(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

(05-27-2021 08:58 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

A good rifle?

I would call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets a REALLY good reason not to come to my house with ill intent.

(05-27-2021 09:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I would call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets a REALLY good reason not to come to my house with ill intent.

LMAO!!!


Isn't it handguns that perform the majority of black on black murders? And isn't the AR-15 mainly owned by whites (although I have a friend that identifies as black that has several)? Is the dems proposed ban on the AR-15 racist?

It's the weapon they can generate fear from. AR-15s are used in virtually no shootings each year. Fear mongering is what they do.

(05-27-2021 08:58 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

1. I'm not sure what you define as "high powered" bullets, but the most common chamber for ARs is .223/5.56, which is not even the ideal caliber for hog hunting. Yes, you can get more powerful and larger calibers, but this is the most popular by far.
2. A semi-automatic gun that can shoot bullets (we'll leave the definition of high powered TBA for now) can be called by several names - a handgun, a sport rifle, a hunting rifle.

If your definition of an "assault weapon" is a "semi-automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets" then you basically just labeled most every handgun and rifle on the market as an "assault weapon." Take those away from law abiding citizens and what is left? Should we start using muskets again?

(05-27-2021 12:00 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  It's the weapon they can generate fear from. AR-15s are used in virtually no shootings each year. Fear mongering is what they do.

Well, it looks scary, like a military rifle, so it HAS to be an assault weapon.

(05-27-2021 01:51 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 12:00 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  It's the weapon they can generate fear from. AR-15s are used in virtually no shootings each year. Fear mongering is what they do.

Well, it looks scary, like a military rifle, so it HAS to be an assault weapon.

BLACK GUNS MATTER!

(05-27-2021 01:19 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 08:58 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

1. I'm not sure what you define as "high powered" bullets, but the most common chamber for ARs is .223/5.56, which is not even the ideal caliber for hog hunting. Yes, you can get more powerful and larger calibers, but this is the most popular by far.
2. A semi-automatic gun that can shoot bullets (we'll leave the definition of high powered TBA for now) can be called by several names - a handgun, a sport rifle, a hunting rifle.

If your definition of an "assault weapon" is a "semi-automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets" then you basically just labeled most every handgun and rifle on the market as an "assault weapon." Take those away from law abiding citizens and what is left? Should we start using muskets again?

Okay let's be more specific.

For get about labels.

Let's just talk about specific guns.

I do not see a need to own an AR-15 or AK-47.

If you need something like that to hunt or protect yourself then perhaps you need more time at the range.

(05-27-2021 03:38 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 01:19 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 08:58 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:33 PM)Danforth Wrote:  I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.

You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

1. I'm not sure what you define as "high powered" bullets, but the most common chamber for ARs is .223/5.56, which is not even the ideal caliber for hog hunting. Yes, you can get more powerful and larger calibers, but this is the most popular by far.
2. A semi-automatic gun that can shoot bullets (we'll leave the definition of high powered TBA for now) can be called by several names - a handgun, a sport rifle, a hunting rifle.

If your definition of an "assault weapon" is a "semi-automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets" then you basically just labeled most every handgun and rifle on the market as an "assault weapon." Take those away from law abiding citizens and what is left? Should we start using muskets again?

Okay let's be more specific.

For get about labels.

Let's just talk about specific guns.

I do not see a need to own an AR-15 or AK-47.

If you need something like that to hunt or protect yourself then perhaps you need more time at the range.

i do not see a "need" to own a Lexus, or a 4,000 foot house, or $100 tennis shoes.

I do not see a "need" for you to vote democratic, or for a 16 year old to have a driver's license, or for half the laws of the country.

I don't see a "need" for the vast majority of the possessions you have, but thankfully my perception of the "need", and your perception of the "need" is irrelevant, so please get off your self-righteous high horse, and stop trying to tell me your perception of what we need. And, more importantly, when it comes to a constitutionally protected right even the Congress perception of my "need" is irrelevant.

