couldnt effectively send its regulars in places of need, because there wasn't any cars, trains, etc. just good ole fashioned sailing ships, and horses. Once the war actually started, Washington started a standing army called continentals, these were the uniformed regulars. After the war, militias and a standing army were kept in place. Since a standing army would be very dangerous to "free society" in a Ceaser crossing the rubicon type of way, they needed to be balanced by something e.g. Militias. A standing army, loyal to one man, or the government as a whole would have its way with people, which is why militias were necessary, loyal only to their localities and the leaders of their militias they freely elected. Very hard to be corrupted by both the government and some power hungry charismatic leader. A defense for the local people against both the standing army regulars, and any other threats out there.

Do the slightest bit of research before you wantonly make claims

The militia's were still under command of the President. There was no standing army. Those are both in our Constitution. The militias were not there to protect against the Government of the people.They were the countries first line of defense until an army could be raised.

Dude the transcripts of the debates on the subject of militia vs standing army are all over the place. It was extensively debated and recorded. And no they did not want a standing army up, FOR THE VERY REASONS I STATED EARLIER. A standing army is a threat to free society, and armed citizens are the only defense to a standing army. But Madison saw the advantages of a standing army, vs a band of militias when it comes to foreign invaders, and he decided to upkeep and maintain a standing army. But civilian run militias were to remain in place because of the threat of a standing army, like I said balance was needed.

This is another example of someone trying to put their own words and motives into the founders works, just to try to find a loophole around the constitution. You can very easily go back and look up the actual founders motivations and words, all their debates, letters etc. to find what the founders actually meant with 2nd, and why they wanted it that way. It's very clear, and if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd and install your own new amendment. The 2nd is very clear on its own, even if you're doing mental gymnastics to get around it, those mental gymnastics are void when you actually read what the founders meant it to be...even though you shouldn't have too.

Appeal to ignorance coming in 5...4...3...

One more time. The militia'a and the 2nd were not there to protect the people from the government of the people. The government controlled the militia's.

I have no problem with gun control. Safety is here, Bullets there. Sites. Trigger.

 

[sakinago]

And "militias" (referred to in the 2nd) were separate from the regular uniform military,

There was no regular standing army. The militia's were made up of citizens, and were still under the command of the President. It was never meant to be protection against the government of the people.

Don't just wander in and make stuff up. Militias were around before the revolutionary war, and they started out as recruits govenors and localities would enlist to help protect against French and Indian attackers, kind of like a national guard, just more local. They did this BC the crown couldnt effectively send its regulars in places of need, because there wasn't any cars, trains, etc. just good ole fashioned sailing ships, and horses. Once the war actually started, Washington started a standing army called continentals, these were the uniformed regulars. After the war, militias and a standing army were kept in place. Since a standing army would be very dangerous to "free society" in a Ceaser crossing the rubicon type of way, they needed to be balanced by something e.g. Militias. A standing army, loyal to one man, or the government as a whole would have its way with people, which is why militias were necessary, loyal only to their localities and the leaders of their militias they freely elected. Very hard to be corrupted by both the government and some power hungry charismatic leader. A defense for the local people against both the standing army regulars, and any other threats out there.

Do the slightest bit of research before you wantonly make claims

The militia's were still under command of the President. There was no standing army. Those are both in our Constitution. The militias were not there to protect against the Government of the people.They were the countries first line of defense until an army could be raised.

Dude the transcripts of the debates on the subject of militia vs standing army are all over the place. It was extensively debated and recorded. And no they did not want a standing army up, FOR THE VERY REASONS I STATED EARLIER. A standing army is a threat to free society, and armed citizens are the only defense to a standing army. But Madison saw the advantages of a standing army, vs a band of militias when it comes to foreign invaders, and he decided to upkeep and maintain a standing army. But civilian run militias were to remain in place because of the threat of a standing army, like I said balance was needed.

This is another example of someone trying to put their own words and motives into the founders works, just to try to find a loophole around the constitution. You can very easily go back and look up the actual founders motivations and words, all their debates, letters etc. to find what the founders actually meant with 2nd, and why they wanted it that way. It's very clear, and if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd and install your own new amendment. The 2nd is very clear on its own, even if you're doing mental gymnastics to get around it, those mental gymnastics are void when you actually read what the founders meant it to be...even though you shouldn't have too.

Appeal to ignorance coming in 5...4...3...

One more time. The militia'a and the 2nd were not there to protect the people from the government of the people. The government controlled the militia's.

I have no problem with gun control. Safety is here, Bullets there. Sites. Trigger.

