Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

It's a dependent clause, dependent on the first.

Not according to any part of the Constitution or SCOTUS.

Can you point out where exactly this dependency is established??

Noted. It's about "security," not conspicuous consumption. So why do you need an assault rifle for your security?

Because semi auto rifles are the standard in small arms weaponry.

There are plenty of weapons you cannot have, just because you want them.

Not many, mostly our latest front lines tech (which is usually released to the public later) and weapons of mass destruction, that's about it.

As pointed out you can have fighter jets and air assault/attack helicopters just because you want them....if your pockets are deep enough.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

With the appointment of John Bolton, Donnie will soon be wearing your avatar.

I think that the image in my av is what he imagines when he looks into a mirror.

 

[dan_c00000]

How sad, nobody wants to discuss what you want them to.

Bot knows what he wants: more dead kids. He just refuses to admit it because he's a coward.

 

[My I]

--Just wanting something is no basis for anything.

I may WANT to steal, commit murder, or rape, but oh no, my "freedom" is being curtailed because I can't, it's against the law!

But but but I wanted to is no legal defense.

You could say civil society is a compromise with our individual wants and the rest of society. We're not running around as a pack of wild animals are we?

--You cannot say anything you "want." Free speech has limitations. The First Amendment, like ALL laws, is not absolute and beyond discussion and refinement and constant debate, because, again: civil society. We have COURTS. We're not a fundamentalist sect where the Bible is true forever and ever, amen Jesus

--Take the 2nd Amendment. As someone else said, there are limits to the kinds of weapons you can own, because: SOCIETY.

Saying "But do you need a bomb-making kit or an assault rifle" is part of the debate of weighing your "individual" rights vs the wants and needs of your fellow citizens.

The 2nd Amendment includes the clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." thereby linking your "wants" to your own SECURITY, DEFENSE, and to the overall defense of SOCIETY. It's not protected as a mere consumer item of conspicuous consumption.

Why do you NEED certain weapons for the security of a well REGULATED militia is a valid question.

Here's the difference: Theft, rape and murder are illegal. Those are the most basic laws that date back to the beginning of man. And along with those laws is the right to defend yourself from people breaking those laws.

You do not cut off everyone's hands because a few people stole. You do not cut off every man's cock because a few raped. You do not hang everyone because a few killed. You do not jail all women for prostitution because a few took money for sex. You do not take everyone's cars away because a few got drunk and caused a fatal crash. You do not take everyone's "smart" phones away because some nitwit was texting and caused fatal crash.

But here you are trying to take guns away from millions of people who own the LEGALLY and have NEVER caused harm to anyone with them, just because that kind of gun has been used 4 times over the last 15 yrs in mass shootings. And in three of those, the shooter should not have had ANY gun to start with.

There are countries that still cut off your hand for theft. We don't. There are still a few countries that cut off you dick for rape. We don't. There are a few countries that still hang people for murder. We don't. But I know of NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that punishes people for the crimes of others. But that's what YOU want.

Punish the criminals. Leave the innocent alone. And for fuck sake stop blaming inanimate objects. That's the most invalid and irrational reason of ALL for getting what YOU want.

The 2nd amendment is the LAW. It was written into the Constitution of The United States of America for a reason and it was NOT just for 'the militia". Yes, that was part of the reason and it IS still valid. It doesn't get repealed because the United States of Hillary would rather be victims.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bot knows what he wants: more dead kids. He just refuses to admit it because he's a coward.

I refuse to admit it because it's not true, it's a lie you made up because you can't actually make an argument for banning 'assault weapons' but not all semi automatics, so you require appeal to emotion fallacies like this one.

I would say nice try...but it was rather pathetic.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's called a comma.

Dependent:

"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."

Not dependent:


"A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Not according to any part of the Constitution or SCOTUS.

Can you point out where exactly this dependency is established??



Because semi auto rifles are the standard in small arms weaponry.



Not many, mostly our latest front lines tech (which is usually released to the public later) and weapons of mass destruction, that's about it.

As pointed out you can have fighter jets and air assault/attack helicopters just because you want them....if your pockets are deep enough.

