AR Platforms & 2d Amendment

[SilentStalkr]

As I said before, these questions are borne of a profound ignorance of firearms, which is quite common. As such, these questions coming from progressive anti-liberty folks are really rhetorical rather than truly innocently inquisitive.

But, I'm going to pretend I'm having the conversation with someone.

-----------------------------------------------

One: How many of you would chose an AR platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?

Rhetorical translation: Nobody needs an AR-15. It's not a good defense weapon (because I've heard that so many times in the media.)

My answer: First, I should point out that the AR-15 has no magical or special qualities that make it different from any other semi-automatic rifle. The AR-15 has great ergonomics, in that it is lightweight and adjustable to fit a variety of shooters' body types. But, it FUNCTIONS EXACTLY like every other semi-automatic firearm... a technology that is over a century old.

So... It depends. Which firearm I would consider "ideal" varies, depending on the situation. Please describe the context of the self-defense situation. I would choose different defensive weapons for different situations. Where am I, for example? Please provide some details of your hypothetical scenario that requires I defend myself. Be specific. Where am I? Who am I with? Who is attacking me? How many are attacking me? What time of day / night is it? Then, maybe I can answer your question in a qualified manner.

-----------------------------------------------

Two: Besides a self-defense, what else would/do you use ARs for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?

Rhetorical translation: Why do you "need" an AR-15? Nobody needs an AR-15.

My answer: That's an interesting choice of words and order of words. Let me ask you a question. Why SHOULDN'T I have an AR-15 or similar firearm? (pause and wait for the answer)

I have all my firearms for the same reasons, none of which require any justification... any more than I should justify my Right to Free Speech or to Peaceably Assemble or be Secure in my Person and Possessions.

But, if you really want to know, I can cite many excellent and practical reasons to own firearms. I own many different firearms, each of which fits a particular niche... kind of like shoes. Different shoes for different activities, right? Sneakers vs dress shoes vs running shoes vs hiking boots. Firearms are similar in that regard.

That said, I can do many things with a firearm. I can hunt and provide food for my family. I can defend myself and my family. I can engage in a multitude of competitive sports (marksmanship is one of the oldest / original events in the Olympics). I can shoot targets recreationally. Working on firearms, as a mechanical device, is as enjoyable as wrenching on a car. It's a hobby that I can share with others, which forges many excellent friendships. It's very social. Come with me to the range, and you'll see. But, yes... the origins of the 2nd Amendment are SPECIFICALLY rooted in the desire to prevent government tyranny. The Founders were brilliant and prescient.

-----------------------------------------------

Three: Do you support any limits on ARs? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others?

Rhetorical translation: Why don't you support "common sense" restrictions on your ability to own and use firearms? You are obviously unreasonable and selfish.

My answer: I am not willing to give up ANY of my Constitutional Rights. Ever. Period. My Constitutional Rights are subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and pledging my very LIFE to that end by voluntarily serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy. The oath does not expire.

I took that oath with absolute knowledge and sincerity. It was not a "formality," nor was it "symbolic." It was fucking real. The person administering the oath was serious. I was serious when I took the oath. Having served is one of things I am most proud of. When you pledge your life to defend the Constitution, you tend to take it seriously.

I think it's important to point out that my oath was to defend the CONSTITUTION. Nowhere in the oath does it mention defending my country. Nowhere in the oath does it mention defending the flag. Nowhere does it mention obeying orders. It specifically says I will defend the CONSTITUTION against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

-----------------------------------------------

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if bazookas become the norm for defending your house?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing a long gun from an RPG—partly because they didn’t know the difference.

Rhetorical translation: I routinely engage in logical fallacies to make my point (rhetoric). In this case, the logical fallacy is "reductio ad absurdum" (an extreme form of straw man argument). Tanks, nuclear bombs, RPGs, and everyone's favorite... the BAZOOKA!

My answer: I would not create any limits on the 2nd Amendment, just as I would not advocate for limits on ANY of our Constitutional Rights. Why should there be limits? Should there be limits on Free Speech? What about limits on being secure in your person, property, or possessions? Should there be (air quotes) "reasonable" limits on your Right to trial by jury? What about limits on protections against cruel and unusual punishment? Are there exceptions to the 8th Amendment?

