A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously, you are a disgrace to all combat engineers. I cannot believe someone like you is actually in the US Army. They have really lowered their standards.... BTW when you took your oath it was to defend the Constitution.

No worries, his is stolen valor.

 

[whitehall]

No offense to a fellow Vet but the "combat engineer" who mows the airfields for the 82 Army Airborne really isn't qualified (anymore than I am) to judge a "assault weapon" let alone rant about the fans of precision shooting.

 

[westwall]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

SCOTUS never ruled on them.

 

[Resnic]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

 

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

If you do not know that the 12 Hebrew tribes went to Arabia after the Roman Diaspora Decree, than you really don't know anything about Jewish history.
That is about the most significant time period in Jewish history.
All I can suggest is that you read up a little:

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews? | Islam Ahmadiyya

www.alislam.org

Here are the tribe names:
{...
Some of the Jewish tribes of Arabia historically attested include:

• Banu Harith or Bnei Chorath[3][4][5]
• Banu Qaynuqa[3][4]
• Banu Shutayba[3][4]
• Jafna Clan of the Banu Tha'laba who were exiled members of the Banu Ghassan - while both tribes were not Jewish, they did have Jewish members; whereas the Jafna Clan was solely Jewish[3][4][6][unreliable source?]
• Banu Zaura[7]
• Banu Zurayq[3][4] In Islamic lore, Labid ben Asam was a Jewish sorcerer who cast a spell on Muhammad that made him ill for several months and prevented him from having sexual relations with his wives[8]
• Banu Quda'a — Himyarite tribe of converts to Judaism[9]
• Banu Qurayza — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Nadir — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Juw — sub-clan of the Banu Qaynuqa, Fled to North Africa.
• Banu Aws
• Banu Awf

...}

As to Sharia, thing like stoning adulterers is not in the Quran.
Clearly the Quran says that only beheading is to be used for executions, because it is quickest and least painful.
Stoning adulterers comes instead from the Judaic Old Testament.

There has never been any denial of weapons or horses to any religion, by Moslems.
In fact, when the Crusaders invaded, Jews fought along side Moslems against the Crusaders.
We know because they were massacred by the Crusaders when captured, and this is well recorded fact.

you are "learning" about islamic history and the history of jews from those wiki
articles WRITTEN BY MUSLIM SOURCES . There are jews who are THAT NAIVE
AND STUPID. Try to keep in mind-----my very own hubby was born in a very classical
shariah shit hole which------actually can be considered PART OF ARABIA. Your statements
about "shariah" and the history of jews of the Roman empire are PSYCHOTIC. Jewish villages
in "palestine" and the sorrounding lands were massacred by crusaders----but not in arabia.

I did not say the Jews in Arabia were massacred by Crusaders.
But it is well known the Jews in Palestine and anywhere the Crusaders went, were massacred by Crusaders, so the Jews fought along side the Moslems and against the Crusaders.
So they could not have been forbidden weapons by the Moslems.
And there is nothing in the Quran ever about anyone being forbidden weapons or horses.
And in fact it would be impossible for anyone to survive without weapons or horses, as they would be essential in the Mideast.

well---you happen to be wrong-----of course MERCENARY slaves did use weapons and YOU are right-----life in arabia is impossible without weapons and horses and camels which is why
persons under EXTREME OPPRESSION like the jews of arabia were DENIED the use of weapons
and horses and camels. keep in mind I have relatives who LIVED THE FILTH YOU SO LOVE.
As to the jews in arabia-----the GENOCIDE was comprehensive in the arabian Peninsula----
but not in the part of arabia called Yemen. Gee you are so ignorant of reality. Somehow you
believe the HISTORY ACCORDING TO WIKKI

{...
Yemenite Jews or Yemeni Jews or Teimanim (from Hebrew: יהודי תימן‎ Yehudei Teman; Arabic: اليهود اليمنيون‎) are those Jews who live, or once lived, in Yemen. Between June 1949 and September 1950, the overwhelming majority of Yemen's Jewish population was transported to Israel in Operation Magic Carpet. After several waves of persecution throughout Yemen, the vast majority of Yemenite Jews now live in Israel, while smaller communities live in the United States and elsewhere. Only a handful remain in Yemen. The few remaining Jews experience intense, and at times violent, anti-Semitism on a daily basis.[8]

Yemenite Jews have a unique religious tradition that distinguishes them from Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, and other Jewish groups. They have been described as "the most Jewish of all Jews" and "the ones who have preserved the Hebrew language the best".[9] Yemenite Jews fall within the "Mizrahi" (eastern) category of Jews, though they differ from other Mizrahi Jews who have undergone a process of total or partial assimilation to Sephardic liturgy and custom. While the Shami sub-group of Yemenite Jews did adopt a Sephardic-influenced rite, this was mostly due to it being forced upon them,[10] and did not reflect a demographic or general cultural shift among the vast majority of Yemenite Jews.
...}

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

 

[Richard-H]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

Your statement about Swiss gun ownership is extremely misleading. I work for a Swiss Company. All my Swiss male coworkers served in the Swiss military. I've asked them about gun ownership.

In Switzerland everyone is required to serve in the military and therefore required to purchase a gun. The guns are kept in armories, not in private homes. Ammunition is extremely regulated.

