Major prewar battles in Middle East. Americans need their AR-15 assault rifles.Who says we don't need them?!

[hadit]

We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels

AR-15's are not assault rifles, they just look scary.

Best available weapon for slaughtering young children, shooting up shopping malls and movie theaters

just because thats what you would do doesnt mean the rest of us will,,

Four out of five mass killers prefer the AR15

Then why do most of them use handguns?

 

[hadit]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

Absolute nonsense.
"Arms" is whatever is needed to defend yourself from government oppression.....like the British, or our own abusive government.
If everyone has a musket....then you have the right to own one.
If everyone has an AR 15....then everyone has the right to own one...if that's what it takes to keep a corrupt government, federal, state, or local, from infringing on your rights.....then so be it.
If the call to take up arms against a Totalitarian government.....and the call for a militia is made to take the fight to the enemy, foreign or domestic, then that right shall not be infringed by the federal government.
It doesn't say anything about states.
There is where the great threat to security lies.

Sadly, this comment is out of touch with reality: "if that's what it takes to keep a corrupt government, federal, state, or local, from infringing on your rights.....then so be it" In context, the author believes every citizen no matter what shall have the right to have an AR -15 in their custody and control.

The solution in response to Mud-brain's absurd comment is this: DEMOCRACY.

Correct.

Of course, conservatives oppose democracy.

They have nothing but contempt for the will of the people and are willing to do anything to overturn the will of the people – including through force of arms predicated on the idiotic notion that a lawfully, constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people should be ‘overthrown’ because conservatives have some wrongheaded idea that government has become ‘tyrannical.’

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy is proof of that.

Yet another poorly fitted foil helmet preventing the mindreading circuits from functioning correctly.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

we can always count on you for showing us what an idiot you are,,

I’m an idiot?

You are the one fighting to make sure assassins and mass murderers have the firepower of their choice

no I'm not,, I'm fighting to make sure good people are allowed to defend themselves from guys your referring to and also governments intent on enslaving the people,,,

I know its hard for someone like you to understand,, but what can I do about your ignorance??

Save me your Red Dawn fantasies.

You don’t need a 50 round magazine to defend yourself. If you think you are capable of taking on a modern trained and equipped Army......I have sad news for you

Not needing it has nothing to do with the right to have it.

The 2nd amendment is not and never has come with shall not infringe. This is the BIG LIE.

There is no mention of guns, per se; the word is ARMS and no one has the absolute right to own all matter of ARMS. From Nuclear Weapons to push button & gravity knives there are limits to what can be owned, possess or in the custody and control of every person who is living within the border of the US.

Absolute nonsense.
"Arms" is whatever is needed to defend yourself from government oppression.....like the British, or our own abusive government.
If everyone has a musket....then you have the right to own one.
If everyone has an AR 15....then everyone has the right to own one...if that's what it takes to keep a corrupt government, federal, state, or local, from infringing on your rights.....then so be it.
If the call to take up arms against a Totalitarian government.....and the call for a militia is made to take the fight to the enemy, foreign or domestic, then that right shall not be infringed by the federal government.
It doesn't say anything about states.
There is where the great threat to security lies.

Sadly, this comment is out of touch with reality: "if that's what it takes to keep a corrupt government, federal, state, or local, from infringing on your rights.....then so be it" In context, the author believes every citizen no matter what shall have the right to have an AR -15 in their custody and control.

The solution in response to Mud-brain's absurd comment is this: DEMOCRACY.

Mud-Brain?
Kiss my ass.
If you go back to the original intent of the framers of the constitution....that's what they meant.
The only reason it's a problem is because leftists in our country are trying to totally disarm us, thus preventing us from defending ourselves.......from home-invasion (BLM & ANTIFA)....waves of illegals/drug-human traffickers pouring over the border onto ranches and farms......or keep the government from entering our homes illegally to take our food and our property.....which is what communists tend to do......and what the left WILL DO if we let them.

And when exactly has any of that ever happened to you?

Paranoid delusion much, Mud-Brain?

Well......not everything has to effect me directly (unlike you) to be a threat to good people in this country.

You seem to be the typical self-centered, superficial low-life that only thinks about what's happening around them. If it isn't happening in their neighborhood..or on TV newcasts..it doesn't exist.

But unlike you.....I've been around the world and around this country.....and I know what it's like to be on an Island and have to fend for myself surrounded by hostile natives. Survival training taught me what to expect. The military taught me the rest. I figure in no time farmers are going to be getting butchered along the border by drug-cartels.....something Obama was hoping would happen thanks to his weapons programs like Fast & Furious. Obama Admin Caught Sending Guns to Drug Cartels

So what you're apparently saying is that you have no personal experience with the issues you list. They are in fact just your paranoid delusions.

BTW - I too lived on an island where many stupid red-neck assholes considered the natives to be hostile. I adopted much of the native's culture. I did not try to impose my native culture on them. I got to know the natives and got along with them. I worked for the U.S. Navy indirectly, but did not have or need any military training.

