Assault rifles for self defense

[bripat9643]

yet a government contract is not a right as defined by the constitution. do you still not understand this? there is no right guaranteeing employment.

The government is not allowed to discriminate against the recipients of government contracts on the basis of race. that's what the 14th amendment says. Try reading the constitution before you display your ignorance on the subject.

 

[SniperFire]

The firepower of the average law-abiding citizen bearing his own arms should be equal to the basic firepower of the US infantryman. Semi-automatic assault rifle...semi-automatic pistol.

There is no need to allow explosives, bazookas, howitzers, mortars, rockets, grenades etc.

so you have officially advocated for public ownership of automatic weapons as the basic M-4 and M-16 as issued by the military are fully automatic.

great argument.

Of course it is a great argument. It is a fair reading of the inalienable 'right to bear arms.'

 

[martybegan]

can you point to the section of the Constitution that defines that?

youre going full retard again. better watch it.

It's called "the 14th Amendment," moron.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now who's going "full retard?"

life, liberty and property is not defined as taxes or employment. equal protection of the laws means equal administration.

wanna try again full retard?

So its only defined when YOU want it, not when it goes against one of your cherished pet government policies.

So the government can ban discrimination in the workplace and contracting, unless it benefits some disadvantaged class, then thats A-OK.

The same goes for education at public universites, which should follow federal law as they are federally funded, usually, right? Its OK to discriminate (not provide equal protection) as long as its for a group the government feels should have the advantage..

And since this was a thread originally on assaullt weapons.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

yet a government contract is not a right as defined by the constitution. do you still not understand this? there is no right guaranteeing employment.

The government is not allowed to discriminate against the recipients of government contracts on the basis of race. that's what the 14th amendment says. Try reading the constitution before you display your ignorance on the subject.

a government contract is not a law nor a right. you cant discriminate against rights. and well...... if you cant make that simply correlation, then full retard is not the rights words to describe you.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The firepower of the average law-abiding citizen bearing his own arms should be equal to the basic firepower of the US infantryman. Semi-automatic assault rifle...semi-automatic pistol.

There is no need to allow explosives, bazookas, howitzers, mortars, rockets, grenades etc.

so you have officially advocated for public ownership of automatic weapons as the basic M-4 and M-16 as issued by the military are fully automatic.

great argument.

Of course it is a great argument. It is a fair reading of the inalienable 'right to bear arms.'

apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

rights are not absolute.

except for you crazy right wingers who think the 2nd amendment is.

 

[bripat9643]

It's called "the 14th Amendment," moron.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now who's going "full retard?"

life, liberty and property is not defined as taxes or employment. equal protection of the laws means equal administration.

wanna try again full retard?

"Equal administration?" You are a total ******* retard. "Equal protection of the laws" means the laws apply equally to everyone. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention life, liberty or property. It refers to "the laws." That means all the laws. No exceptions are mentioned.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to win this argument.

 

[SniperFire]

so you have officially advocated for public ownership of automatic weapons as the basic M-4 and M-16 as issued by the military are fully automatic.

great argument.

Of course it is a great argument. It is a fair reading of the inalienable 'right to bear arms.'

apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

rights are not absolute.

except for you crazy right wingers who think the 2nd amendment is.

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

It's called "the 14th Amendment," moron.



Now who's going "full retard?"

life, liberty and property is not defined as taxes or employment. equal protection of the laws means equal administration.

wanna try again full retard?

"Equal administration?" You are a total ******* retard. "Equal protection of the laws" means the laws apply equally to everyone. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention life, liberty or property. It refers to "the laws." That means all the laws. No exceptions are mentioned.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to win this argument.

really did you just read your retarded post?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

full retard it is...

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Of course it is a great argument. It is a fair reading of the inalienable 'right to bear arms.'

apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

rights are not absolute.

except for you crazy right wingers who think the 2nd amendment is.

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

yet a government contract is not a right as defined by the constitution. do you still not understand this? there is no right guaranteeing employment.

