Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

The Second Amendment says specifically that people can keep and bear arms. That's not the same as owning them.

Unless the government is providing a weapon to every adult they intend to never take back except upon due process of law or death (LOL)....effectively it is the same.

Ownership, the legal relation between a person (individual, group, corporation, or government) and an object.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ownership

Ownership
NOUN
The act, state, or right of possessing something.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ownership

Get's back to that whole possession is 9/10ths bit...keep and bear= possession which is effective ownership.

 

[Blue]

Oh that's cute.....you think US gun culture is outdated and in it's final death throes???

LOL

Your version of gun anarchy absolutely is.

https://i.imgur.com/pCeDr9C.png

If even FOX can't bias their polls enough to get any of those below 50% it's looking pretty bad for you guys.

I wonder what the percentage favouring licensing would be.

 

[AllAmericanMale]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything written there that addresses "need". Very few people need an assault rifle, but we all have the right to one, should we wish to purchase/own one.

That is the crux of this issue. I have a right to one, should I want one. Need has little to do with it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your version of gun anarchy absolutely is.

My version of gun anarchy?

LOL ascription much?

Do tell.....what is "my" (your fantasy world) version of gun anarchy entail??

If even FOX can't bias their polls enough to get any of those below 50% it's looking pretty bad for you guys.

Who is "you guys"? I'm an individual with my own thoughts.

IDC what FOX can or can't do. I know for a fact amending the Bill of Rights ain't within their ability.

How is it looking bad?? Those numbers mean about as much as all the polls that told us Clinton had a 4,028,999% chance of beating Trump.

 

[phrodeau]

Unless the government is providing a weapon to every adult they intend to never take back except upon due process of law or death (LOL)....effectively it is the same.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/ownership



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ownership

Get's back to that whole possession is 9/10ths bit...keep and bear= possession which is effective ownership.

Not at all. The government can own all the guns, and loan or rent them out to people when needed, like during a hunting season along with the stamp, or National Guard weekends. Worried about that huge pile of cash that you can't bank until Tuesday? Rent a gun for a few days. Want to keep it longer than that? Pay through the nose.

"But that's socialism!" you say, with a rough idea of what socialism is. But the 2nd Amendment was written with that possibility in mind, or else they would have just used the word "own."

 

[Blue]

My version of gun anarchy?

LOL ascription much?

Do tell.....what is "my" (your fantasy world) version of gun anarchy entail??

Your stalwart opposition to apparently any kind of increased regulation on firearm or vehicle-of-war ownership whatsoever which you've illustrated in this thread a ton of times.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not at all. The government can own all the guns, and loan or rent them out to people when needed, like during a hunting season along with the stamp, or National Guard weekends.

LOL in what fantasy land?

No it can't....it would have to leave them with the people, as their right to keep and bear those arms shall not be infringed....giving them effective ownership.

Worried about that huge pile of cash that you can't bank until Tuesday? Rent a gun for a few days. Want to keep it longer than that? Pay through the nose.

In your wildest fantasies phro, lay off the mescaline will ya??

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Ha ha ha. No.

What would have stopped the Las Vegas Shooter? James Huber? Mitchel Johnson and Andrew Gold? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

You just don't want to limit the number and kinds of guns in this country, when the fact is no matter how you police "people," you cannot predict a seemingly sane, ordinary dude going nuts and shooting up a crowd, or seemingly normal 11 and 14 yr olds suddenly deciding to break into Dad's gun cabinet or kids like the Columbine killers getting a "sane" friend to buy the weapons at a gun show. Hence: you ALSO need gun control.

You need people control AND gun control--if not a ban, then regulation and limits.

If you have people control there is no need for gun control.

It's a debated right in the court system (not decreed by God forever and ever amen) that currently rests on the shakiest of decisions by an activist gun nut in the SCOTUS.

Ownership of guns is a right....no matter how badly you want to stamp your feet and pretend otherwise.

I am.

Nobody said it was a penis.

A machine is a machine, not a right.

"It's a machine, not a stick."

 

[Blue]

Slightly off topic but I just found out that the March For Our Lives protests in Washington drew 200,000 more people than Trumps inauguration crowd.

Heheh

https://www.hindustantimes.com/rf/image_size_960x540/HT/p2/2018/03/25/Pictures/hundreds-lives-thousands-attend-march-washington-our_9e23538c-2fcc-11e8-a965-f54d0b6b9edf.jpg

 

[dan_c00000]

You're as bad as RacistDownSouth.

You're sounding very triggered today. Do you need a safe space?