Your difficulties with the natives on whatever island you lived on, were a result of your ongoing paranoid delusions.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what we need: 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.

 

[SavannahMann]

And no other rifle would work?

 

[danielpalos]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

 

[SavannahMann]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

 

[Rye Catcher]

This is what we need: 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.

And Art. I, sec 8, clauses 15 & 16 provide for a well regulated militia; not fat, white, middle aged kooks in camouflage pretending to be a militia. Not active duty kooks attacking the US Capitol Building on Jan 6th, and not White Supremacist, Neo Nazis and the KKK or a single guy with a rapid fire gun and large magazines seeking to kill innocents for some fun.

well regulated is the substance of the 2nd, not shall not be infringed

 

[danielpalos]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

Well regulated militia could be issued the Arms they may require when they muster at the armory.

To the militiamobile!

 

[SavannahMann]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

Well regulated militia could be issued the Arms they may require when they muster at the armory.

To the militiamobile!

First. You are using the terms wrong. In fact. All of them.

The Militia was defined by the First Congress to be all able bodied free men. Today we would modify that to all able bodied people. But the point remains.

The Militia of the era was called up by levy. A runner would appear in town and say that ten percent of the men needed to head to a point to assemble. If not enough volunteers were found some would be picked and pressed into service.

These men were expected to provide their own rifles. The weapons of the era were sold with a mold to make a lead ball of the proper size for that rifle. The military would provide powder and lead and flint.

The term Well Regulated was defined too. In order to insure that this wasn’t a mob the Militia was required by act of Congress to accept military type orders and discipline. That was the meaning of well regulated.

Notice. There was no prohibition against someone who had been convicted of a crime. Former criminals were able to buy weapons like anyone else. The idea that weapons should not be available to people convicted of crimes in the past is a modern idea that was an anathema to our Forefathers.

Some States and towns had training after Divine Worship on Sunday. During this training the Militiamen would conduct drill and ceremony in order to get them accustomed to instantly obeying orders.

Now. Who could activate the Militia? Not just anyone. The Governor was in charge. And officers that Militia Members had to obey were appointed by the Governor. To use the vernacular of the era. They were commissioned. A piece of paper signed by the Governor or a superior officer with authority was the authority of this officer.

Doctors got Warrants. They were Warrant Officers. Outside of the Chain of Command but entitled to Officer type treatment.

Now. Let’s say you live in a Blue State with a Democratic Governor. That means if you form a Militia you would have to accept orders from that Democratic Governor and obey the orders of officers he appoints.

Any Questions?

 

[danielpalos]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

Well regulated militia could be issued the Arms they may require when they muster at the armory.

To the militiamobile!

First. You are using the terms wrong. In fact. All of them.

The Militia was defined by the First Congress to be all able bodied free men. Today we would modify that to all able bodied people. But the point remains.

The Militia of the era was called up by levy. A runner would appear in town and say that ten percent of the men needed to head to a point to assemble. If not enough volunteers were found some would be picked and pressed into service.

These men were expected to provide their own rifles. The weapons of the era were sold with a mold to make a lead ball of the proper size for that rifle. The military would provide powder and lead and flint.

The term Well Regulated was defined too. In order to insure that this wasn’t a mob the Militia was required by act of Congress to accept military type orders and discipline. That was the meaning of well regulated.

Notice. There was no prohibition against someone who had been convicted of a crime. Former criminals were able to buy weapons like anyone else. The idea that weapons should not be available to people convicted of crimes in the past is a modern idea that was an anathema to our Forefathers.

Some States and towns had training after Divine Worship on Sunday. During this training the Militiamen would conduct drill and ceremony in order to get them accustomed to instantly obeying orders.

Now. Who could activate the Militia? Not just anyone. The Governor was in charge. And officers that Militia Members had to obey were appointed by the Governor. To use the vernacular of the era. They were commissioned. A piece of paper signed by the Governor or a superior officer with authority was the authority of this officer.

Doctors got Warrants. They were Warrant Officers. Outside of the Chain of Command but entitled to Officer type treatment.

Now. Let’s say you live in a Blue State with a Democratic Governor. That means if you form a Militia you would have to accept orders from that Democratic Governor and obey the orders of officers he appoints.

Any Questions?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, history, or politics.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

[SavannahMann]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

Well regulated militia could be issued the Arms they may require when they muster at the armory.

To the militiamobile!

First. You are using the terms wrong. In fact. All of them.

The Militia was defined by the First Congress to be all able bodied free men. Today we would modify that to all able bodied people. But the point remains.

The Militia of the era was called up by levy. A runner would appear in town and say that ten percent of the men needed to head to a point to assemble. If not enough volunteers were found some would be picked and pressed into service.

These men were expected to provide their own rifles. The weapons of the era were sold with a mold to make a lead ball of the proper size for that rifle. The military would provide powder and lead and flint.