 

[coachdb18]

http://i.imgur.com/eLAtEOk.jpg

There’s a bit of a high capacity magazine that comes with this one.. 30mm cannon GAU-8, 3900 rpm, 4000 ft range), highly automatic fire

 

[My I]

In fact, you can, as of right this moment, own your very own F4 Phantom II fighter jet (N815WF), for $3.9M!!

http://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2
http://www.platinumfighters.com/warbirds

You can get a fully functional MiG 21 for $250,000. You can get a fully functional MiG 29 for 2.5 million. And these are not for sale overseas and illegal to bring into the USA. These are already LEGALLY owned by Americans and are here in the states right now.

Guess what? They have never been used to kill anyone since being purchased by private individuals.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's called a comma.

Dependent:

"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."

Not dependent:


"A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

There is no logical nor linguistic reasoning behind that nor any legal precedence.

The comma does NOT make the individual right dependent nor does it infer any sort of a prerequisite. Not for any amendments, not even the 2nd.

You can restrict it down to baseball bats and wrist rockets...but you can't get rid of it.

 

[My I]

And A4 Skyhawks.

First gen 16's and 18's' are being sold now too.

Oh man if I ever win the lotto....the one I really want though because it's the coolest warbird EVER, will likely never be released to the public because Iran.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/US_Navy_051105-F-5480T-005_An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_mission_over_the_Persian_Gulf-region.jpg/1200px-US_Navy_051105-F-5480T-005_An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_mission_over_the_Persian_Gulf-region.jpg


I'm ok with my RC toy version though....

Unfortunately, you will prob'ly never be able to own an F14. Not because of cost. But because the USA does not want parts being sold to IRAN, who still has a couple dozen F14s that WE sold them. All of our own F14s have been cut p and melted down except a few museum pieces.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unfortunately, you will prob'ly never be able to own an F14. Not because of cost. But because the USA does not want parts being sold to IRAN, who still has a couple dozen F14s that WE sold them. All of our own F14s have been cut p and melted down except a few museum pieces.

If you read my post...I already said that.

 

[My I]

Bot knows what he wants: more dead kids. He just refuses to admit it because he's a coward.

Ummmm.... Your childish ignorance is showing.

 

[My I]

If you read my post...I already said that.

Apologies. Don't know how I read the first half of that but missed the second.

 

[coachdb18]

Probably one of the best fighter planes ever made was the WWII vintage P-51 Mustang, still available but rare, and very pricey

 

[BotanyBoy]

Apologies. Don't know how I read the first half of that but missed the second.

No biggie.

Probably one of the best fighter planes ever made was the WWII vintage P-51 Mustang, still available but rare, and very pricey

Indeed, the stuff legends are made of.

If my memory serves me correctly I think the only 2 warbirds that have better combat records are the F-86 Sabre
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/f86-19a.jpg

And of course the F-15 Eagle...which is still the meanest 4th gen fighter in the skies.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5941b733688ad2da038b464d-750-563.jpg

 

[My I]

Noted. It's about "security," not conspicuous consumption. So why do you need an assault rifle for your security?

Going back to my original post: Why do you NEED a BMW to get to work and get groceries? (BTW: BMWs are involved in more traffic "accidents" than any other vehicle) It's a matter of personal preference. Again, the most BASIC freedom granted to us, the freedom of choice. And not you nor any other has a right to take that away.

There are plenty of weapons you cannot have, just because you want them.

There are actually very bloody few weapons that cannot be obtained legally if you can pass the background checks and be patient through all the government red tape. But perhaps that is the very reason for wanting one. "See my new F5? That is PROOF that I am as clean as you can get. Do you know what I had to go through to get that?"

On the other hand, there are NO weapons that cannot be had ILLEGALLY. Again, punish the criminals, not the innocent.

 

[dan_c00000]

Ummmm.... Your childish ignorance is showing.

Then tell me you're willing to ban semi-automatic rifles. Until then you're on the pro-kid killing side with bot.

I refuse to admit it

Tell me how all those kids got killed then. If you say any type of gun you're a pro-kid killer.

 

[zotique]

Without taking anybody's guns away, there are rational ways to manage guns.

The country I live in has 25 guns per 100 people.

The US has 101 guns per 100.

Our firearms deaths are 2 per 100,000 compared to 10 per 100,000 in the U.S.

Here anyone who wants to have a firearm has to take course, take a written and physical test and apply for a federal possession and acquisition permit. If they wish to have a handgun they need to have an additional "restricted" condition on their permit after taking additional courses and another hands-on test.

