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.
The fact that teh Fourth Circuit ruled that AR-15s and equivalents are weapons of war not covered by 2A doesn't help your case for ownership a bit, BTW.
Because the second amendment was written during a time when there was only muskets.
In that case, the first amendment should not cover the internet, social media, smartphones, or athletes kneeling because they were not around when it was written.
7.62x 39 for AK 47...no such thing as whatever the hell you said. 5.45 is russian military and is hard to find + expensive and just about as nichy a gun niche as you can get. Most civilian sporting ARs are chambered for .223... maybe you could be so kind as to explain the difference between .223 and 5.56?
Man, your source sucks!
You are correct. The 7.92 x 33 Kurz was a German cartridge developed before WWII and used in the StG 44, which was the original "assault rifle" I was thinking about that when I posted. Sorry for the confusion.
.223 and 5.56 x 45 are essentially the same, although the .223 has a reduced loading compared to the military round to reduce breech pressure. It also lowers bullet velocity. I have no idea how that would affect the ballistics of the cartridge, but the 5.56 was never designed for long range shooting anyway.
You are correct. The 7.92 x 33 Kurz was a German cartridge developed before WWII and used in the StG 44, which was the original "assault rifle" I was thinking about that when I posted. Sorry for the confusion.
.223 and 5.56 x 45 are essentially the same, although the .223 has a reduced loading compared to the military round to reduce breech pressure. It also lowers bullet velocity. I have no idea how that would affect the ballistics of the cartridge, but the 5.56 was never designed for long range shooting anyway.
Hey, we're finally learning 'n stuff! It's a baby step but we're that much closer to understanding each other.
Millennials have failed and are divided by identity politics and of crop. Generation z which are turning 18 this year are vastly different than millennials and demand action and not words which millennials listen out for.
Because the second amendment was written during a time when there was only muskets.
In that case, the first amendment should not cover the internet, social media, smartphones, or athletes kneeling because they were not around when it was written.
The First Amendment only says that the government cannot stop you from speaking your mind, nor can it retaliate against you for it. I was a journalism major, and would argue that the medium makes no difference. You cannot be stopped by the government from speaking, writing, posting, skywhriting, or chiseling whatever you want to say on stone tablets, nor can it stop the press from covering any story it wishes to publish and distributing it via whatever media it chooses.
1A - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You also have to remember that the same convention that gave us the Second Amendment decided that a Black human was only 3/5 of a person. There were a number of things that needed to be changed as soon as they got through.
The NRA dispenses huge sums of Blood Money to Congressional leeches to turn their heads away from the problem. They are as much to blame as Judas and the high priests.
The Fourth Circuit Court has ruled that AR-15s and equivalent are weapons of war not covered by 2A. Your argument about the Constitution is invalid.
Nice try, but wrong again.
I could be redundant going into what the Founding Fathers meant when they enshrined the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution, but it is wasted time with some folks. Needless to say those who are genuinely interested, need only read the Federalist Papers which were written by the very individuals who drafted and ratified the Constitution.
Weapons of war were clearly what the FF's wanted the average citizen to have, but that misses the current debate entirely.
The AR-15 is very much removed from the current weapons of war, and in and of itself was never one of those weapons.
Instead it was akin to the type of sports cars you can buy for street legal use, which are far cries from the actual race cars they are modeled after. Thus a semi-auto rifle like the AR15 is a joke compared to modern day "military assault weapons".
Of course those who know and understand the Constitution know that the 2nd Amendment intended for regular citizens to own the latest military weapons to protect the Constitution, from enemies, BOTH foreign and domestic.
The fact that an occasional evil or nut case might commit a criminal act is horrible, but irrelevant to the enduring rights we must protect. As a wise man (who was a FF by the by) once said, " "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
Needless to say those words are never more important than how they apply today. Countries like Britain and Australia's citizens both gave up their rights and ability to defend themselves after an anomaly gun massacre. That is when the leftists try to pounce and use an emotional argument to trust the benevolent government to be their shepherd, and become sheep for the slaughter on some future date.
Why is it up to Law abiding gun owners to stop mass shootings? Especiallyy the Parkland shooting when the shooting was the fault of the FBI and the police?
I'm just sayin'.
Stasis no longer will be accepted. Something must be done to regulate the purchase of the single firearm most used in the gun shootings.
If the gun owners don't come up with any regulatory answers on their own, then someone else will, but no regulation is now a thing of the past.
It won't matter whose fault it is or is not. The kids want action. They don't care about what happened in the past, don't care about thoughts and prayers, and don't care about what the gun lobby thinks.
If they don't get action, they'll vote and pressure until they do. Since the NRA and the gun lobby will do nothing at all in regulatory matters, if the gun owners want to keep their AR-15s with all the trappings, then they must come up with some proposals on how to regulate them and allow the responsible owners to keep their firearms in peace and security.
If the gun owners get out in front of all this, and quit waiting for the NRA to do it, they will get the regulations they like the most.
If not, then they might not like what they get so much.
Stasis no longer will be accepted. Something must be done to regulate the purchase of the single firearm most used in the gun shootings.
If the gun owners don't come up with any regulatory answers on their own, then someone else will, but no regulation is now a thing of the past.
It won't matter whose fault it is or is not. The kids want action. They don't care about what happened in the past, don't care about thoughts and prayers, and don't care about what the gun lobby thinks.
If they don't get action, they'll vote and pressure until they do. Since the NRA and the gun lobby will do nothing at all in regulatory matters, if the gun owners want to keep their AR-15s with all the trappings, then they must come up with some proposals on how to regulate them and allow the responsible owners to keep their firearms in peace and security.
If the gun owners get out in front of all this, and quit waiting for the NRA to do it, they will get the regulations they like the most.
If not, then they might not like what they get so much.
Mom and dad will be voting as their kids wish, in large numbers, this November. They know, as of now, Parkland could be their kids next time.
The NRA, as you correctly note, is helping bring more strenuous regulations onto the table. Inadvertently.
Because the second amendment was written during a time when there was only muskets.
In that case, the first amendment should not cover the internet, social media, smartphones, or athletes kneeling because they were not around when it was written.
Actually the left is as much of a threat to the first amendment as they are the second. They have been silencing conservative opinions for a while now as “hate speech”. They also want to make hate speech laws to legally restrict speech against liberal darling groups like minorities and gays.
I don’t care how many screaming emotional children the left uses to put together protests, I have no plans to surrender my guns or any of my rights. I truly hope the right wakes up and prepares for a serious resistance effort, big trouble is coming when these commies take power. These people have no right to alter the bill of rights, we should all be prepared to fight if they do.
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.