When we as a society are restricted by our lawmakers based on what we "need" we are one step away from totalitarianism.

and yes.. i'm sure i spelled that wrong.

(05-27-2021 03:38 PM)Danforth Wrote:  I do not see a need to own an AR-15 or AK-47.

Then dont own one and STFU about anyone else who does.

Lemme explain this for yet another idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution. Talking to you dumbforth.

The Second Amendment doesn't apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The Second Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was NOT written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It FORBIDS government interference in the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

The wording is really fk'ing plain.

(05-28-2021 09:51 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Lemme explain this for yet another idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution. Talking to you dumbforth.

The Second Amendment doesn't apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The Second Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was NOT written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It FORBIDS government interference in the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

The wording is really fk'ing plain.

Its truly amazing how many stupid leftists in America today dont understand this concept. I also love the argument they use that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the weaponry we have today and if they could have, their intent would have been different. Then they turn right around and assume, I guess, the FF knew about Al Gore's internet w/ regard to the 1st amendment.

(05-28-2021 09:41 AM)Oman Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 03:38 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 01:19 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 08:58 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:40 PM)No2rdame Wrote:  You already lost the argument by referring to an "assault weapon." Any time you use a term coined by the leftist media to sway popular opinion then you've failed to make your point. But, for sh*ts and giggles, what do YOU think an assault weapon is?

Okay fine let's use your terminology.

What would you prefer to call a semi automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets?

1. I'm not sure what you define as "high powered" bullets, but the most common chamber for ARs is .223/5.56, which is not even the ideal caliber for hog hunting. Yes, you can get more powerful and larger calibers, but this is the most popular by far.
2. A semi-automatic gun that can shoot bullets (we'll leave the definition of high powered TBA for now) can be called by several names - a handgun, a sport rifle, a hunting rifle.

If your definition of an "assault weapon" is a "semi-automatic weapon that shoots high powered bullets" then you basically just labeled most every handgun and rifle on the market as an "assault weapon." Take those away from law abiding citizens and what is left? Should we start using muskets again?

Okay let's be more specific.

For get about labels.

Let's just talk about specific guns.

I do not see a need to own an AR-15 or AK-47.

If you need something like that to hunt or protect yourself then perhaps you need more time at the range.

i do not see a "need" to own a Lexus, or a 4,000 foot house, or $100 tennis shoes.

I do not see a "need" for you to vote democratic, or for a 16 year old to have a driver's license, or for half the laws of the country.

I don't see a "need" for the vast majority of the possessions you have, but thankfully my perception of the "need", and your perception of the "need" is irrelevant, so please get off your self-righteous high horse, and stop trying to tell me your perception of what we need. And, more importantly, when it comes to a constitutionally protected right even the Congress perception of my "need" is irrelevant.

When we as a society are restricted by our lawmakers based on what we "need" we are one step away from totalitarianism.

and yes.. i'm sure i spelled that wrong.

The bottom line is that no rights are given without restrictions. What you want or what I want are irrelevant when it comes to the good of the country. Do not be so selfish that your rights as an individual become more important than the rights of the general public.

(05-28-2021 10:06 AM)Danforth Wrote:  The bottom line is that no rights are given without restrictions. What you want or what I want are irrelevant when it comes to the good of the country. Do not be so selfish that your rights as an individual become more important than the rights of the general public.

You're trolling again. Don't take the bait.

This ain’t China. My rights as an individual are paramount.

(05-28-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2021 10:06 AM)Danforth Wrote:  The bottom line is that no rights are given without restrictions. What you want or what I want are irrelevant when it comes to the good of the country. Do not be so selfish that your rights as an individual become more important than the rights of the general public.

You're trolling again. Don't take the bait.

It's not trolling it's the truth.

We have freedom of speech but that doesn't give us the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

We have a right to bare arms but that doesn't give us a right to own tanks or nuclear weapons.

It's simply a realistic take on our rights as citizens of this country.

No right are absolute.

“The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation” - Matt Gaetz

Well said Senator