There are no limits on Free Speech. (This is how I set my trap. Invariably, they display their ignorance by regurgitating the old canard, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." Of course, this is utterly and provably false. And, I admit taking great pleasure in blowing them out of the water with a truth bomb that reveals them as the unthinking, false talking point-regurgitators they are. I explain that they are suggesting Prior Restraint exists and is legal. It isn't. It's a hell of a lot of fun to watch the stunned silence that follows, as a result of the inevitable cognitive dissonance the truth elicits.)

Accordingly, I would never advocate for limits on the 2nd Amendment. It is just as important as the other Amendments.

-----------------------------------------------

OK... I think that's enough!

Well, I was getting ready to type a lengthy response to the OP, but this is beautiful and mirrors close to what I was going to say. Well done, sir.

 

[deersniper]

One: How many of you would chose an AR platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?
Me.

Two: Besides a self-defense, what else would/do you use ARs for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?
Anything. The AR-15 offers the most features and adaptability consolidating into a single design.

Three: Do you support any limits on ARs? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others?
No. Give up none.

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if bazookas become the norm for defending your house?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing a long gun from an RPG—partly because they didn’t know the difference.
If you can lift it off the ground or move it, either physically or otherwise, in a single motion then you can legally own it. So pretty much just everything except underground missile silos. I'd want a cursory inspection for an underground missile silo, otherwise, start digging for all I care.

Idk where your going with that but you should be able to own tanks jets missiles etc.

In colonial days private citizens owned warships

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

OP, tell them about the M777 155mm ultra light artillery system. They will come around, trust me. Nobody resists the charm of vehicle towable artillery forever. Explain how it has both unguided AND guided ordnance capabilities.

Since Chuck Norris is taken I would name my artillery Long Juan. A play on the name Don Juan and the nickname for the 1940's M59 155mm gun, Long Tom. Or maybe John Wilkes Oof, that's a good one to fit in with HMM(W)V Harvey Oswald. Open to suggestions.

Here's a Long Tom artillery system.

 

[Fig]

Mine mentioned obeying orders...

 

[Fig]

Idk where your going with that but you should be able to own tanks jets missiles etc.

In colonial days private citizens owned warships

and therefore cannons. Yes, cannons.
The John Brown Foundry turned out new cannons for George Washington.

https://freedomoutpost.com/the-british-banned-guns-on-our-fathers-it-brought-about-a-revolution/

Good article they avoid in law school. Wouldn’t want civics to interfere with the moral vacuum.

 

[Racer88]

Mine mentioned obeying orders...

Yes.... the enlisted oath mentions that. Officer's oath does not.

That said... they must be LAWFUL orders.

 

[Fig]

Well, there’s no one apointed over me anymore...so moot.

 

[Racer88]

Well, there’s no one apointed over me anymore...so moot.

I hear ya. The reason I mentioned it, is that I've had some progressives argue that in the case of tyranny, the military would blindly follow the orders of the gov't (to attack citizens). They'll say, "when you were in the military, you had to follow all orders." Ummm... NOPE. I reference my oath to follow ONLY the Constitution.

You might find this article interesting:

https://www.quantico.marines.mil/ne...ce-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/

 

[ArmyJerry]

lawful orders

Mine mentioned obeying orders...

 

[pmclaine]

As I said before, these questions are borne of a profound ignorance of firearms, which is quite common. As such, these questions coming from progressive anti-liberty folks are really rhetorical rather than truly innocently inquisitive.

But, I'm going to pretend I'm having the conversation with someone.

-----------------------------------------------

One: How many of you would chose an AR platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?

Rhetorical translation: Nobody needs an AR-15. It's not a good defense weapon (because I've heard that so many times in the media.)

My answer: First, I should point out that the AR-15 has no magical or special qualities that make it different from any other semi-automatic rifle. The AR-15 has great ergonomics, in that it is lightweight and adjustable to fit a variety of shooters' body types. But, it FUNCTIONS EXACTLY like every other semi-automatic firearm... a technology that is over a century old.

