Who says that's all a citizen can purchase. They are not as protected as you may think. Just saying.
Horrible shooting in Vegas
- Thread starter 1msucub
- Start date
- Status
Who says that's all a citizen can purchase. They are not as protected as you may think. Just saying.
it doesn't have to necessarily
be successful. That's not the point.
I'm sure a British Division was seen as vastly superior to a group of farmers.
A bunch of dirt poor farmers in Southeast Asia held up to it, well until liberals caved.
be successful. That's not the point.
I'm sure a British Division was seen as vastly superior to a group of farmers.
A bunch of dirt poor farmers in Southeast Asia held up to it, well until liberals caved.
Last edited:
If flag burning, racist words, overly strict search warrant rules, or trials by jury were directly responsible for ~30,000 American deaths every year, it would be worth at least looking into some changes to the legal/regulatory systems to see if we could prevent some of them.
But they aren't, so it's not a very good comparison.
But they aren't, so it's not a very good comparison.
In 1776, the American rebels had access to similar weapons to the British army (the greatest the world had ever known at the time). A small group of rebel farmers could plausibly hold off an equally-sized group of Redcoats.
In 2017, if Trump (or whatever other president) wants to oppress you, your guns aren't going to do anything against his drones, fighter jets, bombs, missiles, even nuclear weapons if your movement gets big enough.
There are definitely some valid arguments against gun regulations, but "we have to be able to protect ourselves against an oppressive government/military" is not one of them.
But now the British would have Black Hawks, Abrams and Super Hornets.
The farmers still just have guns.
The farmers still just have guns.
See now you have
me involved in some straw man argument. This point that the US Military is so much more powerful does not matter. It's irrelevant.
The viet cong faced these same problems, too.
me involved in some straw man argument. This point that the US Military is so much more powerful does not matter. It's irrelevant.
The viet cong faced these same problems, too.
Of course it is. They are all protected rights. By the Constitution of the United States of America. It was important enough to put it 2nd with the only amendment that says "shall not be infringed"
See, this is where you lose any cred. This is EXACTLY what it was written for, and why it exists. It's not there for hunting or combatting carjackers.
Just because you think the US Military is too strong, is irrelevant.
that's partly what it was written for. it was also written to affirm a citizen's right to self defense, with arms. and for the rights of the States to maintain their own armies (militias), that could be used to defend their territory if the Federal Army decided it needed to be elsewhere. like most laws, it was different things to different people.
you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. you can still buy a machine gun easily convertable to fully automatic, and 100 round drums for it. there's no reason the latter can't be considered the same as the former.
See I agree with you,
here. To the uneducated, it's a terrible point.
For someone whos never read on the subject, such as you, it probably does seem that way.
Again, stick with guitars.
here. To the uneducated, it's a terrible point.
For someone whos never read on the subject, such as you, it probably does seem that way.
Again, stick with guitars.
and they are all regulated the same way: laws are passed, and courts decide if those laws were constitutional.
the 2A had many drafts. you might want to read up on them, it's pretty illuminating.
Mad, like when
a person gets tired of stupid people, or mad like when a bellhop gets agrivated by a football player requesting a bagel of a certain type?
a person gets tired of stupid people, or mad like when a bellhop gets agrivated by a football player requesting a bagel of a certain type?
1. As a grunt, you swore to uphold and defend the constitution of The United States.
2. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
3. Background are required for dealers at gun shows just like they must occur on in-store sales. The only thing you could possibly be referring to is individual sales at gun shows which should not be any more regulated than any other individual-to-individual sale of a firearm.
4. The tipping point has been reached and it did not go the way you wanted it to. Americans have bought more guns since Sandy Hook than at any other period in America history.
5. You being a hunter/gun owner means nothing to me. Who cares? That information gives you no more authority or authenticity than if you owned no guns.
You have an opinion that is different than mine. Yay, you. What are you going to say when your bolt-action hunting rifles become "sniper rifles" after an incident similar to the events in Las Vegas? Nobody needs the kind of fire power necessary to kill a man a thousand yards. We have to get those weapons of war off the streets immediately. Same can be said for your pump action or semi auto shotguns. The next time some whack-job shoots up a school full of kids with a shotgun, we'll have to get those terrible, destructive devices off of America's streets.
There is no end to what can be regulated. As a free man, I don't care what a government official paid from my tax dollars thinks I should or should not be able to own. Nor do I care what you think I should or should not be able to own.
2. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
3. Background are required for dealers at gun shows just like they must occur on in-store sales. The only thing you could possibly be referring to is individual sales at gun shows which should not be any more regulated than any other individual-to-individual sale of a firearm.
4. The tipping point has been reached and it did not go the way you wanted it to. Americans have bought more guns since Sandy Hook than at any other period in America history.
5. You being a hunter/gun owner means nothing to me. Who cares? That information gives you no more authority or authenticity than if you owned no guns.
You have an opinion that is different than mine. Yay, you. What are you going to say when your bolt-action hunting rifles become "sniper rifles" after an incident similar to the events in Las Vegas? Nobody needs the kind of fire power necessary to kill a man a thousand yards. We have to get those weapons of war off the streets immediately. Same can be said for your pump action or semi auto shotguns. The next time some whack-job shoots up a school full of kids with a shotgun, we'll have to get those terrible, destructive devices off of America's streets.
There is no end to what can be regulated. As a free man, I don't care what a government official paid from my tax dollars thinks I should or should not be able to own. Nor do I care what you think I should or should not be able to own.
yep. All you need is some gunsmithing knowledge and a machine shop! Easy pleasy.
And that site is absolute garbage. I want to know how to duck hunt.. now point me to a Elmer Fudd instructional.
whichever one the SC says, deferring to the last one as much as possible. no Amendment is long or detailed enough to interpret without looking at plenty of outside writings.
If 20 1st graders got killed to protect your right to make IEDs and shoot from behind women and kids, I think we have bigger problems.
- Status
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Lopsided analytics illustrate Mississippi State's collapse against Auburn
-
02
Maroon and White Football
"Not good enough": Jeff Lebby answers questions of performance and job security following blowout loss to Auburn
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Rapid Recap: Auburn 41-9 Mississippi State
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Last Call Predictions for Mississippi State vs. Auburn
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State vs. Auburn: How, where and when to watch the Bulldogs