Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bla, bla, blaThe term has a meaning. Assault rifles:
a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,
b) accept detachable magazines,
c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and
d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.
This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault rifles.
This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault rifles.
This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault rifles.
This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault rifles.
These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.You are dreadfully uninformed. .
Not in the eyes of the US Constitution.The national guard is regulated militia.
These deployments are allowed because the National Guard is part of a standing army and is not part of the militia.Our guard unit was one of many to serve overseas. Once activated by the Fed, you can be send the unit anywhere in the world.
On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20 units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War. Eight units deployed to Vietnam and over 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone.
The Original Tree did not make anything up. The Second Amendment is quite real.More made up shit.
Of course if the militia were defending the nation in an active war, the militia would be acting under the orders of the government.Only when activated by the gov or federal gov can an organized state militia use “assault weapons” in the defense of our nations.
The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons. People have the right to have modern weapons.You must be over 200 years old with musket.
Not at all. The Second Amendment is quite real.Dillusional.
Facts are facts whether you like them or not.Bla, bla, bla
Fraudulent definitions can vary all they like. The true definition remains the same.The definition of an assault weapon varies with regulation used to enforce its regulation. The definition used in the military does not mean shit to Mass or Calif. or any other state who wishes to regulate any firearm they damn well please.
That is incorrect. Even under the restrictive scope of the Heller ruling, states are allowed to restrict guns only if the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.THAT right is given to the residents of the every state given to them by the CONSTITUTION of the USA and their state constitution.
FUCK JOE and you should brush up on your firearms as you almost sound as bad as a gun grabberBiden demands ban on ‘assault weapons,’ high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress29 Apr 2021 ~~ By Liz George
Biden demands ban on 'assault weapons,' high-capacity magazines in first speech to Congress
In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once againamericanmilitarynews.com
In his first speech before both chambers of Congress, President Joe Biden focused heavily on his administration’s gun control agenda, calling once again for “reasonable reforms” on firearms, including a ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
“We need a ban on assault weapons and high—capacity magazines again. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. We’ve done it before … and it worked,” Biden asserted in his speech. “Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters – they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds – 100 bullets – in a weapon. They will tell you that there are too many people today who are able to buy a gun, but who shouldn’t be able to.”
~SNIP~
In 2004, the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice issued a report stating that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not actually reduce crime.
Comment:
I’m sure that law enforcement all across the nation are busy today ridding themselves "Assault Weapons" and Large capacity magazines that hold more than seven rounds ( a very popular New York solution except for NYPD).
Most states with the U.S. have limits on the number of rounds that can be loaded in a rifle or shotgun.
For rifles hunting big game (Deer, boar, elk or bear) rifles are limited to 4 in the magazine/clip, or tube. For shotguns the normally loads are three in the magazine/tube and one round chambered.
Obviously both the president and his handlers know little about hunting laws or what is manufactured within the sporting arms industry of America.
While the popular AR-15 system is now calibered from .22 cal, 5.56/.223, 6.5mm, 6.8mm .300 Blackout, 7.62x39mm and .308 calibers.
The system created by Eugene Stoner like Kalashnikov has outlived his name.
Unlike the mlitary M4A1 Carbine is only manufactured for war in one standard caliber 5.56mm NATO and may be fitted with a selective fully automatic trigger assembly where the AR-15 is not. .
That’s hilarious. You know nothing about constitutional. The Heller ruling allowed an unlocked handgun ( not assault rifle) only if the owner was permitted and the handgun was registered. It’s funny how you support a decision that supports registering ALL HANDGUNS.These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.
Not in the eyes of the US Constitution.
These deployments are allowed because the National Guard is part of a standing army and is not part of the militia.
The Original Tree did not make anything up. The Second Amendment is quite real.
Of course if the militia were defending the nation in an active war, the militia would be acting under the orders of the government.
Is anyone disputing this?
The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons. People have the right to have modern weapons.
Not at all. The Second Amendment is quite real.
Facts are facts whether you like them or not.
Fraudulent definitions can vary all they like. The true definition remains the same.
That is incorrect. Even under the restrictive scope of the Heller ruling, states are allowed to restrict guns only if the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
No compelling government interest = restriction not allowed.
Sounds like you just came out of the closet.FUCK JOE and you should brush up on your firearms as you almost sound as bad as a gun grabber
Another paranoid dolt.AR-15 is just an ordinary rifle. Fires ONE shot with each pull of the trigger.