Dear god, so in your mind, the 2nd was there to say that the government was giving itself the right to bear arms, and that right should not be infringed upon (why would any government need to do that especially at that time in history)...or in the entire context of the the bill of rights (which were all negative rights enforced UPON GOVERNMENT ITSELF), as well as the context of the revolution itself was the people standing up to state...doesn't it make infinitely more sense to read the constitution (as it was clearly stated and meant), that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is barely second level thinking, barely. You don't even have to go back a read what the founders wrote and debated about the issue, and what they thought about a free society not existing in place where government has a monopoly of force. Just look at the freaking context. Did the government go and round up all the guns, and empty the armories outside of the government "sanctioned" militias? NO!!

But if you must actually read what they meant here ya go.
http://www.pacificwestcom.com/military/
Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment - William F. Marina
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

The Origin of the Chickenhawk Species

That's because the plutocracy, whose lawyers wrote your anti-democratic Constitution, were stingy, selfish, and unpatriotic. Despite their scribbling prostitutes' scare stories about a military takeover, the real reason for depending on calling up a militia was that they were too cheap to finance a strong military. Because of GreedHead betrayal, thousands of plebeian settlers were slaughtered by Indians.
President Monroe was frustrated from conquering the Caribbean by the refusal of the rich to finance a navy; President Polk was kept from annexing British Columbia and Alberta by the skinflint Scrooges.

 

[sakinago]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

The Origin of the Chickenhawk Species

That's because the plutocracy, whose lawyers wrote your anti-democratic Constitution, were stingy, selfish, and unpatriotic. Despite their scribbling prostitutes' scare stories about a military takeover, the real reason for depending on calling up a militia was that they were too cheap to finance a strong military. Because of GreedHead betrayal, thousands of plebeian settlers were slaughtered by Indians.
President Monroe was frustrated from conquering the Caribbean by the refusal of the rich to finance a navy; President Polk was kept from annexing British Columbia and Alberta by the skinflint Scrooges.

Again they wrote extensively about the dangers of a standing army, it's not like a standing army was never the cause of a coup or a source of significant oppression to citizens, ITS HAPPENED EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Not to mention, overbearing use of the military was one of the causes of the revolution...so you can stop making stuff up. I love how people think they can just insert their own storylines into reality, and build a fake world around themselves. And if you don't like the constitution of this country, move to one that you do like. If the constitution is that evil to you, move. Not even saying that to be rude. Hating the entirety of the laws that govern over you is no small matter that's easily ignored. If they were just sooo selfish, that their laws are royally screwing you, move, no one is forcing you to be here.

 

[Ame®icano]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

The Origin of the Chickenhawk Species

That's because the plutocracy, whose lawyers wrote your anti-democratic Constitution, were stingy, selfish, and unpatriotic. Despite their scribbling prostitutes' scare stories about a military takeover, the real reason for depending on calling up a militia was that they were too cheap to finance a strong military. Because of GreedHead betrayal, thousands of plebeian settlers were slaughtered by Indians.
President Monroe was frustrated from conquering the Caribbean by the refusal of the rich to finance a navy; President Polk was kept from annexing British Columbia and Alberta by the skinflint Scrooges.

What a load of crap.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The legal speed limit in the United States is maxed out at 70 MPH. Yet every manufacturer of any vehicle, car, truck, motorcycle, makes at least one model that is capable of going well past that limit. Dodge makes several models, including the Hellcat version of the Challenger. It has a top speed of 190 MPH. Chevrolet, Nissan, Toyota, Ford, and the list goes on and on.

Cars list their time from Zero to Sixty, as though this is a big selling point. How long it takes you to reach freeway speed in their car, as if we have to blast off the starting line and get to speed in less than four seconds on a daily basis. Cars are sold with front lock, or line lock, which locks the front wheels to allow you to spin the back wheels or smoke them. I personally don’t know why you would want this feature unless you feel you don’t spend enough on tires.

Drifting, or breaking the back end loose to slide around a corner is also illegal. Yet, several makers have cars that do this with ease, in fact, they have pretty much designed the cars to do it. Again, you can’t do it legally on the street, so how do the manufacturers get away with it?

They get away with it because it is a truism. Just because you can do a thing, doesn’t mean you will do a thing. Just because someone buys a Ferrari that can do 210 MPH doesn’t mean they’ll take off on the highway at that speed. Just because they can launch control off the line doesn’t mean they’ll leave the stoplight that way.

People buy these cars, and some go and get them customized. So they’ll do even more. They’ll set up the engine on a Nissan GTR so it goes from the stock 500 Horsepower, and get it up over a thousand as one example. The car already goes nearly three times the legal speed limit, so why does it need to go even faster?