So... It depends. Which firearm I would consider "ideal" varies, depending on the situation. Please describe the context of the self-defense situation. I would choose different defensive weapons for different situations. Where am I, for example? Please provide some details of your hypothetical scenario that requires I defend myself. Be specific. Where am I? Who am I with? Who is attacking me? How many are attacking me? What time of day / night is it? Then, maybe I can answer your question in a qualified manner.

-----------------------------------------------

Two: Besides a self-defense, what else would/do you use ARs for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?

Rhetorical translation: Why do you "need" an AR-15? Nobody needs an AR-15. Your worries about tyranny mean you're paranoid and unreasonable. Plus, you're just stupid if you think you can beat the military with your puny little AR-15.

My answer: That's an interesting choice of words and order of words. Let me ask you a question. Why SHOULDN'T I have an AR-15 or similar firearm? (pause and wait for the answer)

I have all my firearms for the same reasons, none of which require any justification... any more than I should justify my Right to Free Speech or to Peaceably Assemble or be Secure in my Person and Possessions.

But, if you really want to know, I can cite many excellent and practical reasons to own firearms. I own many different firearms, each of which fits a particular niche... kind of like shoes. Different shoes for different activities, right? Sneakers vs dress shoes vs running shoes vs hiking boots. Firearms are similar in that regard.

That said, I can do many things with a firearm. I can hunt and provide food for my family. I can defend myself and my family. I can engage in a multitude of competitive sports (marksmanship is one of the oldest / original events in the Olympics). I can shoot targets recreationally. I find shooting is very meditative activity. It's really quite Zen. Working on firearms, as a mechanical device, is as enjoyable as wrenching on a car. It's a hobby that I can share with others, which forges many excellent friendships. It's very social. Come with me to the range, and you'll see. But, yes... the origins of the 2nd Amendment are SPECIFICALLY rooted in the desire to prevent government tyranny. The Founders were brilliant, EXPERIENCED, and prescient.

-----------------------------------------------

Three: Do you support any limits on ARs? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others?

Rhetorical translation: Why don't you support "common sense" restrictions on your ability to own and use firearms? You are obviously unreasonable and selfish.

My answer: I am not willing to give up ANY of my Constitutional Rights. Ever. Period. My Constitutional Rights are subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and pledging my very LIFE to that end by voluntarily serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy. The oath does not expire.

I took that oath with absolute knowledge and sincerity. It was not a "formality," nor was it "symbolic." It was fucking real. The person administering the oath was serious. I was serious when I took the oath. Having served is one of things I am most proud of. When you pledge your life to defend the Constitution, you tend to take it seriously.

I think it's important to point out that my oath was to defend the CONSTITUTION. Nowhere in the oath does it mention defending my country. Nowhere in the oath does it mention defending the flag. Nowhere does it mention obeying orders. It specifically says I will defend the CONSTITUTION against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

-----------------------------------------------

Four: Since the law of the land is that this right is not without limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed). Think broadly, because one of my colleagues made the argument, "Well what if bazookas become the norm for defending your house?" Some struggled in creating a rule distinguishing a long gun from an RPG—partly because they didn’t know the difference.

Rhetorical translation: I routinely engage in logical fallacies to make my point (rhetoric). In this case, the logical fallacy is "reductio ad absurdum" (an extreme form of straw man argument). Tanks, nuclear bombs, RPGs, and everyone's favorite... the BAZOOKA!

My answer: I would not create any limits on the 2nd Amendment, just as I would not advocate for limits on ANY of our Constitutional Rights. Why should there be limits? Should there be limits on Free Speech? What about limits on being secure in your person, property, or possessions? Should there be (air quotes) "reasonable" limits on your Right to trial by jury? What about limits on protections against cruel and unusual punishment? Are there exceptions to the 8th Amendment?

There are no limits on Free Speech. (This is how I set my trap. Invariably, they display their ignorance by regurgitating the old canard, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." Of course, this is utterly and provably false. And, I admit taking great pleasure in blowing them out of the water with a truth bomb that reveals them as the unthinking, false talking point-regurgitators they are. I explain that they are suggesting Prior Restraint exists and is legal. It isn't. It's a hell of a lot of fun to watch the stunned silence that follows, as a result of the inevitable cognitive dissonance the truth elicits.)

