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.
I have seen a lot of argument from those who support the trashing of the Second ammendment, that states the framers never foresaw rifes zuch as the AR 1515 and AK 47. Muskets, being the weapon of those times, was supposed to be the limit. My, what a limp argument.
The Brown Bess musket was the military "assault weapon" inthe 18th century, certainly. Now, the issue weapon is the M4 / M16. Civilians are allowed to own and use(keep and bear) semi auto versions of this rifle. Thus, the right to keep and bear is infringed. Same with a lot of other small arms that will fire fully auto.
Many restricions( infringements) have been implemented to compromise with the view that the 2A is open to modifications. But, it has never been enough to compromise. Those who wish the disarmament of tbe civilian populace of the US will never settle for less than tbe repeal of tbe 2A.
These same types will defend the 1A or the 4th, willing to let violent offenders back in the street, defended by lawyers who wrap these offenders in tbe Bill of Rights. Tbe 1A is sacrocinct and has no limits or restrictions to these people. Evidence must be obtained with five miles of paper work and tbe signatures of 5 judves or it is inadmissable.
Yet, our right to personal arms is fair game? Many cities actively prosecute( persecute) people who ha e defended tbemselves against violent repeat offenders turned loose by the justice system on constitutional technicalities.
Is it just me, or is this just a tad hypocritical? Somewhat nonsensical?
I would be interested to see what folks think about the rights of criminals trumping that of law abiding ctizens. We are told that keeping personal arms contributes to crime, as violent vermin are turned back among us, arming tbemselves illevally, and attacking our homes. When we fight back, using our LEGAL arms, we are labeled as criminals and presecuted with zeal. With NO regard for OUR right to defend ourselves with personal, legal, arms.
Makes no sense to me .
That is actually my favorite hand gun. I first shot one many years ago when my cousin owned a couple. I remember thinking how smooth it was to shoot, and how easy it was to be accurate with it, compared to the Glocks I was used to shooting. I am blown away by the fact that it is now over 100 years old. It doesn't feel nearly that old, as it's clearly a superior design to many that have followed it. I really need to get down to the store and pick one up. I have the cash, and I am buddies with enough people to get my CCW permit (it's not shall issue in my state).
people for gun control do not want to talk common sense. all they want is for it to be their way.
From what I've seen gun control nuts post on here, it seems like they believe the only firearms Americans should be allowed to own are muskets and flintlock pistols. Since, according to them, the Founders didn't envision 30+ round, self loading rifles being invented
From what I've seen gun control nuts post on here, it seems like they believe the only firearms Americans should be allowed to own are muskets and flintlock pistols. Since, according to them, the Founders didn't envision 30+ round, self loading rifles being invented
the founders didnt envision computers, the internet or tv either. maybe those should be banned because they dont apply to the 1st Amendment.
the founders didnt envision computers, the internet or tv either. maybe those should be banned because they dont apply to the 1st Amendment.
Was it you or someone else that said that if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, then the only speech that is protected by the Constitution is speech written by a quill pen
Was it you or someone else that said that if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, then the only speech that is protected by the Constitution is speech written by a quill pen
someone else, I believe that the Bill of Rights goes into the future and should be interpreted as such, as if it was just written for whatever era we are in.
That is actually my favorite hand gun. I first shot one many years ago when my cousin owned a couple. I remember thinking how smooth it was to shoot, and how easy it was to be accurate with it, compared to the Glocks I was used to shooting. I am blown away by the fact that it is now over 100 years old. It doesn't feel nearly that old, as it's clearly a superior design to many that have followed it. I really need to get down to the store and pick one up. I have the cash, and I am buddies with enough people to get my CCW permit (it's not shall issue in my state).
I've got Sig Sauers, GLOCKs, HKs, CZs, Berettas, Browning Hi-Power (also John's design), S&W M&P, Kahr and various other semi auto handguns. The 1911 still works with the best of them.....(if you get a good one).
From what I've seen gun control nuts post on here, it seems like they believe the only firearms Americans should be allowed to own are muskets and flintlock pistols. Since, according to them, the Founders didn't envision 30+ round, self loading rifles being invented
In that case we should be able to own cannons and mortars along with warships, because that's what you could own back then.
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.
