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

[Porter Rockwell]

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'..

No.....the Founders realized that those without money could vote to take the money from other people.......that is why they originally had property qualifications for voting.....

What military hardware?

Do you understand that the AR-15 rifle is not a military weapon? Do you understand that?

Do you understand that even if it was...the Miller ruling from the Supreme Court specifically protects military weapons?

Do you understand that the 5 shot, pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon....? So according to what you are implying, the pump action shotgun is actual military hardware? Do you understand that?

Do you understand that the bolt action deer hunting rifle is an actual piece of military hardware? Do you understand that? The only weapon that isn't ....is the AR-15 rifle......

A wise man once observed:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

As recent as when I was a kid, the objective of men was supposed to be to get a job, leave home, establish your own household, have kids, and become an adult.

When citizenship was limited to property owners, it encouraged everyone to become self reliant, independent and have some skin in the game. Today, people are encouraged to come to America and become citizens. If you have nothing, it's okay, The Democrats will be happy to take from those who work and produce to guarantee you a lifestyle.

For the LGBTQP community, they will not reproduce and help continue the cultural cycle of life, so they will get to unfairly tax a self perpetuating system that relies on new births or immigration to sustain itself.

Now, those same people have some problem with people that have an unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness from having the tools and means to enforce those Rights. Those Rights were deemed by the earliest courts to be above the law. As such, the have nots want to use the power of government to take from those who have AND guarantee that those who produce and own private property cannot retain it so long as the have nots can use the power of the popular vote to take from those who have worked, earned and own what they have.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

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?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of age, religion, criminal background, or anything else, should be able to purchase, on the spot, any weapon, military or otherwise. If a citizen, who is Muslim, and who has a fascination with ISIS, jihad, etc, and is freshly out of prison for violent crimes., wants to buy an FN SCAR, he should be able to.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of age, religion, criminal background, or anything else, should be able to purchase, on the spot, any weapon, military or otherwise. If a citizen, who is Muslim, and who has a fascination with ISIS, jihad, etc, and is freshly out of prison for violent crimes., wants to buy an FN SCAR, he should be able to.

That is kind of irresponsible at one level. Then again, Muslims have no business in the United States. We've been at war with them since before the U.S. was a country.

No person should be let of jail or prison until they have been rehabilitated and people who have been adjudged to be mentally incompetent should be held in a mental facility and / or under constant supervision.

I think you don't really feel that way, but the left has been programmed to think we will have total gun control or else everyone in America will get a weapon, regardless of their propensity for violence.

Unfortunately, gun owners are not proactive. They are reactionaries, so actual measures that would prevent most firearm shootings is never pursued.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

You never know when a rabid Bambi will break in and threaten your family, your flag and that apple pie the little lady baked this afternoon.

Until the froot loops learn to shoot, they need all the help they can get and the libs can’t be every place at once. They can’t always take care of the knee jerkers.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

View attachment 303478

These days, it means filtered word removed should be a food group for you.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 303478

These days, it means Viagr* should be a food group for you.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

All my original equipment works just fine, Buckwheat.....Thanks for your concern.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

You never know when a rabid Bambi will break in and threaten your family, your flag and that apple pie the little lady baked this afternoon.

Until the froot loops learn to shoot, they need all the help they can get and the libs can’t be every place at once. They can’t always take care of the knee jerkers.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, Americans should not be ALLOWED to carry sniper rifles.

We have a RIGHT to carry them, no allowance is needed from anyone. That would make them sovereign, not the People.

 

[Picaro]

No, Americans should not be ALLOWED to carry sniper rifles.

We have a RIGHT to carry them, no allowance is needed from anyone. That would make them sovereign, not the People.

Good, then you won't mind if I see you coming first with your big bad rifle and shoot your balls off with mine, since I have no idea who you are and hey, better safe than sorry, especially if you're wearing camo in an urban area, like a moron nutjob would. It's my right to protect myself and my family after all, and that means getting the first shot off, right?

 

[Picaro]

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?

You never know when a rabid Bambi will break in and threaten your family, your flag and that apple pie the little lady baked this afternoon.

Until the froot loops learn to shoot, they need all the help they can get and the libs can’t be every place at once. They can’t always take care of the knee jerkers.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

Yes, I forgot all about the Constitution being written by the Federal Farmer, and the only Founder was Richard Henry Lee, or any other of the 5,000 or so that has some quote or other that you like. In other news, find us a quote where ole Henry Lee says we should be able to buy hand grenades and nuclear warheads at the 7-11.

 

[Picaro]

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

An impressive number of them were drunk most of the time, as they were throughout the 19th Century, so yes, they were nuts quite a bit of their waking moments. Is this news to you? Of course it is.

