CDZ Should Americans be allowed to own military sniper rifles and military door buster guns?

OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
84,322
Reaction score
23,061
Points
2,180
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?




I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.
I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.

What you don't understand is that it isn't up to you to determine how someone carries their legal gun. In some states with concealed carry, if you accidentally show the gun, since you can't open carry, you can be charged with brandishing the gun....which is why you should have open and concealed carry...that way as you concealed carry you can't be charged if your shirt hikes up when you reach for the cheerios at the grocery store and some anti-gun extremist calls it in to the police as if you are a joe biden rioter burning the store down.....

And the dumb argument about tanks and mortars..............

Gee...the founders didn't want us to carry tanks and mortars...so that means you can't have your handgun or rifle too....
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,301
Reaction score
4,259
Points
290
Location
Texas
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?




I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.
I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.

What you don't understand is that it isn't up to you to determine how someone carries their legal gun. In some states with concealed carry, if you accidentally show the gun, since you can't open carry, you can be charged with brandishing the gun....which is why you should have open and concealed carry...that way as you concealed carry you can't be charged if your shirt hikes up when you reach for the cheerios at the grocery store and some anti-gun extremist calls it in to the police as if you are a joe biden rioter burning the store down.....

And the dumb argument about tanks and mortars..............

Gee...the founders didn't want us to carry tanks and mortars...so that means you can't have your handgun or rifle too....
That was never my point, so that means you can't read and can only deal in select memes and ideological junk that fit your narratives. And as for the 'hiked up shirt' nonsense, that is just a strawman as well. As for the tanks and mortars stuff, you obviously blanked out when your fellow ideologues brought up their idiotic claims re what the 2nd Amendment says. As always, the Amendments left the decisions up to the individual states. Its funny how you cultists suddenly go all Federalist when it suits your dream interpretations of what fashion statements you can make.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
63,059
Reaction score
21,459
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
In a Leftard Police free world, guns are a requirement.

 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,224
Reaction score
15,971
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I
And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Most people don't realize that the Miller case made the determination that military weapons are protected under the Second Amendment. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, the Supreme Court made a big mistake in that decision. They ruled that Miller was guilty of violating the NFA laws because his short barrel shotgun was not used by the military. In fact the military did use short barrel shotguns in WWI. The Supremes got that wrong. They didn't do their homework.
No, the Model 1897 to which you refer used a 20 inch barrel. Millers shotgun was about 10 inches long.
Sawed off shotguns are very useful in trenches and were modified for trench warfare.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,934
Reaction score
21,512
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
I
And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Most people don't realize that the Miller case made the determination that military weapons are protected under the Second Amendment. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, the Supreme Court made a big mistake in that decision. They ruled that Miller was guilty of violating the NFA laws because his short barrel shotgun was not used by the military. In fact the military did use short barrel shotguns in WWI. The Supremes got that wrong. They didn't do their homework.
No, the Model 1897 to which you refer used a 20 inch barrel. Millers shotgun was about 10 inches long.
Sawed off shotguns are very useful in trenches and were modified for trench warfare.





Not in the US military. I own a Winchester Model 1897 "Trenchbroom" the barrel is 20" long, and has an adapter to mount a 16 inch bayonet on the muzzle.

During WWII the shotguns were used for prison guard duties and were full size.
 

Frankeneinstein

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
8,243
Reaction score
1,150
Points
280
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
lol...constitution was never a good reason for anything where liberals are concerned... that's some kinda warped logic there Fidel, is there a good reason for civilians to have freedom of speech if they are not journalists?...see how that works
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,747
Reaction score
15,035
Points
1,600
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
Whe someone breaks into tour home and rapes your wife and daughter and then cuts off your balls and forces them down tour threat (Willie Horton), you will change your mind.
Or the abortion argument, "if you dont like guns, DONT HAVE ONE"
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,747
Reaction score
15,035
Points
1,600
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
I can think of a couple...

Why is the thug always portrayed as white when 9 times out of 10 hes black or hispanic?
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
26,413
Reaction score
11,161
Points
950
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
I can think of a couple...

Why is the thug always portrayed as white when 9 times out of 10 hes black or hispanic?
What difference does the color of the thug make? The threat is still the same.
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,747
Reaction score
15,035
Points
1,600
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
I can think of a couple...

Why is the thug always portrayed as white when 9 times out of 10 hes black or hispanic?
What difference does the color of the thug make? The threat is still the same.
Whites are WAY over represented as "criminals." All part of black privilege
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
781
Reaction score
764
Points
883
Location
Arizona
Privateers were licensed by the state for one, not everybody could be one, and for two, wealth and political influence determined what an individual could own. Rolling around towing cannon wasn't a common sight at any time in the past, but of course some idiots still dream of toeing artillery around while they go shopping for tomatoes and bon bons, I guess.

And in any case it's moot, since we've seen two famous instances where running around with a rifle has only made the carrier a target for criminals and the end up wrestling with the thugs over their own weapons, i.e. idiotic fashion victims getting caught with their pants down. It's immediately obvious it isn't a good idea, especially with so many tards running loose with no nurses and the influence of TV being what it is. And for you dumbass faggots who keep babbling '2nd Amendment' over and over like retarded chimps playing with a tire, we've had gun control laws over our entire history , even out in the not so 'wild' West days, and we will continue to have them regardless of your tree house clubs hobbies.

And, for the hundredth or so time, I'm fine with concealed carry, my entire family carries, and I'm also fine with requiring safety training courses and background checks, so you fags will just have to strain your tiny frontal lobes and come up with some other strawmen to snivel about.

