Defense rifle vs assault rifle

[progressive hunter]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

 

[Hum Dinger]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

 

[progressive hunter]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

i did respond,,, its you that keeps ignoring when I prove you wrong with facts and reality,,,

SCOTUS gives opinions that can later be changed and cant make or change laws or rights,,

 

[Hum Dinger]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

i did respond,,, its you that keeps ignoring when I prove you wrong with facts and reality,,,

SCOTUS gives opinions that can later be changed and cant make or change laws or rights,,

You're living in a fantasy world!

You have proven nothing. You've stated no facts...only your lame opinions.

You have no idea what the function of the Supreme Court is.

You're a right wing nutjob and nothing else.

 

[progressive hunter]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

i did respond,,, its you that keeps ignoring when I prove you wrong with facts and reality,,,

SCOTUS gives opinions that can later be changed and cant make or change laws or rights,,

You're living in a fantasy world!

You have proven nothing. You've stated no facts...only your lame opinions.

You have no idea what the function of the Supreme Court is.

You're a right wing nutjob and nothing else.

so the 2nd not having the word guns in it and where it says KEEP AND BARE is not there is not knowing facts???

and considering SCOTUS gives opinions that can later change and not being able to make laws is also not true???


messa thinks youre the nutjob that doesnt know shit if which he speaks,,,

 

[Hum Dinger]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the Second Amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

i did respond,,, its you that keeps ignoring when I prove you wrong with facts and reality,,,

SCOTUS gives opinions that can later be changed and cant make or change laws or rights,,

You're living in a fantasy world!

You have proven nothing. You've stated no facts...only your lame opinions.

You have no idea what the function of the Supreme Court is.

You're a right wing nutjob and nothing else.

so the 2nd not having the word guns in it and where it says KEEP AND BARE is not there is not knowing facts???

and considering SCOTUS gives opinions that can later change and not being able to make laws is also not true???


messa thinks youre the nutjob that doesnt know shit if which he speaks,,,

So you've only proven that you're not a complete illiterate...you CAN pick a couple of phrases and use them out of context.

The second amendment not having the word 'Gun' in it is irrelevant to this argument. This is a discussion of Assault Rifles, dumbass!

The words "Keep and Bear" does not make gun ownership an inalienable right, nor does it have anything to do with the classification of AR-15s as assault rifles.

Your attempts at deflections with red herrings fail!

The Supreme Courts 'Opinions' are the final authority on the interpretation of law. They set precedence which can not be changed except by a law of Congress or the most extraordinary circumstances. They become 'SETTLED LAW'.

 

[progressive hunter]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the Second Amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

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

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.

You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!

Where does the 2nd say guns??

Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.

thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,

You have the freedom to "choose otherwise" only because the U.S. Federal government - the Supreme Court - says you do!

wrong again,,,

So, you have no response....

i did respond,,, its you that keeps ignoring when I prove you wrong with facts and reality,,,

SCOTUS gives opinions that can later be changed and cant make or change laws or rights,,

You're living in a fantasy world!

You have proven nothing. You've stated no facts...only your lame opinions.

You have no idea what the function of the Supreme Court is.

You're a right wing nutjob and nothing else.

so the 2nd not having the word guns in it and where it says KEEP AND BARE is not there is not knowing facts???

and considering SCOTUS gives opinions that can later change and not being able to make laws is also not true???


messa thinks youre the nutjob that doesnt know shit if which he speaks,,,

So you've only proven that you're not a complete illiterate...you CAN pick a couple of phrases and use them out of context.

The second amendment not having the word 'Gun' in it is irrelevant to this argument. This is a discussion of Assault Rifles, dumbass!

The words "Keep and Bear" does not make gun ownership an inalienable right, nor does it have anything to do with the classification of AR-15s as assault rifles.

Your attempts at deflections with red herrings fail!

The Supreme Courts 'Opinions' are the final authority on the interpretation of law. They set precedence which can not be changed except by a law of Congress or the most extraordinary circumstances. They become 'SETTLED LAW'.

and assault rifles are not only covered by the word :ARMS" under the original intent and context it included anything that could be used against you by anyone that would intend on bringing you harm,,, which would include assault rifles,,,

only those intent on doing others harm would object to these facts,,

 

[Crepitus]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

r/iamverybadass

And this is why I almost never mention it here.

And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.

I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?

I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).

My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.

You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?

You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?

She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Kids kill themselves because of what their peers say about them. Political lemmings kill others because of what their leaders say. Words can kill. Voters can elect leaders that violently pit factions against each other. Votes can kill.

You missed the point.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"

Agree.

Liberty to shoot my gun ends where your fucking face begins.

Prove I swung my fist. Prove I shot my gun. Prove you were harmed.

This means that your rights cannot put mine in jeopardy.