 

[2aguy]

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?

You never know when a rabid Bambi will break in and threaten your family, your flag and that apple pie the little lady baked this afternoon.

Until the froot loops learn to shoot, they need all the help they can get and the libs can’t be every place at once. They can’t always take care of the knee jerkers.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

Yes, I forgot all about the Constitution being written by the Federal Farmer, and the only Founder was Richard Henry Lee, or any other of the 5,000 or so that has some quote or other that you like. In other news, find us a quote where ole Henry Lee says we should be able to buy hand grenades and nuclear warheads at the 7-11.

Grenades would be considered dangerous and unusual......rifles, pistols and shotguns are not...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

-----------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[CWayne]

Actually it is gun lovers who fantasize about using their thousands of rounds of ammunition, large capacity magazines and assault rifles

Otherwise, they wouldn’t have them

Why is it anyone's business what law abiding citizens own?

Exactly what I have been saying

If you want to buy the best available assault rifle or sniper rifle to slaughter young children, it is your own business

Too funny. Good thing that no one is buying them for that purpose.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

You never know when a rabid Bambi will break in and threaten your family, your flag and that apple pie the little lady baked this afternoon.

Until the froot loops learn to shoot, they need all the help they can get and the libs can’t be every place at once. They can’t always take care of the knee jerkers.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

Yes, I forgot all about the Constitution being written by the Federal Farmer, and the only Founder was Richard Henry Lee, or any other of the 5,000 or so that has some quote or other that you like. In other news, find us a quote where ole Henry Lee says we should be able to buy hand grenades and nuclear warheads at the 7-11.

You are a very dishonest individual. If and when hand grenades become an issue, we can visit it. Until then, all you have is a straw man argument because you cannot sustain an argument in favor of gun control.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

An impressive number of them were drunk most of the time, as they were throughout the 19th Century, so yes, they were nuts quite a bit of their waking moments. Is this news to you? Of course it is.

Drunk conservatives were smarter than sober liberals? News to me, but great admission on your part.

 

[P@triot]

Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.

Tell that to the thousands of victims in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the government you worship and bow to failed on very level - including outright abandoning their posts out of cowardice. There are literally thousands of good reasons...

1. Riots

2. Home invasions by multiple offenders

3. The government answers to the people, the people do not answer to the government. Since when does the subordinate gets privileges denied to the boss?

4. The U.S. Constitution clearly says I can own them

5. Constitutional rights aren’t predicated on of “having a reason”

Shall I continue?

 

[P@triot]

In other news, find us a quote where ole Henry Lee says we should be able to buy hand grenades and nuclear warheads at the 7-11.

The U.S. Constitution says “arms”. It does not say “muskets”. So yes, I have an absolute right to purchase hand grenades and nuclear warheads.

Now tell me, which corporation is selling nuclear warheads? Walmart? Target? Oh that’s right, they are literally only made by government. Well, thank you for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you.

 

[P@triot]

No, Americans should not be ALLOWED to carry sniper rifles.

We have a RIGHT to carry them, no allowance is needed from anyone. That would make them sovereign, not the People.

Good, then you won't mind if I see you coming first with your big bad rifle and shoot your balls off with mine, since I have no idea who you are and hey, better safe than sorry, especially if you're wearing camo in an urban area, like a moron nutjob would. It's my right to protect myself and my family after all, and that means getting the first shot off, right?

You have a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to murder. It’s amazing how afraid you are of a firearm. Your posts are just dripping with panic and fear.

 

[P@triot]

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

An impressive number of them were drunk most of the time...

When one is on the wrong side of the debate, they are forced to make stuff up out of thin air.

Of course there is 0 evidence that the framers were drunk, but that doesn’t stop the anti-constitutionalist from trying to convince others that it was “true”. In fact, considering the foresight they had (such as building in an amendment process and creating an electoral college to prevent mob rule), one would have to conclude that all indications are, the framers were highly intelligent and 100% sober.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Those founders and framers who secured your Liberty really were some "froot loops" (sic), weren't they?

An impressive number of them were drunk most of the time...

When one is on the wrong side of the debate, they are forced to make stuff up out of thin air.

Of course there is 0 evidence that the framers were drunk, but that doesn’t stop the anti-constitutionalist from trying to convince others that it was “true”. In fact, considering the foresight they had (such as building in an amendment process and creating an electoral college to prevent mob rule), one would have to conclude that all indications are, the framers were highly intelligent and 100% sober.

I thought that, even if true, that guy still essentially said a drunk conservative is more intelligent than a sober liberal. Amazing what these guys will cop to in their desperate attempts to undermine the Constitution that protects their Rights to be able to publicly spew crap that would get them arrested in a lot of other countries.