And we all know most of you obsessed tards who haven't done so already immediately ran out and bought camo paint and played in front of a mirror all afternoon after reading my suggestions for looking more scary in public than the other tards. Hlaf of you decided against it after putting the knife in your mouth the wrong way and cutting yourselves, and another 1 out of 4 broke your last front tooth trying it.
The letter of marque and reprisal was issued by either a state or national government and was merely a license to commit legal piracy against the enemies of the issuing authority. It had nothing to do with the ownership of the ship. Plus most, if not all, ordinary merchant ships carried multiple cannon on their normal voyages. Many people in not only colonial days, but the Wild West owned artillery. Many of the privately owned forts or trading posts had one or more cannons for defense.
People didn’t “roll around towing cannon” for the same reason they don’t today. It’s inconvenient and unnecessary in every day life. Insulting people doesn’t make your point any better. For instance, I haven’t worn camouflage makeup (and it’s makeup, not paint) since I got off active duty the last time.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
781
Reaction score
764
Points
883
Location
Arizona
In 2017 gun deaths reached their highest since 1968, gun deaths have gone both up & down over the years. but senseless deaths by unexperienced gun users has increased. way more than the 6 stated by M14.
Maybe some anti gun person can show some of the many incidences, as I am pro gun,& anti untrained gun nut.

The problem with what you want? Any attempt to require training before owning and/or carrying a gun allows the government, to jack up the fees and testing requirements to the point that normal people will never be able to meet them.....because they can't afford the time, the money or going through the red tape.....you allow them to ban guns through bureaucracy.....this is exactly how they do it in Europe for the few models of bird hunting shotguns they allow people to own.

The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

And considering how small the accidental death rate from gun ownership is, you wouldn't have the justification anyway.......

The way to increase gun safety? Cut the fees on using guns and for training with guns......sponsor ad campaigns encouraging people to go to the range and get training and practice......but, you will notice....that isn't what your way would achieve.....your way would make fewer people competent around guns......
The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

lol and those are exactly who most of the 'Founders' thought were the only 'qualified' citizens who should be allowed to vote and determine who and what 'everybody else' could own, within their own states. Yours and your fellow cranks here cognitive dissonance on original intent and trying to carry that to some logical extreme in the modern era is what makes your obsession with military hardware a mental illness. Your cult is just as loony and deranged as the left's is in the other direction. The day is just never going to come when you can just go to your local Walmart or convenience store and buy a mortar and shells or a land mine, no matter what rubbish you post on innernutz message boards to make each other feel 'Speshul N Stuff'..
Are you aware that when the Constitution was written common citizens could own cannon and private warships? The founders didn’t have a problem with that or they would have written exceptions into the Second Amendment. Based upon that I believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon in common usage by the military. And I don’t exclude tanks, artillery, combat aircraft and warships.
Who could carry and who couldn't was determined by state law, not Federal. And the weaponry back then wasn't the same as we have now, as anybody with any common sense left knows. nobody wants Goober down the street rolling his tank up and down the street or building his own nuke in his garage on weekends. They certainly don't want to listen to some moron practice shooting his cannon in his back yard. You can believe anything you want, as long as it doesn't lower my property values by leaving craters and bullet holes all over the street and making the place sound like an artillery range at Ft . Hood every weekend. None of that silly shit will do a thing to protect anybody from crime, and none of you aren't going to be any great 'freedom fighter' at the end of the day, either.
When I lived in California, I knew of two people who owned WWII armored cars and one who owned a fully operational tank (the main gun was demilitarized and the coax and hull M1919s were dummies).
I even knew one guy that owned at least fifty operational tanks, a dozen or so armored cars of various vintages and over a hundred military vehicles. He started out as a collector and wound up providing vehicles to the TV and movie industry. I also knew a guy that owned a WWII DUKW amphibious truck that was licensed for the street as well as registered as a boat that he occasionally drove down to the marina and tooled around for fun.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,785
Reaction score
4,701
Points
1,140
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
84,322
Reaction score
23,061
Points
2,180
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.
Wrong.....you want to ban pump action shotguns......those are the door busters that I posted about in the first post.....this simply shows you don't know anything about the topic you are posting about, you know nothing about guns, and you simply do not understand any of the issues involved in guns and gun ownership.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
84,322
Reaction score
23,061
Points
2,180
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.

You don't understand anything....the "Military Sniper Rifle" I listed in the first post is simply a typical deer hunting rifle, a rifle the army uses for snipers......the common deer hunting rifle......you don't understand the topic, you don't understand the issues and this is why we do not trust you and the other anti-gunners to make laws or policy that impact the Right...yes, the Right, to keep and bear arms.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
84,322
Reaction score
23,061
Points
2,180
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.

Here....the "Door Busting Gun...." otherwise known as your pump action shotgun......the one you now say you want banned...

You can watch these marines busting doors with the pump action shotgun...

This is why we do not trust anti-gunners....they say "we don't want military weapons in the hands of civilians" and that means no pump action shotguns or bolt action rifles..........we, do, not, trust, you........


 

Blues Lifer

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
746
Reaction score
1,171
Points
873
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.
I can think of a couple...

Why is the thug always portrayed as white when 9 times out of 10 hes black or hispanic?
cuz there's only one acceptable form of waacisticm. If there was a black depicted there, moar riots!
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
14,273
Reaction score
1,722
Points
265
Have what you want I guess I'll take my bolt action over any one of those ugly fan dangled newer pieces of junk. We would never allow anyone to hunt on our land with one.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,785
Reaction score
4,701
Points
1,140
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.
Wrong.....you want to ban pump action shotguns......those are the door busters that I posted about in the first post.....this simply shows you don't know anything about the topic you are posting about, you know nothing about guns, and you simply do not understand any of the issues involved in guns and gun ownership.
Oh you’re playing tricks. I get it. I own a shotgun btw. Have no problem with them. Most effective weapon for home security IMO
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top