Accordingly, I would never advocate for, nor accept, limits on the 2nd Amendment. It is just as important as the other Amendments.

-----------------------------------------------

OK... I think that's enough!

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/kZkqsUHkuWVnW" width="318" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Dirty D]

Hey Guys, I go to law school in D.C. where other students say and believe things about firearms and the firearms community that are so unbased I'm concerned. I'm trying to breath air besides the stuff hanging over D.C. and wanted perspective from the community. How do you answer these hypothetical questions or do you have favorite academic resources, e.g., a favorite Federalist Paper. I'm talking people who professedly don't know anything about guns and have never held one, but argued about ARs. We got into a discussion today about the 2d Amendment Constitutional law regarding the Supreme Court's holding in Heller, written by Justice Scalia (the case, a summary). Some people in class look at Las Vegas and others and are glad they couldn't own something more, I don't think all of them are disingenuous when they want to debate some of the below questions. Thanks.

One: How many of you would chose a rifle platform over a hand gun or shotgun for self-defense?

Two: Besides self-defense, what else would/do you use semi-auto rifles for (fun/hobby; militia/against gov't tyranny; other)?

Three: Do you support any limits on arms? If so, what are they? And, how much would you be willing to give up, in terms of what you can own, in light of other people shooting others? Are nukes and the missiles that can deliver them arms?

Four: Since Heller says arms rights have limits (see Heller, p54), what rule or limit would you create on what ordinary citizens can own and not own (without reference to who should be able to own a gun and, separately, where guns should be allowed).

Ask them what reasonable limits that they would tolerate on the rest of the BoR?

 

[pmclaine]

and therefore cannons. Yes, cannons.
The John Brown Foundry turned out new cannons for George Washington.

https://freedomoutpost.com/the-british-banned-guns-on-our-fathers-it-brought-about-a-revolution/

Good article they avoid in law school. Wouldn’t want civics to interfere with the moral vacuum.

Some pics to accompany your point....

 

[pmclaine]

 

[pmclaine]

@Acrow264 if you or any of your class mates think of the Revolution as "quaint", "ancient", "irrelevant today", "just dusty old history", than you are of the mindset that is part of the problem.

My feelings about it wont change and there is nothing to negotiate regards it.

It would be an intractable disagreement that could never be solved amicably.

 

[david walter]

I had this image up in my office when I commanded in the Air National Guard, and it was the backdrop at my retirement.

 

[ArmyJerry]

There were no planes back then. Nor any air force worthy chow halls.

 

[Fig]

Maybe they'll be ok worshiping in basements? Maybe they’ll quarter troops just in their front hallway? Maybe they’ll be entitled to due process unless the government accuses them of something, or maybe they're ok being locked up for just a couple of weeks without being accused of a crime? Maybe they don't need a jury if they're accused of a "hate crime"? Maybe they're ok showing their papers at random checkpoints wherever the government feels they should?
The whole thing is just incredibly stupid and to buy into the progressive mindset that it represents nuance and sophistication makes it even worse. These are the most unimaginative and uneducated people in our history (which they don't know).

Lest we forget what a wretched, rag tag group of starving, freezing commoners defeated the global superpower of the time to win our liberty. Our own government isn't 1/10th as powerful and awesome as Imperial Great Brittan was at the time, and we are thousands of times better equipped to resist their attack on our rights (which they were created to protect).

The existence of openly Marxist congressmen means that the reset clock just hit 11:59. Make no mistake, they're done hiding. They believe rights are only for the rulers and they will attack.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

The existence of openly Marxist congressmen means that the reset clock just hit 11:59. Make no mistake, they're done hiding. They believe rights are only for the rulers and they will attack.

They already have, with a few false flag attacks. I vote they wait until is coming April 19th to keep history bandwidth down.