I notice you didn't bother to tell us how the Orange Nazi isn't your hero and why he'd want to take away your guns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your stalwart opposition to apparently any kind of increased regulation on firearm or vehicle-of-war ownership whatsoever which you've illustrated in this thread a ton of times.

I'm not opposed to regulation nor did I ever say I was.

You just assumed.



I'm opposed to prohibition and pointless "regulations" that do nothing to actually intervene in a criminals path to possession or totally lack any utility for law enforcement to keep guns out of the wrong hands.


If it's legit I'm open to it, if it serves no purpose but to give gun haters a warm fuzzy for pissing in gun owners shoes with no practical or logical reasoning behind it....get bent.

For example, shall issue licensing after an interview/evaluation and training? Openly support such things right in this thread.

Banning all Semi-auto's...logically consistent and a respectable position as I've stated in this thread.

Banning "assault" weapons....mag limits....million dollar per bullet taxes....and all the other "Fuck you just because I feel like being an asshole!!" ideas the hysterical anti-gun crowd puts up? Nah...they can eat a big ol' bag of AIDS dicks.

 

[Hypoxia]

No fire-arms listed in the 1791 edition of the Shooter's Bible or for which a patent had been approved in 1791 should be seized whem we come-after-your-guns and pry them from your itchy gnarled fingers.

That sounds about right. You can have my blunderbuss when you can find it. Where did I leave it? Damn squirrels ran off with it. And my tobacky chaw. Damn fuzzy fuckers...

If the Founding Father simply wanted to claim an individual right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment would say: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead, they give a reason: You have the right to "bear Arms" to defend the nation. Why? Because the Founders didn't want a fucking standing army that could overthrow etc. Get rid of the standing army and we can "bear Arms" all we want. Keep the standing army and the excuse vanishes.

Where I live you can have rifles and shotguns and handguns if you pass certain criteria established by federal law and possess a possession and acquisition permit. You get that by applying to the RCMP after taking a firearms safety course course and a practical and written exam.

There is an added level of education and examination required for a "restricted" endorsement of the permit.

Handguns are only permitted to be taken from the home to a federally approved range and back. In the home they must be securely locked in a container.

30 round magazines are prohibited devices and all semi auto rifles must have mags pinned to five rounds.

Why don't you try that in the U.S.?

I think we gringos are heading in that direction. Change is coming.

A gun is a gun. It's not a penis and it's not a "right." It's a metal stick that kills people.

And my grandkids' right to live trumps a gunpowder addict's right to play with deadly toys in public. That's what this is about: private vs public realms. Private actions are one thing. What you do in public is regulated; that's how societies work, to keep everyone from killing everyone else.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You just don't want to limit the number and kinds of guns in this country,

Because the number of and kinds of guns isn't the problem.

Access to them is.

You need people control AND gun control--if not a ban, then regulation and limits.

No you don't.

You just need people control....that's why we don't have a machine gun/ grenade launcher/destructive device/ tank/ jet fighter problem despite there not being banned or illegal for civilians to own. And proof you're full of shit....you just want to ban guns, which isn't going to happen.

It's a debated right in the court system (not decreed by God forever and ever amen) that currently rests on the shakiest of decisions by an activist gun nut in the SCOTUS.

It's not shaky, it wasn't an activist because he reads 2A without all of your imaginary meanings behind it either.

SCOTUS rulings can be overturned....but the confirmation of 2A as an individual right, is about as unlikely to be canned as 2A is.

A machine is a machine, not a right.

Ownership of the machine is though.

You're sounding very triggered today. Do you need a safe space?

More ascription.

I notice you didn't bother to tell us how the Orange Nazi isn't your hero and why he'd want to take away your guns.

I did though....he's not because you made it up.

Your assumptions and ascriptions =/= facts.

But keep trying anyhow!!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The advancement of gun manufacturing technology is a natural occurrence. What is unnatural is that weapons created with advanced technology are available for ownership by civilians. The laws regulating private gun ownership have lagged far behind that technology and far exceed what the founding fathers could have ever imagined.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What is unnatural is that weapons created with advanced technology are available for ownership by civilians.

How is that unnatural?

Civilian weapons possession has been around a hell of a lot longer than prohibition......

