What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[Conservative65]

They want unlimited choice when it comes to something not specifically in the Constitution and want to limit something that actually is written there.

That would be their usual modus operandi.

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people [Liberals] go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long." - Thomas Sowell

"The old adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish has been updated by a reader: Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his 'basic rights.' " - Thomas Sowell

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

Assault weapons are already illegal, douche bag.

Assault weapons are not illegal, as the DOJ Eric(the racist) Holder allowed them to be purchased by Mexican Drug lords who used them to execute over 10,000 Mexican Citizens and a few border guards. And what is worse, is that one of them was used by the terrorists in France who killed many in the nightclub. I think it is time to have Nuremburg Trials for the Traitors who have been in government for the past 8 years. I think the whole world would appreciate it that the US will hold those accountable for atrocities to others like the Nazi did to the Jews. Same old shit, just a different time.

Judicial Watch: 'Fast and Furious' Gun Used in Paris Terror Attack

One of the guns used in the Paris terror attack last November is linked to the "Fast and Furious" gun walking scandal, according to a report.

 

[Divine Wind]

Judicial Watch: 'Fast and Furious' Gun Used in Paris Terror Attack

One of the guns used in the Paris terror attack last November is linked to the "Fast and Furious" gun walking scandal, according to a report.

An interesting tidbit, but I doubt it's authenticity for several reasons;
1) Eastern Europe is a lot closer and transporting arms is a lot easier in a car than in an airliner.

2) It's a little too politically convenient. Besides, any AKs in Fast & Furious were semi-auto while the Eastern Euro ones are full auto. I know which one I'd rather have.

This is How AK-47s Get to Paris
France outlaws most gun ownership and it’s almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office ofCharlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse—come from?


The answer: Eastern Europe, most likely, where the trafficking of deadly small arms is big, shady business. And where local authorities find it difficult to intervene.

The French government and the European Union know they have a foreign gun problem. But as the chain of attacks illustrates, efforts to tamp down on the flow of weapons have, so far, failed to disarm terrorists.

French police reportedly seized more than 1,500 illegal weapons in 2009 and no fewer than 2,700 in 2010. The number of illegal guns in France has swollen by double-digit percentages annually for several years, Al Jazeera reported, citing figures from Paris-based National Observatory for Delinquency.


The LWers have their own story: Gun used in Paris terror attack linked to Florida dealer

Note the bullshit about the NRA, Century Arms and Iran/Contra. While a semi-auto pistol from America could have found it's way to Europe with an American-citizen ISIS-wanabe, the same problems of transporting a weapon from here to there still apply.

 

[GHook93]

2nd amendment retard.




.

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a killing machine?

Does your pussy hurt

Big red herrings pals! Actually asking "does your pussy hurt" has a high level of troll value and is extremely immature.


No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion, you can't prevent a search of your property without a warrant if they have probable cause, etc.

The question is legitimate, but your answers are not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion....

I hear this a lot. No one seems to ever follow through with the argument in full.
Regulation/prohibition of these things are not prohibited by the Constitution because they harm others or place them in a condition of clear present and immediate danger.
How does simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm someone?
How does it place anyone in a condition of clear present and immediate danger?

 

[Divine Wind]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion, you can't prevent a search of your property without a warrant if they have probable cause, etc.

The question is legitimate, but your answers are not.

First, many of the Founders opposed the Bill of Rights because they (rightfully) foresaw LW douchebags partisans would see them as a limitation on citizen rights rather than the true purpose of the Constitution: a limitation on Federal Government.

The conflict of rights should be the Oliver Wendell Holmes maxim of one's right to their fist ends at another person's nose.

How does two guys getting married in San Francisco affect my rights in Texas? It doesn't. So why the fuck should I care?

OTOH, how does me owning high capacity magazines affect those two guys in San Francisco? Same answer. So why the fuck should they care? Unless they are authoritarian assholes bent on dictating what others should do, they don't.

