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.
They didn't have a standing army when the 2nd amendment was written so they relied on a regulated militia to defend us from foreign powers. Today we have a standing military that costs almost $1B per year, to think that every armed individual is part of some militia is absurd.
" to think that every armed individual is part of some militia is absurd."
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason
So who is being absurd?
Read and learn!“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams
“…arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them….” – Thomas Paine
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”- Richard Henry Lee
“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …” – Richard Henry Lee
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”- Zachariah Johnson
I agree but people like to claim that the AWB didn't work, of course it didn't because manufacturers went around the law as you indicated. It was not nearly extensive enough and it's very difficult to exactly define.
"The problem with today's liberals is they are not liberal ENOUGH". We just need MORE of what doesn't work.
I can't imagine why you would want to have a 30 round magazine or a ten round magazine. If the legal capacity was set at six rounds, what would you be missing. How would that infringe on your rights?
"I can't imagine why you would want to have a 30 round magazine or a ten round magazine. If the legal capacity was set at six rounds,"
Most gun crimes use ILLEGALLY gotten guns.
Can you guarantee the bad guy trying to break into my house with an AR, or any other weapon, ONLY has 6 rounds?
What if it is MORE then 1 armed thug?
What part of, the places with the STRICTEST gun laws ALSO have the MOST GUN crimes do you NOT undersatnd?
the founders were so wise their words are sacred, the notion that some humans can be property and "owned" as slaves seems to have been overturned....the 2nd amendment was simply written in different times and has become a hindrance to the majority
"and has become a hindrance to the majority"
I think it is the MINORITY who believe it is a hindrance.
"was simply written in different times"
For DECADES anti-gunners have tried to go around the 2nd amendment with laws that have done NOTHING, WITHOUT trying to amend it.
Why do you think that is?
IMO, I believe they KNOW amending it will NEVER succeed!
Arizona: Hunting antelope jackrabbits (to me this sounds suspiciously like the the infamous "jackalope," a mythological critter beloved by hunters in the Southwest)
Uh yes..that's the problem. No one can legally define any of this stuff because it's emotional nonsense.
Just like today, in 1994 it was CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE to ban a semi-automatic rifle. So they did emotional nonsense and worked around the fringes and didn't "ban" anything really, just so they could say they "did something."
You fell for it then, and you're still falling for it today.
Joe Biden is talking 28 years later as if he banned AR-15s at one time! if you are completely unaware of how to research anything, you might believe it!
This is what politicians do and why the names of these bills are more akin to something you'd see out of Madison Avenue marketing.
Come on.
The AWB was weird. In some cases removing parts from a gun made them illegal while adding those same parts to a different gun made them illegal. An example would be a semi-auto SKS that qualified as a C&R (curios and relics). Some variants came with a bayonet and or a grenade launcher. Remove them and they became illegal. Add them to a rifle that didn't have them and THEY became illegal. Makes sense?
They probably should have done a smarter job naming their product. What name can we come up with to make a controversial product seem even more controversial?
I can't imagine why you would want to have a 30 round magazine or a ten round magazine. If the legal capacity was set at six rounds, what would you be missing. How would that infringe on your rights?
To limit or encroach upon is to infringe. To LIMIT magazines to a certain number of rounds is to infringe. To ENCROACH upon what magazines a person may insert into a firearm is to infringe.
More basic - if you declare that a thing which is legal yesterday is illegal today, you simply violate property rights.
Now, besides hunting varmints, pests, etc, there is a genuine tactical, self-defense reason to have magazines that hold 20-30 rounds - the highly improbable, yet totally possible scenario of defending against an unknown number of armed attackers:
The mob that is rioting (re: Korean store owner defending life/property during LA Riots).
Any sort of disaster/panic where pillaging and looting in various sized groups of violent robbers becomes common (re: Katrina looting and pillaging).
Armed/angry mobs during social unrest (re: BLM riots, flash mobs who use slogans to excuse violent robbery, looting and vandalism/destruction, etc.)
And last but certainly not least...the hostile armed force operating under the orders of a bureaucrat/leader/jefe/whatever, foreign or domestic.
In any or all of those scenarios, the attackers get to carry any weapon they like and have any magazine capacity they want. Your government has shown you that they don't really get into that protection game when the above events happen. They prefer instead to sit back, watch it all burn, make some speeches about the other party being responsible, etc. But basically, you're on your own, so say the folks you think are there to protect you and relieve you of the need to possess any self-defense tools whatsoever.
The fact that you cannot imagine defending yourself does not mean everyone shares your lack of wherewithal where self-preservation is concerned. The people that need defending against...they get to carry any weapon they like, have whatever magazines they like, use whatever ammo they want, etc. That's because the two far and away most likely attackers you would ever face are either in the group that makes the laws about guns/ammo, or they are in the group that doesn't GAFF about those laws.
If you have that fatalist worldview that if such an attacker ever comes for you, oh well, time to take the dirt nap...well, good for you? I guess? I am not that timid about my self-preservation, and nowhere near it where protecting my wife is concerned. I have absolute moral and logical clarity about self-defense actually. And I can absolutely understand unlikely, yet possible scenarios that would make 20-30 round magazines an ideal accessory for my semiauto firearms.
In the meantime, my 20 round magazines are useful for making range day a little easier on reload times.
It is not about guns, it is about control. Or as Clinton aid Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." OP needs to understand the Left is not trying to be honest or truthful.
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.
