CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[Weatherman2020]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

You're right. Nothing to see here! Move along, and tough break about those kids in Parkland, those congregants in Sutherland Springs, those concert goers in Las Vegas and those club goers in Orlando.

Just the cost of doing business because these AR 15s are bitchin' and far cooler than any of those who died.

Too bad those teachers had to use their bodies to protect kids as the government waited outside instead of being able to protect everyone.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

If 11 million Europeans were armed, how long do you think Hitler would have lasted with Russia and the West squeezing him from 2 sides?

Every time someone mentions gun control, you folks dig up and dust off the burned corpse of Adolph Hitler, as if he and his cohorts could pull the same crap here. History and e context it provides mean nothing to you folks except as a contorted benchmark.

 

[Zander]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Alone I couldn't, but you know that. As a mass citizen army we could.

And that mass citizen army can be found where?

I didn't buy that Michigan Militia crap even before Tim McViegh became its poster boy. What you might see as tyranny, I see as a policy dispute.

All around you.

We are your neighbors.

Law abiding, gun owners.

Scared?

BOO!!!!

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

2% of gun violence is by rifles.

But you already know that.

You're right. Nothing to see here! Move along, and tough break about those kids in Parkland, those congregants in Sutherland Springs, those concert goers in Las Vegas and those club goers in Orlando.

Just the cost of doing business because these AR 15s are bitchin' and far cooler than any of those who died.

Too bad those teachers had to use their bodies to protect kids as the government waited outside instead of being able to protect everyone.

You must see the inner Dirty Harry in every Chemistry teacher.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Alone I couldn't, but you know that. As a mass citizen army we could.

And that mass citizen army can be found where?

I didn't buy that Michigan Militia crap even before Tim McViegh became its poster boy. What you might see as tyranny, I see as a policy dispute.

All around you.

We are your neighbors.

Law abiding, gun owners.

Scared?

BOO!!!!

Just so long as you stay in the basement, camp bandanna wrapped around your sweaty brow as a bare light bulb sways overhead. Keep sharpening your machete while you mutter about the End Days. Stock up on MREs and convince yourself of every tin foil hat wearing conspiracy coming across on InfoWars.

Meanwhile, I have a lawn to mow.

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

 

[Dale Smith]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

Alone I couldn't, but you know that. As a mass citizen army we could.

And that mass citizen army can be found where?

I didn't buy that Michigan Militia crap even before Tim McViegh became its poster boy. What you might see as tyranny, I see as a policy dispute.

LOL! Timothy McVeigh wasn't attached to any Michigan Militia, McVeigh was a military cut -out that was "sheep-dipped" i.e he had his military background scrubbed for plausible deniability when he went to work in black-ops. There is video of McVeigh in a military uniform in August of 1993 long after he allegedly left the service. He was the patsy of the Murrah building bombing after Cody Snodgres turned it down in late 1994. I am an expert on the OKC bombing so feel free to question me.I met Brigadier General Benton Partin in August of 2004 in Alexandria, Virginia. He scientifically proved that an ANFO bomb could not powerdize concrete encased rebar on the third floor of the Murrah building much less the 9th floor. Go to youtube and put in "Cody Snodgres, Caravan To Midnight"" in the search feature and listen to it. I bought his book.....700 plus pages filled with documents. Watch "A Noble Lie" about the OKC false flag....educate yourself and you just might understand as to why it is a necessity for a well armed populace.

 

[Flopper]

What is an assault rifle?

95% of all shootings, and all gun deaths, are NOT by AR-15's and AK-47's. They are by handguns.

So what is an assault rifle? Please give specific definitions so I can play.

a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, it's about private citizens being able to defend themselves and join together if need be should tyranny become unbearable

Second Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. Is the Amendnent wrong and your interpretation engraved in granite somewhere?

What if you gun freaks are in the minority politically as you are right now and only you decide the tyrrany has become unbearable.

Do you get yourselves slaughtered trying to take on the US Military or do you join up to start shooting up all the unarmed citizens in the majority for not agreeing with you on owning your stupid guns.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, it's about private citizens being able to defend themselves and join together if need be should tyranny become unbearable

Second Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. Is the Amendnent wrong and your interpretation engraved in granite somewhere?

What if you gun freaks are in the minority politically as you are right now and only you decide the tyrrany has become unbearable.

Do you get yourselves slaughtered trying to take on the US Military or do you join up to start shooting up all the unarmed citizens in the majority for not agreeing with you on owning your stupid guns.

A militia is, by definition, comprised of citizens soldiers. Citizen soldiers, not being part of the regular army, are not issued firearms by the state so use their own firearms when called up to serve.

