A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fine. I have a shotgun, several rifles, and handguns. None are weapons of war.

Really. Let's put that to the test, shall we?

What kind of shotgun?

What kind of rifle?

This harmless looking "hunting rifle" is not a weapon of war, is it:

 

[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

I just got through reading up to page 20 of this opinion piece you claimed was a through discussion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, and it was NOTHING.
It was a collection of modern references with their own unsubstantiated opinions, including a long attempt to argue against originalism completely.
Not once did I find a single quote from the Founders, Federalists, anti-Federalists, or anyone else from the period.

The whole idea of a "collective right" is essentially insane.
There is no way any right could ever be "collective".
To think there could be, means a complete lack of understanding what a "right" is.

If you understood what a "right" is, you would know it can't be created or destroyed.
It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA.
That does not mean it is magically protected, but that deep down everyone actually knows it is correct.
Like everyone actually knows rape, slavery, murder, theft, etc., is wrong, if nothing else because they know force is needed and it will be resisted.
The fact force can be used to deny rights to individuals, in no way implies that rights do not exist and are not intrinsic.

So then what could a "collective right" even be, since groups are not at all intrinsic?
When people refer to collective rights, like to have an armed militia to protect a country from invasion, that is just the amalgamation of all the individua rights of self defense. No new right has been created, and there is nothing intrinsic any more than any group of nations, states, cities, tribes, or families can create and join alliances for mutual defense. There collective mutually beneficial groupings may be helpful, but certainly are not inherent or permanent.

Historically it is obvious defense is an individual right. When Jefferson writes about the right of rebellion in the Declaration of Independence, it is only individual inherent rights he is talking about. A government that violates the rights of any one single individual, then must be utterly defeated because it then could it could just as easily harm anyone. The collective concept is just the pragmatic fact there is more strength in unity, but has nothing at all to do with the original fact that human society is based on empathy that is intrinsic to our DNA. When an individual lacks empathy, we consider them pathologically defective. The fact no one should be willing to accept injustice to another, does not mean justice is a collective right because the mechanism is individual. We all individually feel injustice is wrong.

But getting back to the pragmatics, it is obvious defense has to be an individual right. There were essentially no police back then, there were far more threats, and even if there were something like police, they can almost never get there in time to do any good. Since the real life threats are distributed, then so must the defensive arms be distributed as well, for them to be any good.
To collectively defend against invasion is something that rarely happens or is necessary.
To individually defend against rape, murder, theft, wild animals, gangs, pirates, etc., are the most common, often, and realistic threats.
Collective defense is just the sum of individual defense, and is totally and completely dependent upon the strength of individual defense.
For if one tries to artificially create a collective defense not based on strong individual defense, such as with a separate mercenary force, then you have just created a new threat that likely is or will become the greatest threat of all.
So it should NEVER be done.
No mercenary military should ever be allowed.
That is exactly the mistake we made around 1906 and resulted in the evils of things like the Pentagon lying to us about Ho Chi Minh, WMD in Iraq, Assad using chemical weapons, etc.
We made the same mistake by creating mercenary police as well, and now nightly we see police abusing and murdering Blacks, elderly women, children, etc.

Every time you try to collectively solve a problem that is actually an individual one, you only make things worse.

Couldn't get beyond page 20? I guess 92 pages is too much for you.

You say:

"It is an intrinsic to each individual at birth, from our DNA."

So we have gun ownership in our DNA? Does that mean people who lived before guns were invented had no DNA?

Unlike the article I posted, the rest of your blathering isn't worth reading.

We have an intrinsic right to self-defense and self-determination. The tools vary and as tools for one get better, they must get better for all or the right to self-defense and self-determination is GONE.

You should consider a different place if you don't want to live free.

So, you are going to take on an attack helicopter with your AR? Good luck with that popgun.

Oh, so I should just surrender now?

You're making the argument that I need better, more sophisticated, more deadly weapons. You're making the argument for ZERO restrictions.

I agree. There should be none.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unfortunately, it's not limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind". The AR-15 has the capability of killing many, many people at a very high rate.

Of course it does. You're complaining that a gun has the ability to do what a gun does?

How insightful.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Well yes, most sane people know exactly what it says. And most of the gun nuts would never make it in a well regulated militia. There have to be limits, for instance, living in an area that planes approach an airport and having twin .50's in your backyard would be excellent for worry. We already limit the kind of people that can own a fully automatic weapon. And one which can fire 30 rounds in under ten seconds is virtually the same as an automatic weapon.

Amendment II​

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

whats a well regulated militia?

 

[BluesLegend]

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

The Constitution was made to be amended.

^^^ got his constitutional law degree mail order. According to the natural rights tradition, which deeply influenced the American founders, individuals had an inalienable right to defend themselves against violence. It was to protect this right, among others, that society and government were formed. Within society, citizens had a right to defend themselves not only against private violence, but also against tyranny and oppression by the government itself. But this right could not be effectively exercised without arms. According to this view, the Second Amendment was intended, at least in part, to enable individuals to exercise their natural right to self-defense.

Fine. I have a shotgun, several rifles, and handguns. None are weapons of war. So if you think they are not adequate for self defense, just try kicking down my door.

You're strawman is a fail, so called 'assault' rifles are NOT weapons of war so stop lying.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Look at these scary-looking WEAPONS OF WAR (actually used in war):

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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

It is. It is limited to defending yourself from predators of the human kind

Unfortunately, it's not limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind". The AR-15 has the capability of killing many, many people at a very high rate.

Any gun that is limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind", is not in question.