 

[hunarcy]

2nd amendment retard.




.

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a killing machine?

Does your pussy hurt

Big red herrings pals! Actually asking "does your pussy hurt" has a high level of troll value and is extremely immature.


No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion, you can't prevent a search of your property without a warrant if they have probable cause, etc.

The question is legitimate, but your answers are not.

Yes, there are limitations. You may own firearms, but you may not use them to murder others. Limitation in place. Move along.

 

[jasonnfree]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

Maybe we're stocking up on guns to be prepared for the explosion of muslim refugees now underway thanks to obama, and certain to continue under mrs. clinton. Europeans are stocking up on guns also, after finding out that muslims don't come to assimilate, but rather to annihilate those stupid enough to welcome them.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/13/europeans-stocking-up-on-guns-after-mass-sex-attacks/

 

[Conservative65]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion....

I hear this a lot. No one seems to ever follow through with the argument in full.
Regulation/prohibition of these things are not prohibited by the Constitution because they harm others or place them in a condition of clear present and immediate danger.
How does simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm someone?
How does it place anyone in a condition of clear present and immediate danger?

Defaming, sacrificing humans/animals, and yelling involve actions that affect others. Possessing certain types of guns other don't like isn't doing anything other than possessing.

 

[williepete]

The 2A restricts government from infringing on an inalienable right.

The leftists are under the impression the 2A GIVES citizens a right. Another gift that keeps on giving from our indoctrinations centers.

Getting rid of the 2A will nor more deprive us of our inalienable rights than passing a law forbidding the sun to rise in the morning.

 

[GHook93]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion....

I hear this a lot. No one seems to ever follow through with the argument in full.
Regulation/prohibition of these things are not prohibited by the Constitution because they harm others or place them in a condition of clear present and immediate danger.
How does simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm someone?
How does it place anyone in a condition of clear present and immediate danger?

I am very torn on the subject. On one hand am a proud gun owner of 3 guns liberals would hate, Springfield XDM 9mm (they would hate the standard 19+1 clips), Saiga 12 (semi auto shotgun, with a 20 round drum) and my Desert Eagle (they would hate the .50 AE round). Nevertheless I see some vitality on the gun control stance.


I digress. For all constitution law analysis one can never say an amendment is absolute. They have never been construed that way.

One can look no further than freedom of the press. Outright defamation is an actionable defense (too bad liberal judge have protected the liberal journalist that have perpetrated this).

 

[Divine Wind]

...I digress. For all constitution law analysis one can never say an amendment is absolute. They have never been construed that way.

One can look no further than freedom of the press. Outright defamation is an actionable defense (too bad liberal judge have protected the liberal journalist that have perpetrated this).

1) You totally blew past the fact the Constitution is a limit on government, not citizens.

2) Yes, you can't use free speech to harm people nor can you use gun rights to harm people. If you want to call that a limit on rights, fine, but it's to protect others from harm. How does banning your XDM or Saiga protect others from harm? Shouldn't we also ban computers or typewriters to protect people from potential harm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion....

I hear this a lot. No one seems to ever follow through with the argument in full.
Regulation/prohibition of these things are not prohibited by the Constitution because they harm others or place them in a condition of clear present and immediate danger.
How does simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm someone?
How does it place anyone in a condition of clear present and immediate danger?

One can look no further than freedom of the press. Outright defamation is an actionable defense (too bad liberal judge have protected the liberal journalist that have perpetrated this).

The fact that you own guns harms no one or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Keeping what you said in mind, on what grounds is it constitutionally permissible for the state to restrict your right to own a gun?

 

[GHook93]

No amendment was supposed to be absolute. Examples, you can't yell fire in a crowded building, you can't defame someone, you can use human or animal sacrifices to practice your religion, you can't prevent a search of your property without a warrant if they have probable cause, etc.

The question is legitimate, but your answers are not.