The government is not allowed to discriminate against the recipients of government contracts on the basis of race. that's what the 14th amendment says. Try reading the constitution before you display your ignorance on the subject.

a government contract is not a law nor a right. you cant discriminate against rights. and well...... if you cant make that simply correlation, then full retard is not the rights words to describe you.

the granting of government contracts are government by laws and regulations approved by Congress. If those laws allow bureaucrats to discriminate against any company based on race, they are illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

life, liberty and property is not defined as taxes or employment. equal protection of the laws means equal administration.

wanna try again full retard?

"Equal administration?" You are a total ******* retard. "Equal protection of the laws" means the laws apply equally to everyone. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention life, liberty or property. It refers to "the laws." That means all the laws. No exceptions are mentioned.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to win this argument.

really did you just read your retarded post?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

full retard it is...

The supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to apply to the federal government.

Deal with it, retard.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

"Equal administration?" You are a total ******* retard. "Equal protection of the laws" means the laws apply equally to everyone. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention life, liberty or property. It refers to "the laws." That means all the laws. No exceptions are mentioned.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to win this argument.

really did you just read your retarded post?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

full retard it is...

The supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to apply to the federal government.

Deal with it, retard.

so it initially didn't apply to the federal government?

i see you ran away from the life, liberty and property argument like a fat kid after a cheeseburger

 

[martybegan]

apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

rights are not absolute.

except for you crazy right wingers who think the 2nd amendment is.

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

SEMI-automatic rifles, which is a common, and established technology for placing a round in the chamber of a firearm.

Assault rifle is a made up word by gun grabbers, and automatic weapons are not being considered for bans, as they are already tightly regulated.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

SEMI-automatic rifles, which is a common, and established technology for placing a round in the chamber of a firearm.

Assault rifle is a made up word by gun grabbers, and automatic weapons are not being considered for bans, as they are already tightly regulated.

automatic weapons are actually banned from being manufactured in the US for sale to the public.


the term assault rifle was not coined by "gun grabbers," . The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

 

[SniperFire]

apparently sarcasm is lost on you.

rights are not absolute.

except for you crazy right wingers who think the 2nd amendment is.

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

Of course. You think the original intent was to have the militia sub-par equipped?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Nobody claimed rights were 'absolute,' Mrs. Strawman.

Nobody serious argues that the 2nd means we have the right to maintain our own army of nuclear-tipped ICBMS.

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

Of course. You think the original intent was to have the militia sub-par equipped?

average citizens are not considered a "well regulated militia"

the would be better defined as an unregulated militia.

 

[SniperFire]

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

Of course. You think the original intent was to have the militia sub-par equipped?

average citizens are not considered a "well regulated militia"

the would be better defined as an unregulated militia.

LOL. You are flailing miserably.

Militia means any able body man who can fog a mirror between a certain age.

 

[bripat9643]

really did you just read your retarded post?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

full retard it is...

The supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to apply to the federal government.

Deal with it, retard.

so it initially didn't apply to the federal government?

i see you ran away from the life, liberty and property argument like a fat kid after a cheeseburger

It's a non sequitur, retard. Here's the section that's relevant to this discussion:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's no way to interpret that to mean the government can discriminate against white people for any reason.

 

[bripat9643]

automatic weapons are actually banned from being manufactured in the US for sale to the public.


the term assault rifle was not coined by "gun grabbers," . The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

The weapons libturds like you want to ban don't qualify. They aren't capable of "selective fire." That's why gun control bills focus on cosmetic features.

 

[healthmyths]

Almost every one of the 132,656 K-12 schools (by law in most!) in the USA have one..

and no one disagrees they are benign when sitting and needed when there is a fire!
But how often are they used?

And school personnel are trained in the use.

So why not a gun? A rifle? Used by a school personnel TRAINED would have saved possible all if not some of the 26 Newtowners from death!

Just listened to Wayne LaPierre of NRA and he pointed out we have NO problem with Secret Service having guns to protect the President.
Guns with security guards on armored cars...

But a trained person with a gun in schools??
Why is that so wrong?


NRA weighs in following Newtown