Do you know WHY the Founders RECOGNIZED the GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.
False premise. You assume weapons are designed for a single purpose when they may be used for many interchangeably. Any weapon used for hunting may also be used in warfare. Most weapons that will kill a deer or a duck are equally effective at killing people.

"I can kill you with this post-it pad...and that's a slow painful death"

The limits on gun ownership is for guns that can kill many, many people at a very high rate.

If you need to shoot 8 rounds in 4 seconds to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting...that's not a sport.

Perhaps you should be getting your eyes examined, or practicing a bit more at the range.

False issue. Proposed restrictions are in no way limited to guns that can "kill many people at a high rate". A pump shotgun is as capable of killing as many people at a high rate as an AR-15. Circumstances and definitions are critical. Bolt action rifles are in fact as deadly as simi-autos under some circumstances and more deadly in many. It is not the weapon that is deadly; but the projectiles that it fires. AR-15s can fire several small fast projectiles rapidly. A shotgun musket or cannon can fire many projectiles in a single shot. No weapon will kill you any deader than another. And you do not have the right to determine what someone else needs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

If you want to hunt, use a hunting rifle, not a rifle designed for battlefields.

Hey, here is a rifle that looks pretty non-scary. I bet it was not designed for the battlefield and would be great for hunting.

Note rifle

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Totally wrong.
Not only do the Swiss have totally free access to the guns they own, but they are given the de-militarized rifle they had while in the mandatory military service. They keep it in their own home and can used it whenever they want. But it is true the are given cans of ammunition they are not supposed to open unless there is an emergency. However, they can also use as much free ammunition at the range whenever they want. Your Swiss sources are totally wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

While I agree it does infringe upon others to be able to commit mass murder, that ship has sailed long ago and there is no way to legislate it back.
That is because of the level of technology.
The genie is long out of the bottle.

And the most common and easiest way to commit mass murder is not with an expensive rifle that is so loud it gives you away, but with arson or something that does not require you to actually be there. For example, if one used a high pressure pump, they could force deadly toxins back into the water supply system and potentially kill millions that way, and not even get caught.
And that does not even include simple ways of killing groups of people, without getting caught, like a drone packed with explosives.

The biggest problem with your post that totally destroys it is the implication you think there are firearms you can buy that are "designed for mass killings".
The whole point of the .223 cal. round used in AR-15s and the M-16, M-4, etc., is specifically that it was designed to not be lethal at all.
It is the weakest bullet the military ever decided to use, and it was under the belief that wounding the enemy put more people out of combat than just killing them, because each wounded person took 7 other people off the front line, to care for them.
The .223 round is so weak, it is not allowed for deer hunting in a lot of states.
Compare them yourself. The left is the AR-15 from Vietnam era, while the right is WWII 7.62.

 

[Rigby5]

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 link you put up and it clearly said pretty much nothing.
In fact, it spent more time arguing against originalism entirely.

First of all there can NEVER be a "collective right" because rights by definition and origin are inherent to individuals only.
Second is that in the Founder's days, there were no police at all in most places, there was no fast travel, and dangers were vastly greater, so local defense was far more important than now even.

 

[rylah]

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.
...}

Actually the Ashcenaz and Yemen while being geographically the most distant communities,
are the most similar traditions.

 

[irosie91]

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.
...}

Actually the Ashcenaz and Yemen while being geographically the most distant communities,
are the most similar traditions.

SO TRUE!!!! and I----the Ashkenazia in MY little family hear about it all the time. Some of
the CONTINUAL interaction over the Millennia between far flung jews and YEMEN is amazing.
Hubby told me that his GREAT GRANDFATHER was a follower of BAAL SHEM TOV---read everything he wrote. ????? How he got his hands on the stuff ?-----well---he did---somehow

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Define assault weapon. If you cannot do that, please STFU about this topic.

 

[miketx]

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.

Lying pos.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

An AR-15 was NOT designed for the battlefield, you mental midget.

 

[hadit]

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

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Thank you for being the voice of reason here

Yes the Constitution was made to be amended, but the right to bear arms hasn't been... well ever. The Second Amendment isn't there to say that civilians that serve in the military can have guns. It's meant as a protection so that civilians can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. ie. Like the British Empire.

When the government takes away guns, and then it creates the opportunity to take away more and more rights.

Your little AR15 isn't going to stop the U.S army, which has tactical nuclear missiles, M1 Abrams Tanks, and a fleet of drones.

And yes, I've served in the Army, so I know this very well

If you've served as you say, then you were taught about our misadventures around the world where we were embroiled in nations that we were attempting to subdue. We easily conquered their militaries, but faced a never ending battle with the civilian population that was armed to the teeth. The Soviet Union found out what it was like to take on a nation that had armed citizens and ultimately had to leave in defeat. The point is, you're talking about someone using the American military to subdue and control the American population. Let's see what would happen:

1. A despot would have to rise to power and have in place a power structure willing to carry out orders pitting the American military against the civilian population.
2. When the orders were sent out to attack civilians, a significant number of military personnel would rebel.
3. Some of those tanks, drones, and advanced weapons would fall into the hands of civilians. Suddenly the battle would not be so lopsided.

The point of having weapons is not to overcome the military, but to make controlling the civilians too costly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

It is. It is limited to defending yourself from predators of the human kind

Unfortunately, it's not limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind". The AR-15 has the capability of killing many, many people at a very high rate.

Any gun that is limited to "defending yourself from predators of the human kind", is not in question.

So do explosives. Yet, you can easily buy all the components needed to blow up a building with hundreds of people inside, for example Oklahoma City's Federal Building.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Assault rifle is a lefty propaganda term.