So while technically it's true that gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland, they do not have free access to the guns they own or to the ammunition. Effectively gun ownership is very tightly controlled.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

There is NO SUCH THING as a collective right. It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and nothing more than a pretext for DENYING rights.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

You think the opinion of a college student is proof of anything?

 

[Richard-H]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

 

[TNHarley]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

It isnt reasonable for you to tell me how to live my life. Me and my guns do nothing to anyone. GFY federal supremacist scum

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

 

[Richard-H]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

It isnt reasonable for you to tell me how to live my life. Me and my guns do nothing to anyone. GFY federal supremacist scum

I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm telling you that your ability to threaten the lives of other people should be limited.

If your concept of your personal freedom includes the ability to kill other people in mass, then you should not have that freedom.

Everyone's personal freedom is limited when that personal freedom infringes on other people's personal freedoms.

In this case, people's basic right to life is threatened by your ownership of guns designed for mass killings.

 

[TNHarley]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

And I went into the army rangers in 1998.


So my words carry the same validity as yours and honestly all I see is just the closed minded hippie who left the service to reject everything about it and spends his days shaking his head and lecturing others about what they want and chose is incorrect while only speaking about very specific and overblown examples with responses that stretch reality quite a bit.

At the end of the day it about hunting, no one says that really except the people arguing against guns. And as a means of defense yes it quite valuable in certain situations. And a simple google will show you countless news stories of a man protecting his family with a gun, someone defending themselves against an attacker, and so on. To pretend people don't on a regular basis use guns to protect their own life or the lives of others is very narrow minded and ignorant of reality.

I'll also give you an example of owning guns does not lead to violence. Switzerland. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, yup. But yet Switzerland also has just about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. But, they also lead the pack in Europe for education, public health and employment rates. Guns are not the problem. In America society is the problem and your damn it all attitude and closed mindedness is part of the issue.

If you don't like guns that's fine, you don't have to own them. But you don't get to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. As a soldier (I highly doubt you were) then you understand part of freedom is the ability to chose. Some people chose to own guns, some don't. And that's all their is to it.

Now pull up your socks and act like a man.

It's amazing that you call gun control advocates "closed-minded". 'Gun control advocates' advocate for very limited and reasonable gun regulations. It's anti-gun control advocates that will make no compromise. They want all type of guns to be available to everyone - against all reason and without any valid purpose. They hide behind misinterpretations of the Second Amendment.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields. Ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety. Make gun owners liable for damages caused by their guns.

There are lots of reasonable suggestions made by gun control advocates. The anti-gun control advocates want anarchy.

It isnt reasonable for you to tell me how to live my life. Me and my guns do nothing to anyone. GFY federal supremacist scum

I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm telling you that your ability to threaten the lives of other people should be limited.

If your concept of your personal freedom includes the ability to kill other people in mass, then you should not have that freedom.

Everyone's personal freedom is limited when that personal freedom infringes on other people's personal freedoms.

In this case, people's basic right to life is threatened by your ownership of guns designed for mass killings.

So you didnt say this?
If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields
Hey genius, that would be telling me how to live my life

 

[TNHarley]

Everyone's personal freedom is limited when that personal freedom infringes on other people's personal freedoms.

Absolutely correct. Good job!

people's basic right to life is threatened by your ownership of guns designed for mass killings.

More lies, of course.
You almost got an A+! Keep trying!

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

In other words, you stopped reading it when you realized that it debunked your views. It's an analysis of precisely what your asking about - by people who have studied the arguments of the founding fathers:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm telling you that your ability to threaten the lives of other people should be limited.

That's not freedom. Everybody has the ability to threaten others WITHOUT firearms.

If your concept of your personal freedom includes the ability to kill other people in mass, then you should not have that freedom.

How far are you going down that rabbit hole? Flying an airplane has the ability to kill many people. You reasoning is FUCKED UP.

Everyone's personal freedom is limited when that personal freedom infringes on other people's personal freedoms.

So, show me how the MERE POSSESSION of guns infringes on your freedoms.

In this case, people's basic right to life is threatened by your ownership of guns designed for mass killings.

By the mere ownership of a type of gun, other people's lives are threatened? What about knives?

Your unreasonable fear is YOUR problem and is no reason for my rights to be denied.

Wait until we roll all gun laws back and get machine guns. You will probably shit yourself on a daily basis.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“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.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

Here is a thorough discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment.

It clearly shows that the original intent was a collective right, not an individual right:

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf;jsessionid=0265E80E847802EB8BC5A919EC3A0C6A?sequence=1

So, no, you dont.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted.

The author discusses the original intend in far more detail than I can.

But of course you ignored it and pretend that I didn't answer you challenge.

I read the first couple pages, then scrolled through the rest. All it was talking about was other peoples theories and interpretations. If it has info that actually came from the founders, please post.

In other words, you stopped reading it when you realized that it debunked your views. It's an analysis of precisely what your asking about - by people who have studied the arguments of the founding fathers:

I asked for quotes from the founders and give me a bunch of theories.
If you dont have any, just shut the fuck about it. You save a little face and i dont waste time reading your irrelevant bullshit.