Learning the wrong lesson. Gun Control.

[miketx]

AR 15 is not a military weapon, idiot.

The semantic defence. Hilarity.

You are a liar as always. There is no comparison between it and real military weapons.

 

[cnm]

Here in the US? Or here in New Zealand where the magazine limit is 7 rounds?

In NZ, where AR/AK derived weapons have a very short future.

 

[cnm]

You are a liar as always. There is no comparison between it and real military weapons.

Apart from maybe missing a bayonet lug, a flash hider and selective fire. Right. No Comparison.

 

[miketx]

Here in the US? Or here in New Zealand where the magazine limit is 7 rounds?

In NZ, where AR/AK derived weapons have a very short future.

Too bad that country is filled with cowards. Perhaps they could take you in?

 

[miketx]

You are a liar as always. There is no comparison between it and real military weapons.

Apart from maybe missing a bayonet lug, a flash hider and selective fire. Right. No Comparison.

Yeah, troll, like a flashlight has more batteries than a trombone.

 

[2aguy]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, and has never been used by the military.

Next.....the pump action shotgun is a current military weapon.

The Bolt action rifle is a current military weapon.

Gun free zones are attracting mass public shooters...how do we know? Because actual mass public shooters who are captured and the dead ones who leave notes state they choose their location to attack looking for gun free zones.

 

[2aguy]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

What the heck do you call it. Its not a hunting rifle. If it is you had best go practice target shooting. I get it , I use to love to fire the M16 on the firing range, esp at night. Yes the AK 15 with most use for mass shootings is an "assault rifle".

In addition, the speed in which the AR cycles its bolt as compared to the manual cycling of a bolt-action means more potential shots on target or multiple shots effortlessly carried out on multiple targets.

“A semi-auto changed my life,” Eric Mayer, who runs AR15hunter.com, told Time Magazine. “I’m able to make the (shot) because I don’t have to run the bolt (and) lose the target in my scope.”Why hunters are trading in traditional hunting rifles for the AR-15

Pistols are the main gun for mass public shootings, not rifles.

 

[Soupnazi630]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The ar 15 is not a military weapon but yes people should have the right to keep such weapons.

Being fearful is a personal problem which no one has the right to demand that others fix.

 

[tycho1572]

Some people, like Penelope, live in a life of perpetual fear. These are the same type of people who go overboard on topics they don’t fully understand.

 

[2aguy]

What will you do when the next mass shooting is perpetrated with a break-open shotgun?

Be thankful for the limited casualties. You know, it's as though you've never thought why military weapons have large capacity detachable magazines. Oh well, the denial of US gun nuts is legendary.

That isn't a military weapon....a pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon as is the bolt action rifle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I could misapply the famous Ben Franklin quote here, but why? Let’s get to dealing with truth.

There were several reasons why the Second Amendment was passed. People tend to fixate on one, or another, of the reasons. But as I said above, we are dealing with truth. The Truth is that the Founders wanted to insure that this nation could never be invaded by a foreign power. They had just won a war where the Militia, that is to say the citizens who took up personal arms to fight the enemy, had played a major part. So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.

But there is more. The Founders also knew that man was capable of a lot of things, good and bad. They knew that the Kings of Europe got power by subjugation of the population. An armed population would insure that the American Government would never be able to subjugate the citizens.

Yes, there is even more. The Founders also realized that there would be dangers in the frontiers, where threats to survival existed, in two legged, and four legged form.

I could type for a hour giving you all the various reasons that the Second Amendment was proposed, approved, and ratified. But here is another truth. None of those reasons matter to the anti gun people.

This is where your Patriotism comes into question. The desire to Support and Defend the Constitution, not just parts of it, but all of it. It is my almost certainly arrogant opinion that supposed Christians who attack someone claiming that God hates this, or that, from the Bible, are not truly Christian. They have to deal with the entire Bible, not just the portion they are quoting. They have to understand the message behind the Bible, and the lessons of God’s love, and His desires. They miss that message when they pick one small phrase out of a billion and run with it.

There was an episode of Major Dad that comes to mind. The High School of his oldest Step Daughter had established a Dress Code. The Daughter wrote an article for the School Newspaper critical of the policy. Major Dad went in to meet with the Teacher and discuss the article. The teacher asked several questions, and the Marine Major agreed that rules mattered, and it was incumbent upon people to obey the rules, and dress codes mattered. Then the Teacher said. “So I can see you agree that this article should not be published.” To this the Major said No Ma’am. He explained that somewhere in the school was a Civics Textbook, and in the book was the First Amendment, including Freedom of the press. He had sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. All of it. Including the right of the press to write articles that were controversial.

That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right. Even if the person using the right, or claiming it, is someone I disagree with. It does not matter. The individual, or the event, is not, and never can be, greater than the right for the future. No matter how horrific the act might be, the larger question, the Constitution, must endure.

So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation. Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul. It is our dedication to those rights that determines the future. Because Democracy is not what we have. Democracy is where a group votes to take from the individual. We have a Republic. That is where the rights of the Individual, matter more than the desires of the group. The right of the individual to denounce the Government they disapprove of, is sacrosanct. It is sacred. It must be defended by the majority, even if, especially if, they disagree with what the individual is saying.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. If you enjoy your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of the people you disagree with. When I hear someone saying something that I disagree with, or is insulting. The first thing I think is Thank God for the First Amendment. When I hear that someone has bought a gun, I think Thank God for the Second Amendment. When a Judge throws out Evidence that is gotten illegally, and a criminal walks free. I think Thank God. Because those rights are being eroded far too fast now. And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all. And that will be the death of America.

“So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.”

Wrong.

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment which supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘insurrectionist dogma’ – the Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they just created.

