Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would give the government great pause if there was a rifle behind every blade of grass.
I saw a video recently from China, people forcibly being ejected from their homes en masse due to the Chinese govt in that area deciding that they had to go, to make way for something new. The unarmed populace there were being routed by police using nothing more than truncheons. It was just too easy for that oppressive govt to do it....
Our governments do the same thing with lawyers using the Fifth Amendment and backed by the Supreme Court in its Kelo v. New London decision.
The unarmed populace in China may have been routed by police, but the lived to tell about it. An armed standoff with police in the United States over whether a citizen had to move from their home would end in disaster for those resisting a legal eviction from their homes.
Thanks for calling me a naive...!!
Where were you and your NRA members and Militias during the 9-11 Attacks?
I never saw you marching to Washington DC, armed with guns and rifles in order to protect Bush Junior and Cheney from this foreign attack.
I guess you ran to WalMart to buy food and water, as everybody else !
???
Insane reply.
Why would I or anyone else do that?
The military was not broken at that time.
Further, I sincerely doubt I could have significant impact defending my country against external force. However, I can have impact defending myself, my family and my property from internal/external marauders should societal breakdown occur. I have pointed out to you that this HAS HAPPENED in the past.
If you are naive enough to think Police can help you, then I just hope you don't have anyone else relying on you.
Any gun with a detachable magazine is only limited in the number of rounds by the length of the magazine.
If you can make a 5 round detachable magazine, you can also make a 100 round detachable magazine.
Hunting rifle, handgun, shotgun......whatever.
You just need a longer box and a bigger spring.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that all semi auto weapons will function equally well with a bigger magazine.....but that's another subject.
Plus you need to consider the tendency of over-large capacity mags for slightly tapered cartridges such as .223/5.56, to tend to nose-dive in the mag, binding the base of the cartridge from a smooth slide up. Kalishnakov's approach was to attempt to deal with this by using banana style mags.
The 2nd amendment isn't there to "grant inclusions". It's there to control the government. It says flatly that no govt can take away or restrict the people's right. Period.
It's ludicrous to think that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and the rest, had to name and describe every kind of weapon that might become available thousands of years into the future, to make the 2nd apply to them, or else the 2nd doesn't protect them.
The 2nd doesn't need to protect any particular thing. It forbids the government to infringe the people's rights, AT ALL.
Big-govt pushers hate that kind of all-inclusive command. So they spend most of their time trying to fool people into believing the Constitution doesn't say what it says.
Not for the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't. It provides a means for government to search a man's home and take his possessions against his will - they must get a warrant that limits the search to certain items. But there is no such provision in the 2nd amendment. It is ironclad against any such exception.
But its only iron clad if public support is there...public opinion and public sentiment can be swayed and 'manipulated' over time so what the public wants lines up with what Govt wants.
They have done the same thing with opioid prescription drugs, basically demonizing them, making them look bad, so when Govt steps in to heavily regulate and/or ban them altogether, majority of the public will take their side on the issue.
This is really very clever, its about the only way Govt can undermine the Constitution without the risk of a huge public revolution.
If you want to fire 90 shots using 5 round magazines, you will spend 17 * 5 = 85 seconds swapping them.
Using 30 round magazine you will spend 10 seconds (1st magazine is already in, so you swap 2 times).
Using 100 round magazine, you will spend 0 seconds swapping.
I have not said I want to ban anything. You are very confused. Have you been smoking marijuana?
5 seconds ? Are you clueless ? Here is just some random searched youtube guy doing a mag change, does that look like 5 seconds to you ? https://youtu.be/ksZqzPWm7VQ
But its only iron clad if public support is there...public opinion and public sentiment can be swayed and 'manipulated' over time so what the public wants lines up with what Govt wants.
Yes, the big-govt pushers are constantly trying to find ways to supersede "the Supreme Law of the Land", without using the only means provided: Amendment. Because they know that the people will never allow them to modify or repeal the 2nd or other such passages. So they must fool them instead, duck around their will, and hope they can get away with blatant violations of the law.
Just because they sometimes succeed, doesn't mean they are either right or legal.
It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?
That old document? Hell, just tear it up what did they know...
I have only read the first two pages, and I have a question or two:
Exactly what IS a "military/police style" weapon? The AR-15 was designed and built by Armalite for civilian use, then the military adopted it, and created the M-16 out of it. The .45-70 was built for the military (.45-70 Government is the proper name for the cartridge), then it became available in civilian rifles. The 1903 Springfield, in .30-06 caliber, was an Army rifle, then the cartridge became common in hunting rifles; bolt action, auto-loading, slide (pump) action, even lever action. John Browning's semi-automatic rifle became the BAR of WWII fame, then became a favorite hunting rifle. John Browning's .45 ACP became the M-1911 semi automatic pistol, the favored military side-arm for many years, and still favored by target shooter and collectors. The .357 Magnum revolver was a police weapon for many years. The Colt single action revolver (Model 1873) has always been known as the Single Action Army (SAA) revolver, in .45LC (long
Colt), .44-40, and other calibers.
On and on it goes; many common pistols, rifles, shotguns, and cartridges were developed by and/or for the military.
Which ones will you allow for hunting and target shooting, and which will you outlaw?
Keep in mind that the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is identical to the AR-15 in every way except appearance. It isn't black and ugly!
You show doubt of your own statement. If they were to be given 100% rights, there would be no "especially". You know it deep down inside, but it goes against your wish, so you can't say it.
But you know in your heart, that the constitution does not get unregulated rights to own any and all guns, it grants uninfringed rights bear arms, and that is different. I am for the 2A as it is written, but not for it as you choose to interpret.
I'm a realist.
What I believe or what you believe makes little difference to those who wish to subvert the Constitution.
So sometimes you have to appeal to common sense when it applies.
For example, there are crimes which may be a felony in one state but a misdemeanor in another state.
Now, how does one justify permanently stripping someone of a Constitutional right, which specifically states "may not be infringed" for a crime which is not universally punishable in all states? You could try to call it a states rights issue.....but that would only apply if the felon in question only lost their rights in the state which the crime occurred. But even then it would be challenged as unconstitutional.
Take also for example, those convicted of DUI.
Laws vary from state to state of course, but in all states I am aware of, those convicted of DUI can eventually get their right to drive back after they have completed their sentence/probation.
They can buy a car.
They can buy alcohol too.
Which are the very things used to commit their crimes.
But those convicted of low level non violent felonies are permanently stripped of a Constitutional right no matter how long they remain lawful citizens after completing their sentence.
Funny how most of these same people who think it's just fine to permanently strip someone of their 2nd amendment rights have no problem petitioning for felons to get back the right to vote........
Because they think they'll vote Democrat.
Last edited by FatBob96; 02-19-2018 at 10:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