 

[SingleVoyce]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

 

[Flopper]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Because they cannot trust this corporate entity that lamely attempts to disguise itself as a legitimate governmental body that is owned by international bankers that doesn't trust it's serfs either. How much more details do you need in order for me drive that point home? You are the type of idiot that would go to Colonel Sanders (as a chicken) and say that he needed to implement "beak" control because you got "pecked". The Chinese government is on your side, btw.....they are trying to shame America into implementing their style of (snicker) "gun control" where the state is your momma and your daddy. Fuck you, punkinpuss....the last movie I watched where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the targets of Hitler as I recall as they were march into concentration camps, worked to death, starved and then eventually put into ovens. I have read diaries of those that perished there and said that they would have rather of died fighting even if it was futile than to live and die like they did. You are a blithering idiot and naive if you think that the end game that the elites have for us doesn't include that same scenario. There are over a 1,000 FEMA camps that have been built and it started in the late 70's for those that do not wish to be apart of the new world order. I know more than you.....infinitely more. You BETTER hope that President Trump is legit and that the white hats keep him protected.

Questions? Bring them on.......and don't give me the "tin foil hat" blow-off. I know exactly of what I speak. People need to learn how to live off the grid instead of staying so domesticated.

So you want to overthrow the government of the United States of America? Or you believe you can fend off the government with an assault rifle?

Is there another nation you might feel more comfortable in?

Overthrow this corporate entity that made us chattel via the Bankruptcy of March 1933 where our labor was pledged as surety against the debt? Are you saying that resistance is futile and therefore the poor serfs should just acquiesce and hope for the best and turn over any means to protect themselves? You sound like a fucking cowardly piece of shit to me.

65% of gun owners believe the public right to bear arms is protection against government tyranny. However this belief is not anchored in reality. Firearms in the hands of public is not going to be any protection against a tyrannical goverment.

If America experienced a widespread violent uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775. With 1.1 million law enforcement personnel and a military of 2 million active reserve personnel, any such uprising would be easily handled.

The overthrow of a large stable government supported by a large military can only be accomplished politically, not by citizens bearing arms.

 

[Zander]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Because they cannot trust this corporate entity that lamely attempts to disguise itself as a legitimate governmental body that is owned by international bankers that doesn't trust it's serfs either. How much more details do you need in order for me drive that point home? You are the type of idiot that would go to Colonel Sanders (as a chicken) and say that he needed to implement "beak" control because you got "pecked". The Chinese government is on your side, btw.....they are trying to shame America into implementing their style of (snicker) "gun control" where the state is your momma and your daddy. Fuck you, punkinpuss....the last movie I watched where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the targets of Hitler as I recall as they were march into concentration camps, worked to death, starved and then eventually put into ovens. I have read diaries of those that perished there and said that they would have rather of died fighting even if it was futile than to live and die like they did. You are a blithering idiot and naive if you think that the end game that the elites have for us doesn't include that same scenario. There are over a 1,000 FEMA camps that have been built and it started in the late 70's for those that do not wish to be apart of the new world order. I know more than you.....infinitely more. You BETTER hope that President Trump is legit and that the white hats keep him protected.

Questions? Bring them on.......and don't give me the "tin foil hat" blow-off. I know exactly of what I speak. People need to learn how to live off the grid instead of staying so domesticated.

So you want to overthrow the government of the United States of America? Or you believe you can fend off the government with an assault rifle?

Is there another nation you might feel more comfortable in?

Overthrow this corporate entity that made us chattel via the Bankruptcy of March 1933 where our labor was pledged as surety against the debt? Are you saying that resistance is futile and therefore the poor serfs should just acquiesce and hope for the best and turn over any means to protect themselves? You sound like a fucking cowardly piece of shit to me.

65% of gun owners believe the public right to bear arms is protection against government tyranny. However this belief is not anchored in reality. Firearms in the hands of public is not going to be any protection against a tyrannical goverment.

If America experienced a widespread violent uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775. With 1.1 million law enforcement personnel and a military of 2 million active reserve personnel, any such uprising would be easily handled.

The overthrow of a large stable government supported by a large military can only be accomplished politically, not by citizens bearing arms.

82% of what you wrote is made up bullshit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ghost of a Rider

A militia is, by definition, comprised of citizens soldiers.

That's obvious. I'm trying to find who is supposed to be regulating our so called 'citizen soldiers' since one of them just shot up a high school and killed seventeen citizen non-soldiers. The Second Amendment grants certain rights based upon having a well regulated militia. But when asked what and whom are regulating this 'militia' no one knows.

The Second Amendment is not being followed by the gun nuts and their phony militia. Why not?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ghost of a Rider

A militia is, by definition, comprised of citizens soldiers.

That's obvious. I'm trying to find who is supposed to be regulating our so called 'citizen soldiers' since one of them just shot up a high school and killed seventeen citizen non-soldiers.

Don't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer. 2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that. 3.) Whether or not Cruz was in a militia, his actions were his own. No one else is responsible. Not me, not other gun owners, not Trump and not the NRA.

The Second Amendment grants certain rights based upon having a well regulated militia. But when asked what and whom are regulating this 'militia' no one knows.

The militia is called up when needed and will be regulated at that time by serving military officers. That was the idea when it was written anyway.

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

 

[Dale Smith]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

All courts are incorporated and all judges are nothing but administrators for their corporate master that owns USA.INC which is currently the International Monetary Fund that is owned by the same bankers that on all central banks and the Bank for International Settlements as well as the Global Bank. All towns, cities are subsidiaries of the counties...all counties are subsidiaries of the state and all states are subsidiaries of USA.INC whose headquarters are in the city/state of Washington, District of Columbia.....what is it a district of? The answer would surprise you if not make you utterly sick.