Everyone undergoes a criminal record check as well as a check with former spouses.

"Restricted" guns here are all handguns and certain semi-auto rifles with barrels under a certain length.


Some firearms such as handguns with a very short barrel, some semi-auto rifles and full auto firearms are "prohibited" and only people who had such firearms registered prior to December 1998 may have one. But they must remain locked up and are not permitted to leave the dwelling.

All handguns and restricted rifles can only be transported from the place of purchase to the home and from the home to a government approved range and back with an authorization to transport (ATT).

In the home they must always be kept in a secure locked container .

Only in very rare instances does anyone get a permit to carry a handgun. That is usually only prospectors who work in the wilderness and can prove that they carry so much extra gear that they cannot practically carry a short "defender" type shotgun for bear protection. I heard of one wilderness photographer who had one too.

Semi-auto non-restricted centre-fire rifles must have their magazines pinned at five rounds. 30-round mags are classified as prohibited devices.

New firearms laws have been proposed recently and some semi-auto rifles may be reclassified from restricted to prohibited.

 

[KimGordon67]

Here's the difference: Theft, rape and murder are illegal. Those are the most basic laws that date back to the beginning of man. And along with those laws is the right to defend yourself from people breaking those laws.

You do not cut off everyone's hands because a few people stole. You do not cut off every man's cock because a few raped. You do not hang everyone because a few killed. You do not jail all women for prostitution because a few took money for sex. You do not take everyone's cars away because a few got drunk and caused a fatal crash. You do not take everyone's "smart" phones away because some nitwit was texting and caused fatal crash.

But here you are trying to take guns away from millions of people who own the LEGALLY and have NEVER caused harm to anyone with them, just because that kind of gun has been used 4 times over the last 15 yrs in mass shootings. And in three of those, the shooter should not have had ANY gun to start with.

There are countries that still cut off your hand for theft. We don't. There are still a few countries that cut off you dick for rape. We don't. There are a few countries that still hang people for murder. We don't. But I know of NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that punishes people for the crimes of others. But that's what YOU want.

Punish the criminals. Leave the innocent alone. And for fuck sake stop blaming inanimate objects. That's the most invalid and irrational reason of ALL for getting what YOU want.

The 2nd amendment is the LAW. It was written into the Constitution of The United States of America for a reason and it was NOT just for 'the militia". Yes, that was part of the reason and it IS still valid. It doesn't get repealed because the United States of Hillary would rather be victims.

How are you so willfully obtuse?
Hands, cocks, cars, phones, all the other things you keep listing, serve very clear and useful purposes outside their misuse AND were not designed with the purpose of killing things.
Guns don't really serve any purpose beyond killing things, other than your amusement. Is your amusement more important than the lives of those who are killed with them? I think not.
There's a whole lot of laws that annoy the crap out of me. It's irritating that I need to wear a seat belt, when clearly I'm a responsible driver, and when I'm fine about taking the risk of having an accident ... but the law says I do, because if I have an accident, the cost to society of fixing me is far great if I'm not buckled in. It's annoying that I have to put a fence around my swimming pool - and PAY for the fence as well, even though I don't have any kids of my own who are at risk of drowning in said pool. (I don't actually have a swimming pool, but you know what I mean.) When I'm carrying drinks to the pool, it's quite difficult holding onto them and opening the gate to the pool at the same time. Is that irritation and expense more important than a hypothetical toddler who might wander into my pool and drown? No.
Yes, I guess the state could say 'no swimming pools', in the way that I'd prefer they said 'no guns', because really swimming pools are just amusing in the way guns are. But actually, compliance with the laws around fencing swimming pools is pretty good, and fencing them is pretty effective in terms of preventing small humans drowning them, and there isn't a huge illegal market in unfenced swimming pools. I don't feel confident in saying the same about guns in the US. (Where I am is a different story - we're in much the same situation as described by zotique, and it seems to work well.) Yes, bummer that your amusement might be infringed upon because of the irresponsible actions of others ... but that's how the world works because we live in societies, not little states of one.

 

[My I]

Then tell me you're willing to ban semi-automatic rifles. Until then you're on the pro-kid killing side with bot.



Tell me how all those kids got killed then. If you say any type of gun you're a pro-kid killer.