The term Well Regulated was defined too. In order to insure that this wasn’t a mob the Militia was required by act of Congress to accept military type orders and discipline. That was the meaning of well regulated.

Notice. There was no prohibition against someone who had been convicted of a crime. Former criminals were able to buy weapons like anyone else. The idea that weapons should not be available to people convicted of crimes in the past is a modern idea that was an anathema to our Forefathers.

Some States and towns had training after Divine Worship on Sunday. During this training the Militiamen would conduct drill and ceremony in order to get them accustomed to instantly obeying orders.

Now. Who could activate the Militia? Not just anyone. The Governor was in charge. And officers that Militia Members had to obey were appointed by the Governor. To use the vernacular of the era. They were commissioned. A piece of paper signed by the Governor or a superior officer with authority was the authority of this officer.

Doctors got Warrants. They were Warrant Officers. Outside of the Chain of Command but entitled to Officer type treatment.

Now. Let’s say you live in a Blue State with a Democratic Governor. That means if you form a Militia you would have to accept orders from that Democratic Governor and obey the orders of officers he appoints.

Any Questions?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, history, or politics.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

On every subject I am denounced as either a Socialist because I believe in Social Programs like Welfare. Or I am a Left Winger because I advocate Police Reform and Accountability. A Right Wing but because I speak truth about the Second.

Here is the Wikipedia page. For the simplified version.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

History is a passion of mine. I could link to writings of the era about the intent of the Militia. But I figure you won’t read them.

 

[danielpalos]

And no other rifle would work?

Not the point. Well regulated militia are weapons qualified on the weapons they keep and bear.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States in modern times.

That isn’t the thread. The thread is that we must have an AR-15.

Well regulated militia could be issued the Arms they may require when they muster at the armory.

To the militiamobile!

First. You are using the terms wrong. In fact. All of them.

The Militia was defined by the First Congress to be all able bodied free men. Today we would modify that to all able bodied people. But the point remains.

The Militia of the era was called up by levy. A runner would appear in town and say that ten percent of the men needed to head to a point to assemble. If not enough volunteers were found some would be picked and pressed into service.

These men were expected to provide their own rifles. The weapons of the era were sold with a mold to make a lead ball of the proper size for that rifle. The military would provide powder and lead and flint.

The term Well Regulated was defined too. In order to insure that this wasn’t a mob the Militia was required by act of Congress to accept military type orders and discipline. That was the meaning of well regulated.

Notice. There was no prohibition against someone who had been convicted of a crime. Former criminals were able to buy weapons like anyone else. The idea that weapons should not be available to people convicted of crimes in the past is a modern idea that was an anathema to our Forefathers.

Some States and towns had training after Divine Worship on Sunday. During this training the Militiamen would conduct drill and ceremony in order to get them accustomed to instantly obeying orders.

Now. Who could activate the Militia? Not just anyone. The Governor was in charge. And officers that Militia Members had to obey were appointed by the Governor. To use the vernacular of the era. They were commissioned. A piece of paper signed by the Governor or a superior officer with authority was the authority of this officer.

Doctors got Warrants. They were Warrant Officers. Outside of the Chain of Command but entitled to Officer type treatment.

Now. Let’s say you live in a Blue State with a Democratic Governor. That means if you form a Militia you would have to accept orders from that Democratic Governor and obey the orders of officers he appoints.

Any Questions?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, history, or politics.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

On every subject I am denounced as either a Socialist because I believe in Social Programs like Welfare. Or I am a Left Winger because I advocate Police Reform and Accountability. A Right Wing but because I speak truth about the Second.

Here is the Wikipedia page. For the simplified version.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

History is a passion of mine. I could link to writings of the era about the intent of the Militia. But I figure you won’t read them.

You have no truth only right wing propaganda.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only appeals to ignorance of the whole entire people is a well-regulated militia deemed necessary for the standing army to bear arms with LGBT members under the Dick Act of the Constitution.

Right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who says we don't need assault rifles to defend ourselves

There is no ‘need’ to make a speech or to participate in a protest – but the First Amendment right to do so exists, nonetheless.

The same is true of the Second Amendment right: there is no need to demonstrate a ‘need’ to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right.

Yet conservatives continue with this childish, wrongheaded sophistry.

 

[danielpalos]

Only appeals to ignorance of the whole entire people is a well-regulated militia deemed necessary for the standing army to bear arms with LGBT members under the Dick Act of the Constitution.

Right?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

[Utilitarian]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...

If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels

the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting

 

[Utilitarian]

The same side that wants to defund or disband police also wants to disarm the public. Gee, I wonder who that leaves most of the guns with....

The same people that have the most weapons now.

If you're referring to the government, I agree.

That's another reason to support the right to bear arms for private citizens.

 

[Utilitarian]

And no other rifle would work?

There's no logical reason to single out AR 15s for a ban or restrictions.