 

[SilentStalkr]

I just noticed something else in relation to this thread that nobody else has talked about yet. In theory, if your friends were running things and decided nobody should have ARs, what would be their course of action? There are millions of these things out there. They going to do a buyback? If so, is the gov going to pay fair market value for them? Any idea how expensive that would be? Aka, the gov can’t afford it. So, knowing that I guess their next move would be to either grandfather some in or go to all out confiscation. If they grandfather them in then obviously crime wouldn’t decrease because well if the guns are the problem there would still be a shit ton of them out there, right? So, that kind of makes the entire premise of doing away with them moot. So, their only viable option at that point would be confiscation of them, correct? And, I would consider that theft. You see, I know people that have hundreds of thousands of dollars in collections and I don’t think they’d take to kindly for the gov to just come in and take their stuff. Who would? I’d ask your friends, assuming they were in charge and went this route, how they would like their homes and automobiles just taken from them? Outlawed, cannot have it, no payment for said items, just taken? I’d think they’d be pissed.

 

[mardad]

Swellwell or whatever wants to nuke us.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Confiscation of arms accessible to private persons was the trigger sending that 3% of the British colonist into open rebellion. Everyone the Redcoats fired on was a fellow British citizen.

They fought the world's greatest superpower to a standstill and with friends like those French we seem to enjoy reviling, kicked them off most of our continent. Friends are where you find them.

I see the Swamp as the Globalist Imperials, Antifa as loyalist scum implements, and a thin crust of rebellious Patriots as the Sons of Liberty, who will go through many retreats and sink to days like Valley Forge. But they cannot find and kill them all, ideas cannot be killed. Ask the Soviets.

When that first confiscation occurs, the gloves come off.

Wolverines!

Greg

 

[Fig]

I have to agree. A Federal confiscatory policy would lead several of the States to resist on a Governor/States Legislature level. The premise of Federalism is a Central Government that is limited, but that respects the rule of law. Obviously we don't have that anymore, and the left violates this all the time with, for example, "Sanctuary Cities" that refuse to abide by and enforce Federal Law. However, trying to illegally disarm citizens and confiscate their arms is another matter entirely. As soon as a Governor ordered State Police to resist a Federal attempt at forcible disarment...

Law abiding people are not going to commit crimes. When the law itself becomes in conflict and the Federal government completely divorces itself from The Constitution there will be widespread violence. They can only exert power and rule so far as we let them, but they've completely forgotten this, and I believe their arrogance will be their undoing.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

It will start in New York.

 

[deersniper]

Or empty casings to DC. Each one is a seperate felony IIRC

 

[Acrow264]

Yo, OP BOR = Bill of Rights. How the fuck are you a law student and not know what BOR means?

Because no one walks around and says that. Because no one writes "BOR" in a text. They just say/write "Bill of Rights".

Idk where your going with that but you should be able to own tanks jets missiles etc.

In colonial days private citizens owned warships

Part of what I think about is the question, whether the reality modern warfare poses a need to re-examine "arms" in the 2d Amend.? (Obviously some argue No, and the best reasons seem to be strict textualism or the need to keep a militia to check a corrupt government—so we get what the government has, basically.)

Maybe they'll be ok worshiping in basements? Maybe they’ll quarter troops just in their front hallway? Maybe they’ll be entitled to due process unless the government accuses them of something, or maybe they're ok being locked up for just a couple of weeks without being accused of a crime? Maybe they don't need a jury if they're accused of a "hate crime"? Maybe they're ok showing their papers at random checkpoints wherever the government feels they should?
The whole thing is just incredibly stupid and to buy into the progressive mindset that it represents nuance and sophistication makes it even worse. These are the most unimaginative and uneducated people in our history (which they don't know).

Lest we forget what a wretched, rag tag group of starving, freezing commoners defeated the global superpower of the time to win our liberty. Our own government isn't 1/10th as powerful and awesome as Imperial Great Brittan was at the time, and we are thousands of times better equipped to resist their attack on our rights (which they were created to protect).

The existence of openly Marxist congressmen means that the reset clock just hit 11:59. Make no mistake, they're done hiding. They believe rights are only for the rulers and they will attack.

She doesn't sound too keen in the interviews. I'd pick her to lead.

You are breaking my phucking heart dude.

That has dick to do with what you are asking us to teach you.

And furthermore.
I did grow up on a farm as well....
If you grew up shooting, why didn't you get good at it? That makes no sense either

Everything I've taken has probably been within 200 yards.

