Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[LordBrownTrout]

Its not an assault weapon its a defense weapon used for defense don't listen to the liberal's LIES!

Interesting take. Who was Mateen defending?

He would likely answer "Islam."

He might say that, but it's all a lie. He wasn't a religious nut, he was a just a nut who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Nothing about his lifestyle showed a commitment to Islamic or even extreme Islamic religious beliefs

Nothing other than him doing a bayat while mowing people down, proclaiming their love to the pedophile who climbed up out of a well while in the midst of a murderous rampage. Yeah, he was committed to islamic violence.

 

[Jarlaxle]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

 

[Crixus]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

I wouldn't all it much more then useless. I never understood the AR pistol thing. That said, I think "assault rifle" was defined in the 94 crime bill. Collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, agazine capacity of greater then ten rounds. May be more can't remember. Funny thing though, no one who supports the ban of those features can point to one event where any of those prevented a mass shooting or saved a life.

 

[Nosmo King]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

 

[Nosmo King]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, reloading never slows anyone down. You guys don't believe your own lies.

I have a question. While a shooter can have trouble reloading, what changes? I mean, as he is shooting, I assume people would be running away from him. So, if he drops a magazine, he should have more than enough time to pick it up and reload anyway.

Mark

He drops the mag and doesn't pick it up. He does pull another mag out and slam that home. Takes less than 2 seconds.

Thats the point. Even a clumsy shooter would normally have the time to reload.

Mark

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

 

[Nosmo King]

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

 

[bucs90]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

 

[Chuz Life]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

The second amendment is not about all weapons all the time.

If you can accept the concept that somewhere between a muzzle loaded pistol and a rocket propelled grenade launcher, there is some limitation to what weapons citizens should bear, then what's your problem with limiting access to weapons designed for a battlefield?

The semi-automatic AR-15 is not a weapon "designed for the battlefield." The fully automatic M-16 is.

You may think that the differences are too subtle to matter but there is a real reason for why our military carries one and not the other.

 

[80zephyr]

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Lets say we examine your belief. At the formation of the country, why didn't the newly formed nation follow its own constitution? Why weren't guns confiscated and stored in armories, and why weren't these citizen militias set up to practice their craft?

I have to believe that they understood the 2nd Amendment to be what I believe it to be, since they were living their new laws from their inception.

Mark

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

Still refuse to acknowledge the reason for the second.....

 

[80zephyr]

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

 

[80zephyr]

Cant bring yourself to voice the true intention of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

 

[Bassman007]

An assault weapon is a firearm that uses a semi automatic firing system. An assault weapon is a firearm equipped with a large capacity ammunition clip. Weapons American should have access to include revolvers, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

These are weapons designed for sport and self defense.

Meanwhile, gun lovers, indifferent to the havoc of gun violence, will set little technical traps. Much as the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys did during the debate on the expired Assault Weapons ban. They behaved like North Koreans at a peace conference; arguing over the shape of the conference table, the height of flag poles, the seating arraingments. The NRA and their paid lackeys argued flash suppressors, grips and cosmetics. But not the reality of the situation, the firing system and the sustainable rate of fire. The reasons we suffer from "mass" shootings, emphasis on 'mass'.

Here's an analogy: there was a deadly arson. News reports stated that the arsonist used 92 octane gasoline. Later, after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the accelerant was actually 87 octane gasoline. Gear heads everywhere claimed that the news media and the critics of the arson were idiots due to the mistake. But they ignore the fact of the deadly arson, content to argue minutiae instead.

So rather than show photos of rifles and pose the gear head inspired questions about which weapon is deadlier, let's focus on the grizzly fact of mass shootings and what makes mass shootings possible: the semi automatic firing system and the large capacity ammunition clip.

Anything else is picking fly shit out of ground pepper. Focusing on the real problem will bring real results. Unless, of course, you believe your right to own an assault weapon trumps public safety concerns.

No one can responsibly say they absolutely need to use a semi automatic fitted with a twenty round clip for self defense, in spite of any cinematic fantasies you might harbor.

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Wrong....you and brain...you are both wrong..

The shooter at the giffords shooting shot a man in the head. He thought the man was dead and kept walking toward the guy. The guy was not dead, he was simply grazed in the head. As the shooter walked past the guy on the ground, the guy on the ground got up and tackled him. Had the guy on the ground not been lucky, he would have been dead. Then, the old lady who grabbed the magazine.....she saw the attacker approaching and decided to lay on the ground in the hope he would ignore her......when the shooter was tackled, he fell right in front of the old woman, so close she reached out and plucked the magazine out of his hand....more luck in the same shooting, they believe he changed that magazine because a spring failed....

And had they not grabbed him...there was an armed civilian with a concealed pistol ready to shoot him..he also saw this happen but decided he didn't need to shoot...he did however hold his gun on the guy after they tackled him, and then the police arrived, notice...they did not shoot the good guy with the gun when they arrived, dispelling another myth of the anti gunners.

Really?

Woman Stopped Tucson Shooter From Reloading

By all accounts he was reloading when he was tackled. He used a 33 round magazine and was able to get off 32 shots, if he had a normal magazine he would have had to already reload and potentially could have saved some lives.

Nice way to try to rewrite history.

Clown.

Wrong....you read the actual research from the study.....about the Tuscon shooting......and I have the actual account...she was laying on the ground hoping not to be noticed when the other guy tackled him...they fell almost on top of her and she snatched the magazine from him as he was wrestling with the other guy.......had the shooter actually shot the guy in the head and killed him instead of grazing him, he would have simply shot the old woman....pure, dumb luck x2...and even had he shot her, the guy with the concealed gun was ready to shoot him.......

 

[80zephyr]

Another who doesnt know what the 2nd amendment is all about.

The second amendment is about the government regulating weaponry for citizens. The citizens can avail themselves of weapons while participating in a well regulated militia.

No, that is a lie.

Somewhere on the spectrum of weaponry, between blunderbus and RPG, the government should limit access to battlefield weapons. My point on that spectrum is the semi automatic firing system.

So you'd ban revolvers? They're semi automatic.

Actually revolvers could be banned, simply because they have killed people. How, because there is always a bullet in the chamber ready to accidentally fire. In a clip gun the user must rack the weapon to load the first round from the clip into the firing chamber, thus any rackable gun is miles safer than any revolver.

Many people who use revolvers leave an empty chamber in line with the firing pin.

Mark

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While you concentrate on everything after the second comma, think about everything that comes BEFORE that second comma.

Where's your howitzer? Where's your mortar? Where's your thermonuclear warhead?

There is a belief that any arm that you are able to "bear" should be allowed under law. I stand by that argument. Nuclear warheads and cannons are not "bearable", hence might not be covered under the 2nd.

Mark

You can own a cannon it's just not practical.

Possibly. Like I stated before, there is some question as to "right to bear" means.

Mark

And that would be?