Trump "petrified of the nra."

[Astrostar]

AR15 is a fine , efficient and effective weapon in the hands of Americans Astrostar .

Do you know anything about the AR-15 and what it's capable of? Have you even looked at a ballistics table for the 30-06 Springfield round? Why don't you try doing that. Look at the muzzle velocity of the 30-06 Springfield 150 grain and compare it to a 1911 45 ACP. The 30-06 belongs in a bolt action rifle, not an automatic weapon. And, if you think the AR-15 isn't an automatic, look at "bump stocks."

 

[pismoe]

machine guns are FINE with me , i just don't want to pay for one though they are legal in quite a few American States Astro .

 

[pismoe]

AR15 is a fine , efficient and effective weapon in the hands of Americans Astrostar .

Do you know anything about the AR-15 and what it's capable of? Have you even looked at a ballistics table for the 30-06 Springfield round? Why don't you try doing that. Look at the muzzle velocity of the 30-06 Springfield 150 grain and compare it to a 1911 45 ACP. The 30-06 belongs in a bolt action rifle, not an automatic weapon. And, if you think the AR-15 isn't an automatic, look at "bump stocks."

-------------------------------------- AR15 is the Modern American Musket of the late 20th and early 21st Century Astro !!

 

[kwc57]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

I don't think that means what you think it means. In fact, I know it doesn't mean what you think it means. If you're going to discuss a topic on a message board, you probably need to educate yourself first so people aren't pointing and laughing at you for bringing a knife to a gun fight. Look it up. Rube.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

 

[kwc57]

yeah , its a known fact that ALL anti gunners own Guns Astrostar !! [chuckle]

Yup, but not a military grade assault weapon like the AR-15. It's a military platform weapon and should remain as such. It has no business being available to the general public.

Good GAWD, where do you get your shitty information? The AR-15 is NOT a military grade assault rifle. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. That is a term made up by leftist who are afraid of boomsticks painted black. The AR-15 is popular among gun enthusiast because it is a platform that allows for customization by the owner. Kind of like car enthusiast deciding to put headers, mag wheels, wide tires, etc. on his car. Believe it or not, a 22 will kill you just as dead as an AR-15 or a howitzer. The only difference is the size of the hole. You aren't very good at this. I believe there is a gardening forum you might want to check out.

 

[kwc57]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure he studied under Rachel Maddow.

 

[007]

AR15 is a fine , efficient and effective weapon in the hands of Americans Astrostar .

Do you know anything about the AR-15 and what it's capable of? Have you even looked at a ballistics table for the 30-06 Springfield round? Why don't you try doing that. Look at the muzzle velocity of the 30-06 Springfield 150 grain and compare it to a 1911 45 ACP. The 30-06 belongs in a bolt action rifle, not an automatic weapon. And, if you think the AR-15 isn't an automatic, look at "bump stocks."

An AR is NOT an "automatic firearm," PERIOD, END OF STORY. It is a SEMI automatic firearm, of which there are HUNDREDS.

By using the guns own recoil, a bump stock enables the user to pull the trigger more rapidly, but the trigger STILL HAS to be PULLED to fire EACH ROUND, INDIVIDUALLY... you IGNORANT constitution hating twit.

They could ban bump stocks TODAY and I couldn't care less, and they probably will be banned. They're just about worthless if you're planning on shooting with any degree of accuracy. A bump stock is basically a NOVELTY ITEM.

 

[Astrostar]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Or what the "right of the people to bear arms" met at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Or what the "right of the people to bear arms" met at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Indeed. Can you explain? Doubts are exponentially multiplying.

 

[Astrostar]

AR15 is a fine , efficient and effective weapon in the hands of Americans Astrostar .

Do you know anything about the AR-15 and what it's capable of? Have you even looked at a ballistics table for the 30-06 Springfield round? Why don't you try doing that. Look at the muzzle velocity of the 30-06 Springfield 150 grain and compare it to a 1911 45 ACP. The 30-06 belongs in a bolt action rifle, not an automatic weapon. And, if you think the AR-15 isn't an automatic, look at "bump stocks."

An AR is NOT an "automatic firearm," PERIOD, END OF STORY. It is a SEMI automatic firearm, of which there are HUNDREDS.

By using the guns own recoil, a bump stock enables the user to pull the trigger more rapidly, but the trigger STILL HAS to be PULLED to fire EACH ROUND, INDIVIDUALLY... you IGNORANT constitution hating twit.

They could ban bump stocks TODAY and I couldn't care less, and they probably will be banned. They're just about worthless if you're planning on shooting with any degree of accuracy. A bump stock is basically a NOVELTY ITEM.

Your "novelty item" sure was effective in San Diego recently wasn't it? Please, look at the following:



and tell me that that sort of firing rate should be in the hands of the general public, especially if chambered with 30-06 Springfield rounds.

 

[Astrostar]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Or what the "right of the people to bear arms" met at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Indeed. Can you explain? Doubts are exponentially multiplying.

I'll leave you with one final thought, and this from that staunch conservative jurist Antonin Scalia. Warning, you might want to sweeten this with a little sugar.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia himself explicitly allowed for and even seemed to invite reasonable gun control, writing:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…” It is “… not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “... to consider ... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

yeah , gov approved guns are ok with YOU eh Astrostar !!

So, you don't buy the 2nd Amendment? It says "well regulated." You obviously don't like that part, but it is part of the 2nd Amendment until Republicans can get together a Constitutional Convention and amend the amendment to wipe out "well regulated."

Before you can argue the point with any rationality, you must first outline for us what by your learned assessment "well-regulated" meant at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Or what the "right of the people to bear arms" met at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

Indeed. Can you explain? Doubts are exponentially multiplying.

I'll leave you with one final thought, and this from that staunch conservative jurist Antonin Scalia. Warning, you might want to sweeten this with a little sugar.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia himself explicitly allowed for and even seemed to invite reasonable gun control, writing:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…” It is “… not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “... to consider ... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

1) You didn't answer the question.

2) Scalia is correct.

3) The Miller ruling was in error in that it based its decision on their unique view weapons so covered by the 2A must have a "relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", a requirement not reflected either in the 2A or in the myriad writings on the subject of arms by the Founders.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

 

[ChrisL]

This whole thread is fearmongering. Trying to scare the people into giving up their rights to their government. Despicable.

 

[Astrostar]

This whole thread is fearmongering. Trying to scare the people into giving up their rights to their government. Despicable.

Nope! The purpose of the thread is to show that Cadet Bone Spurs, who talks bigly and accuses others of being "petrified of the nra," by backing down, has shown that it is really himself who stands up to the nra like a limp noodle.

Cut it, slice it or dice it any way you want. Republicans, led by the limp noodle Cadet, quake and shake before the nra. The nra demands awe and the poor petrified Cadet gives them awe! Plain and simple! He ain't the rock solid President he claims to be.

 

[kwc57]

This whole thread is fearmongering. Trying to scare the people into giving up their rights to their government. Despicable.

Nope! The purpose of the thread is to show that Cadet Bone Spurs, who talks bigly and accuses others of being "petrified of the nra," by backing down, has shown that it is really himself who stands up to the nra like a limp noodle.

Cut it, slice it or dice it any way you want. Republicans, led by the limp noodle Cadet, quake and shake before the nra. The nra demands awe and the poor petrified Cadet gives them awe! Plain and simple! He ain't the rock solid President he claims to be.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru the night Nancy. I hope you have a safe space to curl up in.