 

[Acrow264]

Fail.

~6"*** barrels

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Everything I've taken has been within 200 yards.

There is no shame in that at all. Shooting game animals at very long range is often irresponsible.
Know your limits.

 

[Acrow264]

Fail.


Thats three your cooked.

Again, not knowing the blog land acronym doesn't mean I don't know what the referent it and all about it. Type in BOR into Google. I looked when I first read that. "Bill of Rights" is not on the first three pages. You'd be confused too if you read all the other meanings for it. And again, find me a book worth reading on the subject that uses "BOR" instead of just writing it. You guys were needlessly harsh.

 

[Snuby642]

You would call someone a friend that would take your guns? WTF?
I have bannished everyone of those types from my house/life.
Pisses my wife off some were old friends of hers from school days.IDK

You iether support the US Constitution or get out of my house.

I just noticed something else in relation to this thread that nobody else has talked about yet. In theory, if your friends were running things and decided nobody should have ARs, what would be their course of action? There are millions of these things out there. They going to do a buyback? If so, is the gov going to pay fair market value for them? Any idea how expensive that would be? Aka, the gov can’t afford it. So, knowing that I guess their next move would be to either grandfather some in or go to all out confiscation. If they grandfather them in then obviously crime wouldn’t decrease because well if the guns are the problem there would still be a shit ton of them out there, right? So, that kind of makes the entire premise of doing away with them moot. So, their only viable option at that point would be confiscation of them, correct? And, I would consider that theft. You see, I know people that have hundreds of thousands of dollars in collections and I don’t think they’d take to kindly for the gov to just come in and take their stuff. Who would? I’d ask your friends, assuming they were in charge and went this route, how they would like their homes and automobiles just taken from them? Outlawed, cannot have it, no payment for said items, just taken? I’d think they’d be pissed.

 

[Acrow264]

I am going to be as nice as I can here as I’m sure these other guys will castrate you, if they haven’t already. If you do not know or cannot figure out what the BOR is, as a law student or teacher or whatever you are, then you are precisely part of the problem with DC and this country, in general. Please do not teach any kids, please do not argue on our behalf, please do not vote etc. if you do not know what should be basic American civics!!!

Despite what your profession is if could not figure out what BOR meant in relation to your question then the system has really failed you. If you are a politician fishing for comments/feedback/ideas regarding any possible gun legislation and do not know the basics of how the US gov works then you do not deserve to be in office or represent anyone of this country. As much as I might appreciate you trying to get our input I would have to ask you to please leave until you educate yourself and can have an intelligent conversation on what you are asking about. Be prepared to debate and have a spine as we can be some cold hearted mofos. If this seems harsh, please note that many of us don’t take kindly to those that haven’t even taken the time to learn about the very country that many of us have served. It’s insulting to those that have fought and died to give you the rights you have. Please respect that and take some time to educate yourself.

You guys don't know squat about what I know. Well, okay, so you know I didn't know what BOR meant. Look that up on Google. Not as many people as you think use the acronym. Nothing on the first three pages of Google results say "Bill of Rights" if you type in "BOR". Here's a story. Last summer I wanted to brush up on my history, so I dug into this and some other things for fun. Does that count as further educating yourself?

If you want to mess with trolls, then wait for them to actually say something troll-ish to be sure they're trolls, instead of just jumping on someone who sounds like a liberal because he was repeating his DC law colleagues. Maybe you forgot that I was asking for responses to those issues because I want to hear what you all thought. I think you were needlessly harsh.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

You guys don't know squat about what I know. Well, okay, so you know I didn't know what BOR meant. Look that up on Google. Not as many people as you think use the acronym. Nothing on the first three pages of Google results say "Bill of Rights" if you type in "BOR". Here's a story. Last summer I wanted to brush up on my history, so I dug into this and some other things for fun. Does that count as further educating yourself?

If you want to mess with trolls, then wait for them to actually say something troll-ish to be sure they're trolls, instead of just jumping on someone who sounds like a liberal because he was repeating his DC law colleagues. Maybe you forgot that I was asking for responses to those issues because I want to hear what you all thought. I think you were needlessly harsh.