People often ask me why does it matter if all government entities are "incorporated" and why does that matter? Because when you incorporate something, the jurisdiction changes from Law Of The Land" to that of Admiralty. i.e Commerce/ Statutory acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" and none of it is constitutional because the constitution is the law of the LAND. Go into a Admiralty court with the gold fringed flag and talk about your constitutional rights and watch the judge threaten you with "contempt of court" because it does not apply. You have to know legalese and know Black's Law dictionary because they speak their own language. You nor anyone else gets to determine what others may have in order to defend themselves. If you feel so strongly about disarming the masses? Put your ass out there on the front line in a "door to door" disarming operation........

 

[Dale Smith]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Because they cannot trust this corporate entity that lamely attempts to disguise itself as a legitimate governmental body that is owned by international bankers that doesn't trust it's serfs either. How much more details do you need in order for me drive that point home? You are the type of idiot that would go to Colonel Sanders (as a chicken) and say that he needed to implement "beak" control because you got "pecked". The Chinese government is on your side, btw.....they are trying to shame America into implementing their style of (snicker) "gun control" where the state is your momma and your daddy. Fuck you, punkinpuss....the last movie I watched where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the targets of Hitler as I recall as they were march into concentration camps, worked to death, starved and then eventually put into ovens. I have read diaries of those that perished there and said that they would have rather of died fighting even if it was futile than to live and die like they did. You are a blithering idiot and naive if you think that the end game that the elites have for us doesn't include that same scenario. There are over a 1,000 FEMA camps that have been built and it started in the late 70's for those that do not wish to be apart of the new world order. I know more than you.....infinitely more. You BETTER hope that President Trump is legit and that the white hats keep him protected.

Questions? Bring them on.......and don't give me the "tin foil hat" blow-off. I know exactly of what I speak. People need to learn how to live off the grid instead of staying so domesticated.

So you want to overthrow the government of the United States of America? Or you believe you can fend off the government with an assault rifle?

Is there another nation you might feel more comfortable in?

Overthrow this corporate entity that made us chattel via the Bankruptcy of March 1933 where our labor was pledged as surety against the debt? Are you saying that resistance is futile and therefore the poor serfs should just acquiesce and hope for the best and turn over any means to protect themselves? You sound like a fucking cowardly piece of shit to me.

65% of gun owners believe the public right to bear arms is protection against government tyranny. However this belief is not anchored in reality. Firearms in the hands of public is not going to be any protection against a tyrannical goverment.

If America experienced a widespread violent uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775. With 1.1 million law enforcement personnel and a military of 2 million active reserve personnel, any such uprising would be easily handled.

The overthrow of a large stable government supported by a large military can only be accomplished politically, not by citizens bearing arms.

When those that brought this tyranny upon us control both political parties and the voting apparatus via electronic voting machines? There is no political means to change this debt slavery system. Those in the military have family and friends...what makes you think that if the people rose up and stormed Washington, D.C with pitchforks and torches that the military would fire on their own citizens? When government fears the people, you have freedom and liberty....when people fear their government, you have tyranny and slavery....there is so much that you do not know or understand as to the nature of this cage.

 

[toobfreak]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Sway to go, Nosmo, you've hit the turf on this thread before you even got started off the ground with your FACE. NO ONE needs an assault rifle, because they have BEEN BANNED FOR DECADES from public sale and ownership. You need a federal stamp to buy one, so, get it straight right away that all these rifles that are ALL METAL and HIGH TECH LOOKING with multiple round cartridges that you see in the news and in stores, are no different from any wood rifle that holds multiple rounds (and most do except bolt-action), except BY APPEARANCE. None of them are assault rifles. You've been duped again by the gun-hating, ill-informed, left-wing media.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Sway to go, Nosmo, you've hit the turf on this thread before you even got started off the ground with your FACE. NO ONE needs an assault rifle, because they have BEEN BANNED FOR DECADES from public sale and ownership. You need a federal stamp to buy one, so, get it straight right away that all these rifles that are ALL METAL and HIGH TECH LOOKING with multiple round cartridges that you see in the news and in stores, are no different from any wood rifle that holds multiple rounds (and most do except bolt-action), except BY APPEARANCE. None of them are assault rifles. You've been duped again by the gun-hating, ill-informed, left-wing media.

There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault rifle'. Refusal to recognize that betrays a mindset that would rather get lost in a maze of semantics rather than engage in substantive debate.

During the debate over the last assault weapons ban, 'fun experts' bogged down, and eventually watered down the bil arguning over semantics. A grip, or the position of the grip, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks do not alter the factors making such weapons so unnecessarily lethal, namely the rate of fire and the muzzle velocity of the rounds fired.

High capacity magazines make the rate of fire so lethal. If a shooter is forced to reload or exchange magazines more often, there are, therefore, fewer rounds slamming into the bodies of the innocent.