And yes there CAN BE times when you look out your window and see that you DO NEED a high capacity magazine, if not a fully automatic rifle (machine gun) >>
View attachment 485462
View attachment 485463
View attachment 485464View attachment 485467
What well regulated militia do you belong to?These empty claims about "people being uninformed" are a pretty poor substitute for an actual argument about why you think they are wrong.
Not in the eyes of the US Constitution.
These deployments are allowed because the National Guard is part of a standing army and is not part of the militia.
The Original Tree did not make anything up. The Second Amendment is quite real.
Of course if the militia were defending the nation in an active war, the militia would be acting under the orders of the government.
Is anyone disputing this?
The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons. People have the right to have modern weapons.
Not at all. The Second Amendment is quite real.
Facts are facts whether you like them or not.
Fraudulent definitions can vary all they like. The true definition remains the same.
That is incorrect. Even under the restrictive scope of the Heller ruling, states are allowed to restrict guns only if the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
No compelling government interest = restriction not allowed.
But not you - until the day a criminal accosts you with a knife, or some other weapon. That's when your head comes out of your ass.Another paranoid dolt.
Strange. Since the second amendment was adjudicated in every decision, black powder weapons were generally excluded from regulation as are more modern firearms. That pretty much covers the weapons of the day. Every decision involving other firearms, there is no ABSOLUTE right to their possession. None, ever.The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weapons. People have the right to have modern weapons.
There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units. I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.What well regulated militia do you belong to?
Wrong. What he said is quite reasonable.Another paranoid dolt.
I'm going to assume from your question that you ignorantly believe that only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise your question would be weird and wildly off topic.What well regulated militia do you belong to?
Wrong. I know everything about the Constitution. That's why you cannot point out a single untrue statement in anything that I wrote.That’s hilarious. You know nothing about constitutional.
I assume that what you meant to say is that the Heller ruling allows the government to require permits and registration.The Heller ruling allowed an unlocked handgun (not assault rifle) only if the owner was permitted and the handgun was registered.
I think we've been registering guns on Form 4473s for at least 50 years now.It’s funny how you support a decision that supports registering ALL HANDGUNS.
Why would that be strange?Strange. Since the second amendment was adjudicated in every decision, black powder weapons were generally excluded from regulation as are more modern firearms. That pretty much covers the weapons of the day.
That depends on what you mean by an absolute right. Any law that conflicts with the Second Amendment is absolutely unconstitutional.Every decision involving other firearms, there is no ABSOLUTE right to their possession. None, ever.
More false accusations of ignorance because you have no real arguments to make.There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units. I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.
The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.There is no regulated malitis except for the guard and reserve units. I doubt that most gunaholics really understand that.
"Something being in proper working order." The people on this thread obviously do not qualify.Wrong. What he said is quite reasonable.
I'm going to assume from your question that you ignorantly believe that only members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise your question would be weird and wildly off topic.
You are wrong. It is the people who have the right to keep and bear arms, not members of a well regulated militia.
(As an aside, not that it matters to the discussion, but I bet you also are ignorant of the meaning of "well regulated".)
OK. So you do know."Something being in proper working order."
That's OK. They don't need to qualify. No one here is trying to claim that they are in a militia.The people on this thread obviously do not qualify.
The National Guard Bureau disagrees with that foolish post.The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.
The National Guard is not a militia, it's part of the US Army and Air Force.
A factual post is never foolish. And when someone disagrees with reality, they are wrong.The National Guard Bureau disagrees with that foolish post.
Given his factually correct post, that is unlikely to be the case.You have no idea WTF you are talking about. You’re delusional.
Despite the personal attacks, none of that changes the fact that National Guardsmen are sworn members of the US Army.The state ( gov) controls the disposition of the guard units when not on active duty. The guard is the regulated militia when not on active duty. You fool. The regular Army IS NEVER UNDER STATE CONTROL. You obviously never served have you….The guard units can be called into action for any number of municipal services by even local request. That’s exactly what a militia is for. The regular army IS NEVER under local request for services except by federal declaration. The guard units can ROUTINELY work with local authorities.
That is doubly wrong.There is no such thing as a regulated militia other then guard units..
Are you under the impression that statutes overrule the Constitution?All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246.
