What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[Little-Acorn]

Then you had the 14th amendment which applied the bill of rights upon the states.

PART of the Bill of Rights.

For instance, the 1st amendment was originally intended to restrict only the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law...."). But the 2nd amendment, which does not restrict itself the way the 1st does, was originally intended to restrict all govts in the U.S.

When the 14th was enacted, it expanded the scope of the 1st amendment to restrict ALL govts, Federal, state, and local. But it did not expand the 2nd, which already applied to all of them from the day it was ratified.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I own an AR-15. I need it to defend myself, to defend the country from foreign invaders and to take back my country from a tyrannical out of control govt. That's an easy question to answer. Why is this thread so long?

Because the local leftist big-govt pushers are fighting like badgers to lie about the 2nd and pretend it doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?


Normal Americans need a gun such as an AR-15, to protect their rights from hysterical leftists who screech, "What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?" in the leftists' ongoing efforts to force law-abiding people give up their guns.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then you had the 14th amendment which applied the bill of rights upon the states.

PART of the Bill of Rights.

For instance, the 1st amendment was originally intended to restrict only the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law...."). But the 2nd amendment, which does not restrict itself the way the 1st does, was originally intended to restrict all govts in the U.S.

When the 14th was enacted, it expanded the scope of the 1st amendment to restrict ALL govts, Federal, state, and local. But it did not expand the 2nd, which already applied to all of them from the day it was ratified.

Also Little-Acorn, the 14th Amendment supposedly extended protection of the laws to all individuals under STATE jursidiction, and the Civil Rights laws were supposed to extend this to all PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

So why is this just "selectively enforced" for leftwing political points. Why can't the same be enforced for protecting rightwing beliefs equally.

Do we need to call a Citizens Constitutional Convention and sign shared resolutions recognizing political beliefs, and agree neither to establish them through govt nor prohibit them by banning or regulating them. And agree to separate by party. What is it going to take to stop pushing "separation of church and state" when it comes to rightwing beliefs, but then violate free choice and start "mandating through federal govt" when it comes to leftwings agenda.

When are citizens from all parties going to get pushed to the point of writing out these agreements and resolutions ourselves.

Are we close enough yet? That we could call for this and get it going? I'm ready, and some friends are from the Greens and Libertarians, mostly independents.

If we put together a citizens convention, would people chip in and make it work?

 

[Rustic]

The real question is why shouldn't a lawful american citizen be able to own a semi automatic rifle, which is the proper name for an "Assault weapon".

You read the article about the family of the AR 15 designer who said that their father (designer/builder of AR 15s) had zero intention of it being a weapon for civilians.

How about that?

It's just a sporting rifle, nothing more. Ar15s are not used on the battlefield. Shit for brains
Lol

 

[Rustic]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

You would not know a military grade weapon from a hole in the ground. Dip shit
Lol

 

[HUGGY]

What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

Nope. Just your normal American home invasion by criminals that want to beat, rob and murder you and rape your wife and children.

 

[emilynghiem]

What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

Nope. Just your normal American home invasion by criminals that want to beat, rob and murder you and rape your wife and children.

Thanks, HUGGY

Anyone who doesn't get it, or can't imagine
this ever happening to them, shouldn't dictate to others who HAVE had this happen to them:

Hey Lefties! LA Riots are an Example Of The Need For "Assault Rifles" - Freedom Outpost

When Assault Weapons Saved Koreatown | American Renaissance
www.amren.com/.../when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/
American Renaissance
Dec 24, 2012 - During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt ... in Koreatownwho fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault ...
Korean store owners defend their business

 

[peabody]

I have three pistols (Glock 27, US Govt. issue Colt 45, Browning
1911/22) that I like because they are dangerous and scary but I don't give a crap if they were outlawed. In fact, if they were outlawed, that would make them even funner to own.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have three pistols (Glock 27, US Govt. issue Colt 45, Browning
1911/22) that I like because they are dangerous and scary but I don't give a crap if they were outlawed. In fact, if they were outlawed, that would make them even funner to own.

Dear peabody the point being that YOU are not "dangerous"
and don't have "criminal intent"

The question remains, how can we focus on the criminal illness,
and not TREAT or DEPRIVE "LAW ABIDING" citizens as if "all people are criminals."

THAT's the issue.

The reason the left can't address is, is they keep rejecting Christians and SEGREGATE from that as a whole.
Well it turns out the spiritual approach to diagnosing and curing criminally ill, abuse or addicted conditions
IS THE SPIRITUAL HEALING that the Christians use. And have for centuries.

As long as the secular/liberal approach rejects and refuses to INCLUDE this,
then we have no answer. Just fighting over laws and who is abusing what laws, rights or power
instead of SOLVING THE REAL PROBLEM. DUH.

 

[FA_Q2]

...I digress. For all constitution law analysis one can never say an amendment is absolute. They have never been construed that way.

One can look no further than freedom of the press. Outright defamation is an actionable defense (too bad liberal judge have protected the liberal journalist that have perpetrated this).

1) You totally blew past the fact the Constitution is a limit on government, not citizens.

2) Yes, you can't use free speech to harm people nor can you use gun rights to harm people. If you want to call that a limit on rights, fine, but it's to protect others from harm. How does banning your XDM or Saiga protect others from harm? Shouldn't we also ban computers or typewriters to protect people from potential harm?

The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights upon the states and it limits government by design, but it also by default puts limits people. The two go hand and hand.

How does banning XDM (which I strongly oppose banning) or a Saiga (the fire power in that sucker provides me a ton of joy, but I could see a legit reason to ban. I mean one could do a hell of a lot of damage if he/she walked into a crowded area with a few 20 round drums. I digress) protect others from harm? Theoretically there would be less of these weapons out there and less people would get shot.

That is the supposed theory but in reality it does not flush out. Places where bans are put in place do not see a reduction in the overall homicide rate meaning that such bans are without merit as there is nothing showing the theory actually pans out.

That is where the real 'fantasy' is - the fantasy that limiting the legal ownership of a specific type of weapon or magazine is going to do anything to stop those willing to kill.