Dude....the very first site!

You can't win for losing scooter.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

OP, what did they say when you told them about the M777 155mm ultra light artillery system? It makes an AR15 look like a Canadian pop gun, it practically sells itself. Sure, you gotta back up to use it, but the results are unequivocal. Do you think they are more the high energy laser types? I know a guy for that, too. If they can't be redpilled by a Howitzer or free deer meat (I assume you've offered) I don't know how you're going to win them over. Statistics won't help, logic won't help.

Safety is superficial and all some Americans care about is feeling ok to gamble on that with their and their children's wellbeing. It's arbitrary when you really think about it, the foundational argument for both sides essentially coming down the fact that humans are not logical creatures and thus inevitably need protection. Logically the best argument would then be the one that is supposed by transparent statistics and facts. All too often the law takes an "I feel this way and I'm appointed to use my discretion, so it's law" approach when it is absolutely not needed, it's lazy and borderline tyrannical. I suggest doing your own research and look extremely closely at all the statistics you can find. In this case, the usefulness of a legally armed population is a question we actually can answer. Will it decide if it's Constitutionally protected, though?

When the interpretation of the Constitution is argued, you should never err on a choice that curtails the rights of a citizen. That's just my opinion. If an interpretation is a fallacy due to a burden of proof, any interpretation is by default as much so. Therefore, the logical thing to do would be to not buttfuck the people the law was designed to enable in the first place.

 

[quietmike]

Even if you completely outlawed ARs, there's stil the problem of the 4th amendment, preventing cops from doing house to house searches to collect them.
Or the problem that there is not a firm number of how many are out there, so how do you know you got them all.
Or the reality that the size of the US is utterly massive, and there's no way to know how many guns have been cached in unknown caves, simply buried, or otherwise hidden.
Or how many machinists out there have a CNC and could turn out lowers PDQ, the lowers are the only serialized part, so there's absolutely no numbers for how many uppers, or parts kits exist.

Just like everything else liberals do, gun confiscation is based on pie in the sky fantasy and feelings, and has no similarity to reality.

 

[pmclaine]

Ask your friends if it would be okay to own this arty piece?

I bet their subconscious will have them oddly attracted..

 

[david walter]

Even if you completely outlawed ARs, there's stil the problem of the 4th amendment, preventing cops from doing house to house searches to collect them.
Or the problem that there is not a firm number of how many are out there, so how do you know you got them all.
Or the reality that the size of the US is utterly massive, and there's no way to know how many guns have been cached in unknown caves, simply buried, or otherwise hidden.
Or how many machinists out there have a CNC and could turn out lowers PDQ, the lowers are the only serialized part, so there's absolutely no numbers for how many uppers, or parts kits exist.

Just like everything else liberals do, gun confiscation is based on pie in the sky fantasy and feelings, and has no similarity to reality.

Um, the problem with if there was no Second Amendment is that you’d have no way to enforce the other amendments. So your delusion of there being a protection against search and seizure, when the People have no way to force restraint on the government, is just that. A delusion.

If the Second falls, they all fall.

 

[SilentStalkr]

You would call someone a friend that would take your guns? WTF?
I have bannished everyone of those types from my house/life.
Pisses my wife off some were old friends of hers from school days.IDK

You iether support the US Constitution or get out of my house.

I was referring to the OPs friends, not mine! Lmao.

You guys don't know squat about what I know. Well, okay, so you know I didn't know what BOR meant. Look that up on Google. Not as many people as you think use the acronym. Nothing on the first three pages of Google results say "Bill of Rights" if you type in "BOR". Here's a story. Last summer I wanted to brush up on my history, so I dug into this and some other things for fun. Does that count as further educating yourself?

If you want to mess with trolls, then wait for them to actually say something troll-ish to be sure they're trolls, instead of just jumping on someone who sounds like a liberal because he was repeating his DC law colleagues. Maybe you forgot that I was asking for responses to those issues because I want to hear what you all thought. I think you were needlessly harsh.

Didn’t we already hug it out? Hasnt our harshness been addressed already? I also followed up your question with a question of my own a few posts up. Would love to hear your response.

