Weapons of war in civilian hands

[pismoe]

Define that please. What makes something a "weapon of war"? What makes a gun a "military grade" weapon?

---------------------------- as i commented yesterday , most guns that are effective and efficient were developed from weapons of war . Even the Brown Bess Musket of the American Revolution went from being a single shot smooth bore Musket to the first Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifled 'RIFLE' was a Weapon of War .

They don't care. They hate guns and the second.

-------------------------------- exactly , they want ALL the guns , especially the guns that are designed to fill the purpose of the Second Amendment LBTrout .

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The military uses pistols. We should ban them too. Right Oregon?
Think they use machetes and knives too! Holy shit!
What about shirts?

And pants! Let's make this interesting!

Just don't ask me to give up my boots.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's pathetic. Look at the poll results.

THAT is pathetic. Hillary should be president based on the polls.

And, good thing polls don't dictate rights.

I don't care if we are in the majority. We have guns.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Oh, so you beg for gun control without using those bad military type words used to describe a gun. Ok. Actually, we need to eliminate more gun laws. We have too many that are infringing on the second. We don't need more. Thats ludicrous.

Where did I say I want new gun control laws?

Right here:

"I don't use that kind of language to beg for gun control, so there's no need for me to have an answer."

You may need a refresher course in reading comprehension.

 

[pismoe]

Define that please. What makes something a "weapon of war"? What makes a gun a "military grade" weapon?

If by "weapons of war" they mean actually used in war, that includes:
Revolvers
Shotguns
Bolt-Action Rifles
Leaver-Action Rifles
Muskets
Swords
Knives
Clubs/Bats
Axes

What weapon has NOT been used in war?

AR15s.

Well, that's not quite true. An AR-15 is simply a modified M16/M4 that is limited to semiautomatic fire.

Edit: Now that I think about it, it's the other way around. The AR-15 was around first. The military modified them for their use.

You snortin again this morning?
Look it up. First statement : True
Second statement: Not

Evidence?

Go ask Stoner's grandkids or something.

----------------------------- feck 'stoners' kids and 'grandkids' OldLady .

 

[OldLady]

Stoner was designing it solely for war purposes.

Please name one gun that was not designed for war purposes or did not incorporate features of a weapon designed for war purposes.

Possibly. My point was that the gun was designed and used first as an improvement on the M-16 to be used in military applications. Then it was modified slightly and sold to civilians.

 

[OldLady]

The military uses pistols. We should ban them too. Right Oregon?
Think they use machetes and knives too! Holy shit!
What about shirts?

And pants! Let's make this interesting!

Just don't ask me to give up my boots.

Absolutely. I definitely wouldn't want to have to look at your feet.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh, so you beg for gun control without using those bad military type words used to describe a gun. Ok. Actually, we need to eliminate more gun laws. We have too many that are infringing on the second. We don't need more. Thats ludicrous.

Where did I say I want new gun control laws?

Right here:

"I don't use that kind of language to beg for gun control, so there's no need for me to have an answer."

You may need a refresher course in reading comprehension.

No, its a simple logical deduction that is implied. You don't use that language SO, you do use some type of language to beg for gun control......its just that you're above everyone else and you would never ever use such language as "military" when describing those bad bad guns. We know who you are. I would suggest that you study the intricacies of basic logical deduction in reference to the english language.

 

[OldLady]

That's pathetic. Look at the poll results.

THAT is pathetic. Hillary should be president based on the polls.

And, good thing polls don't dictate rights.

I don't care if we are in the majority. We have guns.

Wake up. We live in a democracy; eventually it will work.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Possibly. My point was that the gun was designed and used first as an improvement on the M-16 to be used in military applications. Then it was modified slightly and sold to civilians.

So? That describes EVERY gun design.

Just admit you want a complete ban and confiscation. Quit trying to qualify the unqualifiable. You know good and Odin Damn well that you are playing word games to hide the true objective. We don't believe you.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is nothing in the Constitution the delineates weapons of war from weapons.

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wake up. We live in a democracy; eventually it will work.

Guns work too.

And you need a civics class.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The military uses pistols. We should ban them too. Right Oregon?
Think they use machetes and knives too! Holy shit!
What about shirts?

And pants! Let's make this interesting!

Just don't ask me to give up my boots.

Absolutely. I definitely wouldn't want to have to look at your feet.

I look at my feet.

Nothing wrong with my feet.

My Drill instructor made it clear that it is a necessity to take care of my feet.

I told him I knew that, and that my Mother taught me that.

My feet are clean, dry and servicable.

But my boots make my feet look good.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

That's a distinction the founders never made. At the time, civilians owned cannons and bombs.

If there is a constitutional amendment to clarify the meaning of "arms" and "the People" and "shall not be infringed" then fine, but States still have the power. The 2nd is a restriction on the federal government, making the BATF and all fed gun laws illegal and unconstitutional. We simply have had people on the Court without the guts or integrity to force the government to do it the right way.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Define that please. What makes something a "weapon of war"? What makes a gun a "military grade" weapon?

Rocks and sticks are weapons of war.

 

[pismoe]

worse yet , lots of these Gun Controllers are taxpayer paid TEACHERS and you can see the results of their teaching at the 'pity partiers' march a few days ago .

 

[BlindBoo]

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

That's a distinction the founders never made. At the time, civilians owned cannons and bombs.

If there is a constitutional amendment to clarify the meaning of "arms" and "the People" and "shall not be infringed" then fine, but States still have the power. The 2nd is a restriction on the federal government, making the BATF and all fed gun laws illegal and unconstitutional. We simply have had people on the Court without the guts or integrity to force the government to do it the right way.

They never made it because all citizens were expected to participate in their States Militia. They never expected to have a large standing National Army either.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment was tied to the Well-Trained Militia's, until the liberal courts separated and ignored the Militia aspect of what the founder wrote.

I don't disagree with the courts mind you, I just think we need a new Amendment to replace the Second that clearly defines the rights of citizens to own these weapons.

 

[2aguy]

There is nothing in the Constitution the delineates weapons of war from weapons.

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

Define large capacity magazine....since most people have no idea what those might be, and the anti gunners keep lying about them.

 

[2aguy]

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

That's a distinction the founders never made. At the time, civilians owned cannons and bombs.

If there is a constitutional amendment to clarify the meaning of "arms" and "the People" and "shall not be infringed" then fine, but States still have the power. The 2nd is a restriction on the federal government, making the BATF and all fed gun laws illegal and unconstitutional. We simply have had people on the Court without the guts or integrity to force the government to do it the right way.

They never made it because all citizens were expected to participate in their States Militia. They never expected to have a large standing National Army either.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment was tied to the Well-Trained Militia's, until the liberal courts separated and ignored the Militia aspect of what the founder wrote.

I don't disagree with the courts mind you, I just think we need a new Amendment to replace the Second that clearly defines the rights of citizens to own these weapons.

No...the 2nd Amendment was not tied to militia duty, read D.C. v. Heller because they go through that lie completely and thoroughly.....

 

[2aguy]

But I think for the most part in the modern day discussion its' automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons, hand grenades RPG's, Mortars and up.....ect.

That's a distinction the founders never made. At the time, civilians owned cannons and bombs.

If there is a constitutional amendment to clarify the meaning of "arms" and "the People" and "shall not be infringed" then fine, but States still have the power. The 2nd is a restriction on the federal government, making the BATF and all fed gun laws illegal and unconstitutional. We simply have had people on the Court without the guts or integrity to force the government to do it the right way.

No...Heller and McDonald, the two Supreme Court cases defined the states as being under the 2nd Amendment......