Are knives arms?

That's a tough one.
If George were here today, he'd see that we no longer had muskets.
We're not talking about today. We're talking about in his time.
If some maniac is going to shoot up a school with a musket, he'd shoot one child, reload over 30 seconds to a minute, and then shoot another kid.
In his day ';school shootings' were called 'indian raids'
Thus, Washington would approve of his frontiersmens' possession of AR15 - to stop these raids.
And... no one wuld use a musket to kill a bunch of kids- they'd use a tomahark or hatchet
I assume he'd say that an AR15 is too much firepower to put in the hands of idiots.
For no rational reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand.
Sometimes, people abuse freedom.
The only way to prevent this is to take away freedom.
Why should people have their freedoms removed because of your irrational fears?
They should not be readily available, and should be regulated.
You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, the above.
I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.
You have no rational basis for this position.
 
People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.

Plus, all the other crap the US military has.

Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?



Tell that to the Afghans.
 
There's the "National Switchblade Act" that banned switchblades for some reason.

That's very much relaxed these days.

Here in Florida, you can open carry a switchblade (or "automatic"), but can't slip it into your pocket to conceal it unless you have a concealed carry permit...
 
Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example, AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.

Would you be agreeable to someone owning a Mini-14; what is commonly referred to as a "ranch rifle". It's what I learned to shoot with in Boy Scouts. Would that be okay?

This is the Mini-14:

Shootingtimesministandard-F.jpg
 
They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
carry weapons and for what purpose.
I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.
Do you know any history at all? The Revolution was a revolt against a government that we felt was denying us our god-given rights as Englishmen. It had nothing to do with maritime rights.
 
Would you be agreeable to someone owning a Mini-14; what is commonly referred to as a "ranch rifle". It's what I learned to shoot with in Boy Scouts. Would that be okay?

This is the Mini-14:

Shootingtimesministandard-F.jpg
Nice weapon. Semi-auto just like the AR-15. The Mini-14 has a nice wooden stock. The Ar-15 is easier to modify.

 
Do you know any history at all? The Revolution was a revolt against a government that we felt was denying us our god-given rights as Englishmen. It had nothing to do with maritime rights.



He's confusing the war of 1812 with the revolution
 
He's confusing the war of 1812 with the revolution
.

In the War of 1812 ... The British Regulars bit off more than they could chew in the Battle of New Orleans as well.

They got their rear ends completely ruined, by militia for the most part.
A reporter at the time described the British lines on the battlefield as being a solid carpet of red and dead bodies.
They had 5000 more experience British troops offshore and decided to turn tail and run before getting them killed too.

It took the troops and militia under Gen. Jackson and the Privateer Jean Lafitte, 45 minutes to win that one ...
Suffering 13 dead and 39 wounded to the British with 291 dead and 1216 wounded.

Some credit can also be given to the Choctaw who were simply listed as "Belligerents" in the fight ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
Nice weapon. Semi-auto just like the AR-15. The Mini-14 has a nice wooden stock. The Ar-15 is easier to modify.


So is the Mini-14 more acceptable for personal ownership than an AR-15?
 
Says the guy who does not believe George Washington would-fully- approve of his militiamane and frontier families having an AR15 and a crate box full of loaded 30rd magazines.

George Washington might just as well say, "AR15s are too much fire power to put into the hands of one man."

It took a minute to 30 seconds to reload a musket.
 
George Washington might just as well say, "AR15s are too much fire power to put into the hands of one man."

It took a minute to 30 seconds to reload a musket.



No, he would have said that whatever the military is using the PEOPLE should have too.

He was VERY clear on that.
 
So is the Mini-14 more acceptable for personal ownership than an AR-15?
I don’t own either. If I ever decide I have a need for such a weapon I would likely buy the AR-15 as it can be modified to suit my purposes easier than the Ruger. For example I might want to change to a more powerful round if I planed to use it for hunting.

 

Forum List

Back
Top