 

[Snuby642]

The second amendment is not needing any interpretation.
Shall not be infringed is fairly self explanatory.

Anyone trying to subvert the constitution is commiting treason.

 

[Snuby642]

@SilentStalkr my bad, misunderstood your post.
Shit my jaw dropped when I read it. Lol

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Yall bitching about how out of touch legislators are and then are skeptical when a dude in law school doesn't know that BOR doesn't mean breach of rule or some skool shit like that. Lots of politicians are/were lawyers, I'm sure you've noticed. Give him a break with the BOR. He's just uncultured on the matter, not like us echo chamber enthusiasts. He came to learn.

Which brings me to my next point, the M777 155mm ultra light artillery system. Manufactured by BAE Systems and originally developed for the United States Marine Corps, in 2005 it replaced the M198 howitzer as a highly portable battlefield bombardment weapon. The M777A1 has a targeting, electric power, and targeting interface improvement package over the traditional optical fire control M777 standard. The M777A2 has a more advanced software upgrade and EPIAFS necessary to fire Excaliber M982 precision extended range shells. BAE Systems has manufactured over 1,200 M777 systems to date for countries around the world. The logistical footprint and utility of the system allows it to be deployed easily, in different terrain, and to travel by different methods. The M777 155mm ultra light artillery system is the benchmark for freedom in the modern world.

 

[Acrow264]

I was referring to the OPs friends, not mine! Lmao.



Didn’t we already hug it out? Hasnt our harshness been addressed already? I also followed up your question with a question of my own a few posts up. Would love to hear your response.

We're cool. I am looking forward to reading everything and responding over the weekend. I have been reflecting on the ones I have read, didn't get to all of them, yet.

 

[Racer88]

Since we're posting pics of big guns....

My brother served on the USS Iowa. He was actually firing the center gun in turret #3 when this photo was taken. 16-inch bore, baby!

 

[4cDragon]

The way I always answer anyone’s question about guns and the 2nd is with a question. What are you trying to achieve by banning guns or trying to put more restrictions on gun owners? They usually answer “saving live’s”. Ok, then here are some saving live’s thoughts for you.



2017

47,000+ deaths from suicide

70,000+ deaths from drug over dose

80,000 deaths from the flu

88,000+ deaths from alcohol

16,000 deaths from homicides with guns (includes police shooting bad guys, bad guys shooting bad guys, bad guys shooting good guys and good guys shooting bad guys) Assault Rifles (AR’s, AK’s etc) contributed to less than 80 of these deaths.



If saving live’s are your number one goal start by enforcing drug laws, outlaw alcohol, make everyone get a flu shot annually and make everyone be happier. All these things are far more dangerous and killing more people than guns and especially assault rifles.

 

[ArmyJerry]

700,000 abortions

 

[david walter]

700,000 abortions

This

 

[armorpl8chikn]

outlaw alcohol,

Whoah whoah! Where the F that come from?
Let's just all calm down and take a step back before things get outta hand here.

 

[pmclaine]

Whoah whoah! Where the F that come from?
Let's just all calm down and take a step back before things get outta hand here.

Give them an inch............

 

[Fig]

Give them an inch............

They did it last time.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Because no one walks around and says that. Because no one writes "BOR" in a text. They just say/write "Bill of Rights".

Ahhh Acrow, you're generation specializes in abbreviations and people have daily verbalized many for decades. I'll admit I didn't know what it meant when the first poster wrote it either, but half way through his post I figured it out. Considering the subject, constitutional topic, the context clue and reading comprehension allowed me to come to the conclusion it was Bill of Rights. If you're going into law you're really going to want to improve that or you'll find yourself getting constantly smoked in the courtroom case after case.

 

[pmclaine]

Ahhh Acrow, you're generation specializes in abbreviations and people have daily verbalized many for decades. I'll admit I didn't know what it meant when the first poster wrote it either, but half way through his post I figured it out. Considering the subject, constitutional topic, the context clue and reading comprehension allowed me to come to the conclusion it was Bill of Rights. If you're going into law you're really going to want to improve that or you'll find yourself getting constantly smoked in the courtroom case after case.

LOL

 

[david walter]

Meanwhile, back at the discussion of the Second Amendment, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html