Weapons are much the same. Just because you buy one that can do what was done in Las Vegas, doesn’t mean you will do that. There are millions of weapons, if each weapon was used in just one murder, the United States would run out of people before we ran out of guns.

But we don’t. We don’t run out of people. But let’s pretend that there is a weapon that is too much, too dangerous. What is it? Nuclear Weapons? Perhaps. Artillery? People own those, and always have through the entire life of this nation. When the Consitution was signed and went into effect, you could buy a cannon. A lot of people did to put on ships, protection from Pirates and Privateers. Some of them were given a Letter of Marque. This meant they were privateers of the United States Government. Authorized to fire on, and capture enemy ships.

You can still buy cannon today. Not just black powder, but actual field artillery. A man in Texas just bought a fully functional Sherman Tank. The same tanks that were used in World War II.

Now I suppose it’s possible that he will roll downtown in his tank and fire on a crowd. It’s also possible that he will be essentially harmless with it. Perhaps he wants to do something like this.



Freedom means I am free to do whatever I want, so long as I do not harm another. My rights end where YOURS begin. I like the Wiccan Rede where this come in. As long as ye harm none, do what ye will.

If you want to have an anti aircraft gun in your yard, fine with me. If you shoot it at me or mine, we have a problem. But so long as you don’t shoot it at anyone, you’re fine and dandy. Blast away at model airplanes flying in the sky above you. Or just shoot it at targets. It’s your world babe, and as long as you don’t hurt anyone, enjoy.

There are at least a hundred thousand of those bump stocks already sold. Possibly even a million of them. Yet we’ve never seen them used before. They are sloppy and inaccurate to my way of thinking, and I’m not a fan. But to each his own. Until he hurts someone, he’s free to do what he wants, and have a good time doing it. Live, and let live.

Your information on speed limits in incorrect. In many places, it is 75, 80, or no limit at all. Drove with a legal speed limit of 75 miles an hour in Texas just yesterday.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

At least not for more than two years at a time.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

The Origin of the Chickenhawk Species

That's because the plutocracy, whose lawyers wrote your anti-democratic Constitution, were stingy, selfish, and unpatriotic. Despite their scribbling prostitutes' scare stories about a military takeover, the real reason for depending on calling up a militia was that they were too cheap to finance a strong military. Because of GreedHead betrayal, thousands of plebeian settlers were slaughtered by Indians.
President Monroe was frustrated from conquering the Caribbean by the refusal of the rich to finance a navy; President Polk was kept from annexing British Columbia and Alberta by the skinflint Scrooges.

What a load of crap.

Buttboy for the Bosses

A pathetic and mindless bootlicking brownnose childishly adores the kleptocrats because he hated his Daddy for not getting rich and spoiling him

 

[sakinago]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, we don't have a standing army.

The Origin of the Chickenhawk Species

That's because the plutocracy, whose lawyers wrote your anti-democratic Constitution, were stingy, selfish, and unpatriotic. Despite their scribbling prostitutes' scare stories about a military takeover, the real reason for depending on calling up a militia was that they were too cheap to finance a strong military. Because of GreedHead betrayal, thousands of plebeian settlers were slaughtered by Indians.
President Monroe was frustrated from conquering the Caribbean by the refusal of the rich to finance a navy; President Polk was kept from annexing British Columbia and Alberta by the skinflint Scrooges.

What a load of crap.

Buttboy for the Bosses

A pathetic and mindless bootlicking brownnose childishly adores the kleptocrats because he hated his Daddy for not getting rich and spoiling him

I think we should 302 sage...they do not seem well.

 

[Leo123]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Some info.....'Bump Stocks' were legal because the definition of a fully auto weapon includes only those weapons designed (with internal mechanics) to be full auto. Those guns have already been banned since 1986. One can obtain an older auto but only with much government oversight and $$$.

Semi autos fire each time one pulls the trigger with one shot. You cannot hold down the trigger and make it fire during normal use HOWEVER....One can MAKE a semi-auto behave like a full auto just by holding the trigger and forcing the gun in one direction so that the whole gun starts auto firing. The Bump Stock just makes that technique easier to accomplish. Also, a semi-auto is not really made for firing magazine after magazine as there would be barrel/gun heating issues.

I just saw a video of a guy taking a standard semi-auto rifle, tying a rubber band around the trigger to hold it in place and then having it 'machine gun' until all the rounds were gone. Heck, remember in the old Western movies where a guy could 'fan' a revolver and have it fire bursts?