How many deaths are necessary before something should be banned?

[2aguy]

So does the .30 caliber carbine round and I don't see you screaming about banning it. Why aren't you screaming about banning the mini-14? It fires both the .223/5.56m round and the more powerful 7.62x39 AK-47 round.

And you know why.........because the Mini 14 is already on the list, but first they want to set the precedent of banning a rifle simply on the lies of the anti-gun extremists.....first they get the AR-15, then they come for the rest, one model at a time....till they have enough power to ban them all...

 

[Lesh]

So does the .30 caliber carbine round and I don't see you screaming about banning it. Why aren't you screaming about banning the mini-14? It fires both the .223/5.56m round and the more powerful 7.62x39 AK-47 round.

It’s an AR

Should be banned as well

 

[Lesh]

I wonder if he's ever seen the damage a .60 caliber Minie ball does when propelled by black powder?

Yea… all of three shots a minute … at best

 

[progressive hunter]

It’s an AR

Should be banned as well

why??

a .22 will kill you just as dead,,

 

[westwall]

Yea… all of three shots a minute … at best

Yeah, but get hit by one and you are either dead, or maimed for life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s an AR
Should be banned as well

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It’s an AR

Should be banned as well

No it isn’t. Mechanically it’s a cross between a M-1 Garand and a M-14. Both are real military rifles that fire a much more powerful round than the anemic .223/5.56mm the AR-15 fires.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yea… all of three shots a minute … at best

Easily three shots a minute.

 

[Kruska]

Wait...
You think 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd does -not- include firearms or the ammunition for them?
Um...
With that in mind, what weapons do you believe will facilitate a well-regulated militia?

I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.

Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.

If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.

But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.

Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.

And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.

The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.

As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.

 

[progressive hunter]

I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.

Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.

If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.

But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.

Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.

And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.

The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.

As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.

what arms do you mean??
chicken arms or kangaroo arms??

 

[2aguy]

I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.

Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.

If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.

But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.

Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.

And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.

The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.

As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.

Wow....so much bullshit in one post...

So....according to you the 1st amendment says nothing about ink....it jist says the press has freedom......so, the government can ban ink, and computers, even paper.....

You are an idiot

 

[Lesh]

I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.

Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.

If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.

But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.

Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.

And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.

The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.

As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.

Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?

Yeah.Armories

 

[Kruska]

Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?

Yeah.Armories

I believe, anyone with some understanding towards firearms and the 2nd A towards a required Militia - knows this.
"Military"flintlock hand-weapons were also stored in the armory, since not everyone's private "firearm" was suitable for a war, aka for a Militia.
Only Rambo wannabe, gun-weirdos, additionally plagued with conspiracy illness - live in denial.

 

[westwall]

I stated that it only mentions "arms"and not firearms - to those who dig into the 2nd A text details - to justify their errant believes.
I had further stated that arms is nothing else but another term for WEAPONS.

Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.

If the 2nd A - was meant for the Militia - ammo can and would be stored at an arsenal. That no one cared about Frontier Jim, in 1783 having ammo at home, to shot wildlife, blow off his despised neighbors head and some Injuins is also understood. Unless a “committee of vigilance” aka "vigilantes" - existed in the respective area, who only cared about the "missing" or found dead neighbor. Who then was found to have been killed by Injuins.

But nowadays - TODAY 250 years later,- one can't just shoot wildlife, his neighbor and Injunis - the latter two are crimes that will be thoroughly investigated, and the first requires a license, aka a license-fee.

Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo, but would be free to purchase it to go onto a "licensed" hunt - which in-turn could require an "accountability" towards the amount of ammo given and expanded, during the hunt, just as in e.g. Germany.

And again - Ammo is NOT mentioned in the 2nd A. - only Arms aka Weapons.
As such if a SC should come to the same opinion - you can keep your Weapons, but ammo can only be requested for a hunt or having fun at a shooting range.

The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms. But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.

As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test) - then to be faced with the possible, above mentioned SC decision. That would only allow criminals to posses illegal weapons - and me being defenseless.

Who cares what you prefer. The Founders were very clear, the Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government can do to the person, and one, final option.

Thus, they ensured that the PEOPLE would be every bit as well equipped as the corrupt government that wished to persecute them.

At the time the country was founded the only artillery unit in the country was a PRIVATE organization.

The government also regularly employed privateers, PRIVATE groups who outfitted their vessels with CANNON. You know, what the Royal Navy used in their warships.

So, yet again, you are ignorant of ACTUAL history that proves you wrong.

 

[westwall]

Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?

Yeah.Armories

Nope. In their homes. There were bulk quantities of powder in the armory so that the people could replenish their supply. But EVERYONE was armed back then.

And there were no cannon save for one PRIVATE organization. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

You too are historically inaccurate.

 

[Lesh]

Nope. In their homes. There were bulk quantities of powder in the armory so that the people could replenish their supply. But EVERYONE was armed back then.

And there were no cannon save for one PRIVATE organization. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.

You too are historically inaccurate.

Of course there was cannon you dolt.

What do you think Lexington and Concord was about?

What do you think they used to put down Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

Moron

 

[Kruska]

Thus, they ensured that the PEOPLE would be every bit as well equipped as the corrupt government that wished to persecute them.

Your "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.

 

[Lesh]

Your "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.

It DOES however mention the militia and in the body of the Constitution (Article II Section 8) it describes that militia and its uses… one of which is put DOWN insurrections

 

[westwall]

Of course there was cannon you dolt.

What do you think Lexington and Concord was about?

What do you think they used to put down Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

Moron

No, there weren't you ignorant clod. The cannon belonged to the BRITISH. Not the revolutionaries.

Like I said, you are ignorant of history.

 

[westwall]

Your "personal" interpretation towards something that isn't mentioned in the 2nd A.

Actually, it is. You CHOOSE to ignore the meaning of the language of the time it was written.

Because you ARE, intellectually dishonest.