You must prove that I have done so. I could have 400 nukes, 50,000 machine guns, and 4 f22s and it has ZERO affect on your rights. My possessions do not affect you. Only my actions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with.

The right of self defense is unalienable. That includes the means to do so against ANY enemy or potential enemy.

THUS, the right to arms is a natural right. PERIOD.

You can keep being a slave. Don't expect me to follow you into shackles.

 

[hadit]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

r/iamverybadass

And this is why I almost never mention it here.

And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.

I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?

I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).

My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.

You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?

You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?

She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Kids kill themselves because of what their peers say about them. Political lemmings kill others because of what their leaders say. Words can kill. Voters can elect leaders that violently pit factions against each other. Votes can kill.

You missed the point.

No, I got your point. You wanted to claim that 2nd Amendment rights can be more restricted than 1st Amendment rights because guns kill children, while insinuating that speech does not kill children, thus making the comparison of the 1st and 2nd a false equivalency. I was merely pointing out that words also have the power to kill, so if you're going to support restrictions and regulations on the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that it's dangerous, it follows that the 1st can also be likewise restricted.

 

[Crepitus]

"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"

Agree.

Liberty to shoot my gun ends where your fucking face begins.

Prove I swung my fist. Prove I shot my gun. Prove you were harmed.

This means that your rights cannot put mine in jeopardy.

You must prove that I have done so. I could have 400 nukes, 50,000 machine guns, and 4 f22s and it has ZERO affect on your rights. My possessions do not affect you. Only my actions.

If your actions are firing a rifle in a populated area I think some preemptive action might be in order. There's a reason you aren't allowed to own nukes in spite of the fact that you've never set one off.

 

[Crepitus]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

r/iamverybadass

And this is why I almost never mention it here.

And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.

I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?

I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).

My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.

You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?

You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?

She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Kids kill themselves because of what their peers say about them. Political lemmings kill others because of what their leaders say. Words can kill. Voters can elect leaders that violently pit factions against each other. Votes can kill.

You missed the point.

No, I got your point. You wanted to claim that 2nd Amendment rights can be more restricted than 1st Amendment rights because guns kill children, while insinuating that speech does not kill children, thus making the comparison of the 1st and 2nd a false equivalency. I was merely pointing out that words also have the power to kill, so if you're going to support restrictions and regulations on the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that it's dangerous, it follows that the 1st can also be likewise restricted.

Nope. Still missed the point.

 

[hadit]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

r/iamverybadass

And this is why I almost never mention it here.

And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.

I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?

I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).

My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.

You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?

You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?

She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Kids kill themselves because of what their peers say about them. Political lemmings kill others because of what their leaders say. Words can kill. Voters can elect leaders that violently pit factions against each other. Votes can kill.

You missed the point.

No, I got your point. You wanted to claim that 2nd Amendment rights can be more restricted than 1st Amendment rights because guns kill children, while insinuating that speech does not kill children, thus making the comparison of the 1st and 2nd a false equivalency. I was merely pointing out that words also have the power to kill, so if you're going to support restrictions and regulations on the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that it's dangerous, it follows that the 1st can also be likewise restricted.

Nope. Still missed the point.

I can only go by what you wrote, and what you wrote indicated that you think the 2nd should be more restricted than the 1st, even though words can be deadlier than guns.

 

[easyt65]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

 

[easyt65]

There is no such thing as an 'ASSAULT' rifle.
There is only a 'rifle...Just like there is no such thing as a 'squirrel gun' or a 'deer rifle'.

Any rifle can be used to 'assault' some thing / place / person. Any handgun, any knife, any club, any brick, etc...can be used.

A knitting needle, in the 'right' hands, can be a weapon.

Ever heard of 'assault scissors'?

The govt believes you need them to tell you to wear a mask, wash your hands...so of course they don't trust you with a weapon....

....especially after they committed massive, Federal/State Vonstitution/law-violating election fraud....as they destroy more than half of minority-owned small businesses, are laying tens of thousands of Americans off from jobs, surrendering energy independence, making enemies stronger, betray our nation, open our borders, welcome serial predators into the US, and solidify their totalitarian / CCP-esque grasp on power to rule from here on out...

The National Guarx troops in DC is not to protect the Capitol _ they are there to protect socialist self-appointed rulers from Americans they are supposed to be serving but instead are destroying / harming.

'YOU' must be disarmed...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If your actions are firing a rifle in a populated area I think some preemptive action might be in order

Preemptive like what?

Who said I or anyone else would EVER do such a thing?

Are you the type for prior restraint on free speech because somebody might say something dangerous?

 

[Crepitus]

Who said I or anyone else would EVER do such a thing?

You did. You want to use an ar for home defense. I presume you don't live in the wilderness. You would be firing a rifle in a populated area.


This brings us full circle, this is where I came into the discussion in the first place. A rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.