How does armor piercing bullets fit into the second amendment? (activist, Indiana)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by rebeldor

I'm far from a liberal, but please explain how they "support" people who violate the property rights of homeowners and business owners through burglary.

well since you are far from liberal you have no worries


but liberals have always supported criminals....liberals are criminals

who supported illegal aliens... liberals...because they like criminals like themselves

liberalism is a mental disease

[Chango]

Originally Posted by BruSan

Most militaries around the planet zeroed in on jacketed rounds being preferred so that injuring and disabling a combatant would require additional manpower to extricate and care for him. A person on the battlefield busily dressing a wound and taking one end of a litter is not firing a weapon at you.

Most militaries know the majority of enemy casualties don't come from rifle bullets these days... they come from things that go "boom" and are delivered by artillery and aircraft.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Any rifle bullet will zip right through any body armor most people can legally buy. The thing is, they don't expand so you are better off than getting hit with a soft point.

[rebeldor]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

well since you are far from liberal you have no worries


but liberals have always supported criminals....liberals are criminals

who supported illegal aliens... liberals...because they like criminals like themselves

liberalism is a mental disease

Those are talking points. Talking points are boring. Give me actual facts.

What constitutes a "criminal?"

Liberalism IS a mental disease--but so is conservatism.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by rebeldor

I'm far from a liberal, but please explain how they "support" people who violate the property rights of homeowners and business owners through burglary.

See their goofy state laws.

Like NY where I lived 28 of my 30 years.
You have a duty to retreat from an attacker unless youre inside your home. There is the castle doctrine but if the threat were to be wounded inside the home and fled to die outside the home you're getting convicted of manslaughter at the least.

Or if you have a dog in the house, and the dog bites the invader... invader sues and wins with an I gotcha, Catch22 loophole that protects criminals.
You didn't post a beware of dog sign.
And if you did. You knowingly acknowledge you have a vicious dog/breed within the home for the sole purpose of causing injuries/death.

I happen to have a good attorney friend in NY who has had to take on cases where junkies broke in and got hurt and sued the homeowner, to homeowners dog attacked a would be intruder, plus evictions... have a scumbag tenant? 90 days to evict. In the meantime they can wreck the property and if they're slinging dope out of the property it's your ass not theirs.
You can't make this kind of crap up. That's how things are in most liberal states. Criminals are protected and you are the criminal for defending your life/property.
Criminals might get a slap on the wrist or plea down to a lesser charge. But you. You'll be made an example of you scumbag vigilante! Gulag for wrong think.

[Weichert]

Originally Posted by T0103E

I'm kind of confused on the point you're making. What means nothing?

Actually read the 2A. And with comprehension you should (hopefully) understand the point.

[rebeldor]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

See their goofy state laws.

Like NY where I lived 28 of my 30 years.
You have a duty to retreat from an attacker unless youre inside your home. There is the castle doctrine but if the threat were to be wounded inside the home and fled to die outside the home you're getting convicted of manslaughter at the least.

Or if you have a dog in the house, and the dog bites the invader... invader sues and wins with an I gotcha, Catch22 loophole that protects criminals.
You didn't post a beware of dog sign.
And if you did. You knowingly acknowledge you have a vicious dog/breed within the home for the sole purpose of causing injuries/death.

I happen to have a good attorney friend in NY who has had to take on cases where junkies broke in and got hurt and sued the homeowner, to homeowners dog attacked a would be intruder, plus evictions... have a scumbag tenant? 90 days to evict. In the meantime they can wreck the property and if they're slinging dope out of the property it's your ass not theirs.
You can't make this kind of crap up. That's how things are in most liberal states. Criminals are protected and you are the criminal for defending your life/property.
Criminals might get a slap on the wrist or plea down to a lesser charge. But you. You'll be made an example of you scumbag vigilante! Gulag for wrong think.

Thank you for responding with facts. I agree; that is completely idiotic. That's why jury nullification is so vital and needs to be spread like wildfire.

[rebeldor]

Originally Posted by Weichert

Actually read the 2A. And with comprehension you should (hopefully) understand the point.

The 2A doesn't grant any rights.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Weichert

Actually read the 2A. And with comprehension you should (hopefully) understand the point.

Okay, I know it off the top of my head, and even went back to read the full text.

The reason I'm confused is that I said rights are inherent, not granted by the government. You then said "right, but then there's the 2A militia part". I honestly don't know where you're going with that...are you saying the right to form a militia isn't an inherent right?

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by Weichert

Actually read the 2A. And with comprehension you should (hopefully) understand the point.

Hold up T0103E I'll let ya finish after I give someone a lesson in comprehension and the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Weichert the 2nd Amendment reads as follows.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Afterall, aren't you all about "democracy" and within a "democracy" exists checks and balances. Well... the ultimate check and balance of power is a Well equipped, IN well working order Militia.

Now what's a Militia? A Militia is the armed citizenry of course...

Security of a free State? Free State of being. Free from tyranny free from an overzealous oppressive government. Something folks of your persuasion advocate for, for some reason... Makes no sense to me what so ever what Liberals and RINOs give praise and believe rights are granted by the government. The right of the individual supercedes governments will.

The right of the people.
Militias are comprised of people. If the founding fathers had intended that militias/militia members were only armed... then it would read the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

To keep and bear arms.
That means to purchase, assemble, trade, have in one's possession and on their person any armament fielded by a common soldier.

And finally we finish with

Shall not be infringed.

What is so difficult to understand about SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED?

By every definition of infringement, the NFA and Hughes Amendment of FOPA are significant infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Now before you pull some feeble stunt, the founding fathers never saw the technological advancements, AR15s replacing muskets etc...
They never saw freedom of the press extend beyond the wooden printing press.

Now before you rest your weary head and say your bedtime prayer, OH lord. Who art in Washington DC... in the halls of Congress and the senate...

Consider this,
For a group of morons who chant Trump is literally Hitler, and then literally Stalin... can you give one valid reason why if such a tyrannical dictator is in power why more gun control measures are needed?

You expect those who value their individual liberties to take you seriously? You liberals and your RINO cohorts are a boil on the ass of freedom. My only regret is not making Trump money to buy you all a 1 way ticket out of this country to the one you want this one modeled after. You can take your political idols with ya.