“This is where your Patriotism comes into question.”

Wrong.

Americans can debate the issues and disagree in good faith, having nothing to do with ‘patriotism.’

And Americans who support certain firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law are just as patriotic as those who oppose such measures.

“That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right.”

Your ‘feelings’ are as simplistic as they are ridiculous.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

To be faithful to the Constitution, to ‘believe’ in the Constitution is to accept and support that Constitutional case law, to acknowledge the fact that no right is ‘unlimited,’ and the fact that government (the people) have the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

“So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation.”

Wrong.

No one ‘hates’ the Second Amendment – to advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘hate’ the Second Amendment.

“Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul.”

Ignorant and wrong.

The people have the authority to enact laws and measures which place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights; indeed, it is settled and accepted that laws enacted at the behest of the people are presumed to be Constitutional out of deference for the will of the people (see, e.g. US v. Morrison (2000)).

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process – a law or measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court determines that to be the case.

“And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all.”

Wrong.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Again, advocating for firearm regulatory measures which comport with Second Amendment case law is not to ‘take away’ anyone’s Second Amendment rights; and none of the propose regulations have been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bet the time of AR/AK derivatives that can take large magazines is shrinking fast here. I approve.

Good. You approve. Help me out. Which of these is an assault weapon that should be banned?


View attachment 250836 View attachment 250837

Tell me which of these are bad, or good, and acceptable, or unacceptable, your choice, and why.

Lawmaking bodies, reflecting the will of the people, have the authority to determine what is or is not an assault weapon.

An assault weapons exist as a fact of law, not the consequence of its appearance or how it functions.

And given the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of measures placing limits and restrictions on firearms designated to be assault weapons, such restrictions and measures are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ultimate goal is to remove all firearms from the law abiding. Once semi automatics are banned, and criminals and mentally ill still use either them, or other firearms to kill, then they will go after all the others including common bolt action, lever action, pump, revolvers, and single shot firearms.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy – as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

No one wants to ‘take away’ your guns; no one can ‘take away’ your guns.

This idiocy is delusional paranoia, completely devoid of fact and merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They support tyranny.
They believe in fascism.
Therefore according to them, The People should be rendered defenseless and unable to resist.

The state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the people remained armed.

Wrong.

The state and the people are one in the same; the people participate in elections and their elected representatives enact laws and measures at the behest of the people in accordance with the Constitution.

Our rights and protected liberties are safeguarded by the First Amendment, not he Second, protected by our democratic institutions, the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law – not by a ‘force of arms.’

Tyranny can never manifest as long as we defend our democratic institutions, the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law, and oppose lawless armed insurrectionism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

First of all the AR15 is not a military weapon,and second? Show me where separation of church and state is listed in the Constitution.

Separation of church and state is in fact in the Constitution along with an individual right to possess a handgun and the right to self-defense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

What the heck do you call it. Its not a hunting rifle. If it is you had best go practice target shooting. I get it , I use to love to fire the M16 on the firing range, esp at night. Yes the AK 15 with most use for mass shootings is an "assault rifle".

In addition, the speed in which the AR cycles its bolt as compared to the manual cycling of a bolt-action means more potential shots on target or multiple shots effortlessly carried out on multiple targets.

“A semi-auto changed my life,” Eric Mayer, who runs AR15hunter.com, told Time Magazine. “I’m able to make the (shot) because I don’t have to run the bolt (and) lose the target in my scope.”Why hunters are trading in traditional hunting rifles for the AR-15

Here ya go dumbass...
AK15? Do realize how rare that firearm is?
Or are you such a dumbass you cant differentiate the AR15 and the AK47 ?

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

• It must be capable of selective fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17]
• Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

Wrong.

Again, the people determine what is or is not an assault weapon, not the military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've fired every thing from a .22 pistol to a heavy machine gun you people do not know what the fuck your talking about. You want to ban shit because of cosmetics.

If you want to pretend a large removable magazine on a semi automatic is inconsequential, well, that shows you know shit about firearms.

Well in New Zealand, the law is that your magazines may only hold seven rounds. Less than the Ten that gun control advocates say is more than enough. How did that law work out?

As well as laws prohibiting murder – should laws prohibiting murder be repealed because they ‘don’t work.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you don’t know anything about the weapons in question.

Your smugness is exceeded only by your inability to parse large capacity detachable magazines.

Do you know anything about firearms? Anything at all? Besides any experience you had as a child, I’m guessing last year, when you pointed your finger at someone and went “pew-pew”?

You truly are a childish twit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

First of all the AR15 is not a military weapon,and second? Show me where separation of church and state is listed in the Constitution.

Separation of church and state is in fact in the Constitution along with an individual right to possess a handgun and the right to self-defense.

Post the first part with a link.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

What the heck do you call it. Its not a hunting rifle. If it is you had best go practice target shooting. I get it , I use to love to fire the M16 on the firing range, esp at night. Yes the AK 15 with most use for mass shootings is an "assault rifle".

In addition, the speed in which the AR cycles its bolt as compared to the manual cycling of a bolt-action means more potential shots on target or multiple shots effortlessly carried out on multiple targets.

“A semi-auto changed my life,” Eric Mayer, who runs AR15hunter.com, told Time Magazine. “I’m able to make the (shot) because I don’t have to run the bolt (and) lose the target in my scope.”Why hunters are trading in traditional hunting rifles for the AR-15

Here ya go dumbass...
AK15? Do realize how rare that firearm is?
Or are you such a dumbass you cant differentiate the AR15 and the AK47 ?

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

• It must be capable of selective fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17]
• Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
• Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

Wrong.

Again, the people determine what is or is not an assault weapon, not the military.

Retardism on display.