First, many of the Founders opposed the Bill of Rights because they (rightfully) foresaw LW douchebags partisans would see them as a limitation on citizen rights rather than the true purpose of the Constitution: a limitation on Federal Government.

The conflict of rights should be the Oliver Wendell Holmes maxim of one's right to their fist ends at another person's nose.

How does two guys getting married in San Francisco affect my rights in Texas? It doesn't. So why the fuck should I care?

OTOH, how does me owning high capacity magazines affect those two guys in San Francisco? Same answer. So why the fuck should they care? Unless they are authoritarian assholes bent on dictating what others should do, they don't.

That is a fantasy world mentality. I like how people believe what happens in one part of the country doesn't affect the other part.

The Bill of Rights were negotiated and agreed upon by the founding fathers. Some might have had issues with them, but ultimately they all agreed upon them.

 

[Divine Wind]

That is a fantasy world mentality. I like how people believe what happens in one part of the country doesn't affect the other part.

The Bill of Rights were negotiated and agreed upon by the founding fathers. Some might have had issues with them, but ultimately they all agreed upon them.

What is the fantasy mentality? The the Constitution is to limit government, not citizen's rights? What is the purpose of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Do you think citizens have both enumerated and unenumerated rights?

 

[GHook93]

...I digress. For all constitution law analysis one can never say an amendment is absolute. They have never been construed that way.

One can look no further than freedom of the press. Outright defamation is an actionable defense (too bad liberal judge have protected the liberal journalist that have perpetrated this).

1) You totally blew past the fact the Constitution is a limit on government, not citizens.

2) Yes, you can't use free speech to harm people nor can you use gun rights to harm people. If you want to call that a limit on rights, fine, but it's to protect others from harm. How does banning your XDM or Saiga protect others from harm? Shouldn't we also ban computers or typewriters to protect people from potential harm?

The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights upon the states and it limits government by design, but it also by default puts limits people. The two go hand and hand.

How does banning XDM (which I strongly oppose banning) or a Saiga (the fire power in that sucker provides me a ton of joy, but I could see a legit reason to ban. I mean one could do a hell of a lot of damage if he/she walked into a crowded area with a few 20 round drums. I digress) protect others from harm? Theoretically there would be less of these weapons out there and less people would get shot.

 

[GHook93]

That is a fantasy world mentality. I like how people believe what happens in one part of the country doesn't affect the other part.

The Bill of Rights were negotiated and agreed upon by the founding fathers. Some might have had issues with them, but ultimately they all agreed upon them.

What is the fantasy mentality? The the Constitution is to limit government, not citizen's rights? What is the purpose of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Do you think citizens have both enumerated and unenumerated rights?

The 10th Amendment was to limit Federalism and preserve State rights. The constitutions was originally a limit on the Fed. First Marbury vs Madison, which empowered Federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases of constitutionality and Federal questions and not just cases of diversity. Then you had the 14th amendment which applied the bill of rights upon the states.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2A restricts government from infringing on an inalienable right.

The leftists are under the impression the 2A GIVES citizens a right.

No, they aren't under that impression. They know it doesn't.

They are merely lying about what they believe it does, in an attempt to fool voters into BELIEVING it gives a right. So then they can get them to pass (unconstitutional) laws taking away the right.

 

[Divine Wind]

The 10th Amendment was to limit Federalism and preserve State rights. The constitutions was originally a limit on the Fed. First Marbury vs Madison, which empowered Federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases of constitutionality and Federal questions and not just cases of diversity. Then you had the 14th amendment which applied the bill of rights upon the states.

So, again, what was the fantasy mentality you are talking about?

Do you believe the Federal government gives us our rights or do you believe we already have those rights?

 

[Slave2the$]

I own an AR-15. I need it to defend myself, to defend the country from foreign invaders and to take back my country from a tyrannical out of control govt. That's an easy question to answer. Why is this thread so long?