 

[Hypoxia]

I'm sure that these were all done by sober, law-abiding citizens.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/positively-no-shooting-sign-holes.jpg

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Discharge-Firearms-Prohibited-City-Sign.jpg

https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/948727/98238605/stock-photo-warning-sign-no-shooting-with-bullet-holes-and-graffiti-98238605.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/z4QAAOSwmT1Zd8GW/s-l225.jpg

http://rapideyereality.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/church1.jpg

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/bullet-holes-in-sign-at-blackwater-wildlife-refuge-in-maryland-william-kuta.jpg

http://trailmomma.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Canyons-5-300x225.jpg

https://wishyouwerefree.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsc00012.jpg

On remote stretches of Mexican roadways are spots with posted signs saying (translated) NO TRASH HERE - FEDERAL PROPERTY. Those signs are usually nearly buried in trash. IMHO this indicated popular consideration of their federal gov't.

 

[Hypoxia]

Does the "right of the people" in the 2A mean something different than the "right of the people" in all other amendments where it is mentioned?

Please clarify that..

The phrase "...the right of the people..." occurs 3 times in the Constitution:

I) "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

II) [justification] "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

IV) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Only Amendment II re: firearms contains a qualification, a justification. The other rights are inviolable, period. "Bearing arms" has a reason: national defense and security, when the well-regulated militia is called up. A2 also doesn't specify *which* arms one may 'bear' (which means carry) for "the security of a free State". Laws handle that. No switchblades or nukes, folks.

For the curious: Load the Constitution http://constitutionus.com. Search on 'right', 'liberty', 'freedom', 'militia', etc. See where and how they occur. SPOILER: 'Freedom' (do what you wanna do!) occurs just once:

I) "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

 

[LincolnDuncan]

How is that unnatural?

Civilian weapons possession has been around a hell of a lot longer than prohibition......

It's unnatural that guys like you get a woody for their gunz. I have guns, but I'm not attached to them. They serve a purpose, they don't need to be big and I only need one for my purposes. I'm not expecting the zombie apocalypse.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Ha ha, only in your sad world.

Feeling is behind every great movement, like the Am. Revolution. Passion is the motivator of social change. Passion brings people out in the street to protest gun violence or dump tea in the Boston Harbor. Patriotism is itself a "feeling." Just because you don't like feelings, due to some issues you have with Mommy and Daddy and your non-existent penis, does not make it true.

Of course you like guns as penis-substitute: a gun is a machine without feeling

Sandy Hook made it crystal clear that this is an emotional, moral issue.

What do you value more, kids or your guns. If you choose guns, I reserve the 1st Amendment Right to brand you a baby-killer.

Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower
Anything less and you're a baby killer.

No people who kill babies are baby killers......and no amount of your feelings will change that because facts> feelz.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's unnatural that guys like you get a woody for their gunz. I have guns, but I'm not attached to them. They serve a purpose, they don't need to be big and I only need one for my purposes. I'm not expecting the zombie apocalypse.

Oh so you can't answer the question so you went for shit talk and a totally irrelevant deflection.

That's what I thought.

Ha ha, only in your sad world.

Nope....in the real world.

What do you value more, kids or your guns. If you choose guns, I reserve the 1st Amendment Right to brand you a baby-killer.

Kids...but that's not a reason to give up my civil rights.

It's not an either or issue.

And just because you're free to say it, doesn't make it true.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Oh so you can't answer the question so you went for shit talk and a totally irrelevant deflection.

That's what I thought.



Nope....in the real world.



Kids...but that's not a reason to give up my civil rights.

It's not an either or issue.

And just because you're free to say it, doesn't make it true.

Dotard, you asked me what was unnatural and I told you!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dotard, you asked me what was unnatural and I told you!

And it's imaginary bullshit.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

I see everyone is getting along just fine now. Is MY I back from work yet?





Also, no assault rifle was needed during the making of this thread.

 

[mark_j]

The phrase "...the right of the people..." occurs 3 times in the Constitution:

I) "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

II) [justification] "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

IV) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Only Amendment II re: firearms contains a qualification, a justification. The other rights are inviolable, period. "Bearing arms" has a reason: national defense and security, when the well-regulated militia is called up. A2 also doesn't specify *which* arms one may 'bear' (which means carry) for "the security of a free State". Laws handle that. No switchblades or nukes, folks.

For the curious: Load the Constitution http://constitutionus.com. Search on 'right', 'liberty', 'freedom', 'militia', etc. See where and how they occur. SPOILER: 'Freedom' (do what you wanna do!) occurs just once:

I) "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

That's nice. You still failed to answer a simple question.

Does "the people" as referenced in;

The Declaration - We the people
Amendment 1 - the right of the people
Amendment 2 - the right of the people
Amendment 4 - the right of the people
Amendment 9 - by the people
Amendment 10 - or to the people

mean something different in each case or not?

 

[phrodeau]

Anyone mention that Remington filed for bankruptcy today?