And you are a dumbass. You know you can't be right so instead you insult and offend because you think it MEANS something to me. You think it will make me respect you? Keep going. The only way you can be a bigger asswipe is to gain weight.

"Pro-kid killing" That's fookin' HILARIOUS!!!! The LIBS passed the GUN FREE ZONE laws. How did that work out??? The LIBS wanted to end the "School to Prison Pipeline that kept Cruz from being committed to a mental institution or being locked up. It was the Liberal School Superintendent who thought it better to not have crimes reported so their numbers would look better. And the Liberal Sheriff that ignored all the warning signs and did NOTHING to stop Cruz. "Pro-Kid killing"? That's the badge YOU need to wear.

What happens when there is a trained professional in a school with a gun? Well maybe the media didn't report this weeks school shooting in Maryland. Quite a different outcome from Parkland and all the other "Gun Free Zones", wasn't it?

Why don't you get your head out of Hillary's twat and see reality?

 

[KimGordon67]

Ah yes, of course, 'liberals' are just more likely to commit crimes.
Or it's because that map represents the total number of homicides and is almost an exact copy of the population density.
More people = more crime, who knew?
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/USA-population-density-per-square-mile.jpg
When you break it down per capita the top 25 states with the most homicides are overwhelmingly republican majority.
Oops.


No they don't. That's such a ridiculous statement I can't believe you can't see it.
The USA has the single highest rate of gun ownership in the world by an insane margin, only Yemen comes close, and nowhere near the lowest crime rate. If your logic was true it would have the very lowest crime rate. In actual fact the USA has an average crime rate and a massively disproportionate amount of deaths due to crime compared with the rest of the world.

OMG - has he done the thing of using raw numbers instead of %'s AGAIN? One can assume the Mensa membership test doesn't extend to the ability to read statistics.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then tell me you're willing to ban semi-automatic rifles. Until then you're on the pro-kid killing side with bot.



Tell me how all those kids got killed then. If you say any type of gun you're a pro-kid killer.

This assumes that being pro gun rights makes you pro-kid killer.

Which is absolute bullshit.

I fully support the laws we have prohibiting murder and any violence not in the direct defense of life/limb of oneself or others who are being violated by the psychos who violate our anti-violence/murder laws in the first place.

You can support gun rights and anti-murder/violent crime laws at the same time, there is no logical nor legal conflict in that.

 

[KimGordon67]

--Just wanting something is no basis for anything.

I may WANT to steal, commit murder, or rape, but oh no, my "freedom" is being curtailed because I can't, it's against the law!

But but but I wanted to is no legal defense.

You could say civil society is a compromise with our individual wants and the rest of society. We're not running around as a pack of wild animals are we?

--You cannot say anything you "want." Free speech has limitations. The First Amendment, like ALL laws, is not absolute and beyond discussion and refinement and constant debate, because, again: civil society. We have COURTS. We're not a fundamentalist sect where the Bible is true forever and ever, amen Jesus

--Take the 2nd Amendment. As someone else said, there are limits to the kinds of weapons you can own, because: SOCIETY.

Saying "But do you need a bomb-making kit or an assault rifle" is part of the debate of weighing your "individual" rights vs the wants and needs of your fellow citizens.

The 2nd Amendment includes the clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." thereby linking your "wants" to your own SECURITY, DEFENSE, and to the overall defense of SOCIETY. It's not protected as a mere consumer item of conspicuous consumption.

Why do you NEED certain weapons for the security of a well REGULATED militia is a valid question.

This is interesting, eh? So even in the Constitution, the 'right' to bear arms is linked to a specific purpose. It's not a universal right, nor related to your personal amusement, but a right that comes with responsibilities - the responsibility of defending the free state. If you're not doing that, then what are you needing a gun for?

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is interesting, eh? So even in the Constitution, the 'right' to bear arms is linked to a specific purpose

No it is not....she's feeding you a fantasy made up pile of bullshit that's not supported by anything except the fantasy a few illiterates imagined up.

If you're not doing that, then what are you needing a gun for?

All sorts of shit from subsistence to self defense.

 

[KimGordon67]

No it is not....she's feeding you a fantasy made up pile of bullshit that's not supported by anything except the fantasy a few illiterates imagined up.

So is that quote not directly from the second amendment (or whichever amendment it is)?