Assault weapons remarks
- Thread starter deltastorm11
- Start date
- Status
LibShooter
Member
"There is no needs clause in the second amendment."
Actually the word neccessary is in the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Sounds like the founding fathers knew I would need one. It's my duty to go buy one now. Thanks John Adams, I've been looking for a way to convice my wife I need an AR.
Actually the word neccessary is in the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Sounds like the founding fathers knew I would need one. It's my duty to go buy one now. Thanks John Adams, I've been looking for a way to convice my wife I need an AR.
Deanimator
Member
"Codified" into SUNSETTED Federal law. That takes it back to whatever any state or individual construes it to be. That's why an SKS is an "assault weapon" in one place and an M1 Carbine isn't.
Deanimator
Member
In my idle time, I enjoy showing them that they DON'T know much of ANYTHING. They really hate me for it. I'd be really worried if arrogant, dishonest retards DID like me.
Lone_Gunman
Member
OK well you can act like there is no such thing if you want, but our government does believe there are assault weapons, and have defined the term for you.
If you look at the state laws regarding assault weapons, and the new versions of the assault weapons ban that have been proposed, the definitions of assault weapons are all extremely similar.
But play your semantics game if you want. It won't win any arguments with anyone who is marginally informed, but I guess it can be a fun exercise in mental masturbation.
I need a semiautomatic so called "assault weapon" because the government has mini-guns that can fire 2000 to 4000 rounds per minute, guns that fire 30mm depleted uranium projectiles, 16" guns, cluster bombs, MOAB's, and thermonuclear weapons, and yet the government fears my semiautomatic? Does something seem out of whack here?
You don't NEED to write your congresman or senators, but many people do. You may not NEED to own a firearm of any kind but it's your Constitutional right just the same.
You don't NEED to write your congresman or senators, but many people do. You may not NEED to own a firearm of any kind but it's your Constitutional right just the same.
swagner89
member
seems to me that when they ask, "why do you need an assault weapon?", what they really are asking is "why do you need a weapon?". that is the real question in their mind. and that question is much easier to explain and make sense to them.
larry starling
Member
No I'm Jacki Chan!!!!!!!
Deanimator
Member
You can never win an argument with someone who's marginally informed. He doesn't know enough to know when he's been refuted.
Officers'Wife
Member
Why do you 'need' to have anything beyond food and water?
Why do you 'need' a car that goes 100 when the speed limit is 55.
Why do you 'need' a three bedroom house when no woman would have you?
And my personal favorite- what does need have to do with the desire to own something?
Why do you 'need' a car that goes 100 when the speed limit is 55.
Why do you 'need' a three bedroom house when no woman would have you?
And my personal favorite- what does need have to do with the desire to own something?
Deanimator
Member
At one time or another, somebody in charge thought that millions of Ukrainians, Jews, Chinese and North Koreans didn't need that.
Kind of Blued
Member
If you REALLY want to confuse people infected by the media, tell them "Because I don't like shooting powerful rifles as much".
I always like First Amendment analogies: Ask them if their favorite political or social cause really "needs" to have their rallies on the steps of city hall or the state capitol. Can't they just get their message across in some out-of-the way park?
MT GUNNY
Member
Thanks to a THR members Comment,
My favorite response is :
I can take a Bolt Action Hunting Rifle, and turn it into a Assault Rifle Buy But stroking You in the Face!!
My favorite response is :
I can take a Bolt Action Hunting Rifle, and turn it into a Assault Rifle Buy But stroking You in the Face!!
youngun82
Member
I always say..."I can assault you with a hammer....so does that make it an assault hammer?" or the classic....."Because I can!"
"For the same reason cops need them. For defense against armed criminals."
"The bad guys have them. If I want to protect myself from bad guys, it only makes sense that I should have them too."
"Because according to state law I am a member of the state militia, and if I ever get called up I want to have a rifle I can take into battle. Did you know you are in the militia too? What kind of rifle would you want to take if they call you up?"
"The second amendment is all about assault weapons."
remington arms makes a pump action that will shoot the 223 and can use the ar 15 30 round magizine.
OH it has a wood stock so must not be an assult weapon. ROFL
Actually if i were to purchase another 223 I would go with the pump action remington, just so ii would take more time to shoot up my ammo supply.
OH it has a wood stock so must not be an assult weapon. ROFL
Actually if i were to purchase another 223 I would go with the pump action remington, just so ii would take more time to shoot up my ammo supply.
Officers'Wife
Member
If you want to get into history, try Lenin's enforced starvation of the Russian people to 'collectivize' Soviet agriculture. Your assigned essay: What would the possible effects have been if the Russian landowners and farmers (kulaks) had been armed with military small arms? Compare and contrast with the southern militia troops in the beginning of the War of Succession. (There was nothing civil about that war.)
Selena
Part of it has to do with wanting, and part of it has to do with needing. For "needing" you must consider the context under which the second amendment was written. It was not written so dudes could shoot deer, and it wasn't really even written for the sake of self defense. It was primarily written so that the citizens of a nation can uprise with necessary force if a totalitarian government were to come into power and take advantage of the people. How can you fight a government with handguns and older rifles when your government has fully-auto modern rifles? Not a fair fight, and not a threat. This is why individuals need the right to carry modern rifles (a more accurate term than "assault rifles" for these weapons).
Secondly, you should talk about the "want" aspect. People don't "need" dogs, they want them. These are animals that we have domesticated and give us happiness, exercise, protection, but also sometimes do bad things like bite people. None of these things are necessary for our daily survival. Some dogs look scarier than others are no more dangerous than others unless they are not trained well.
Similarly, weapons termed "assault rifles" LOOK scarier than others, but statistically speaking they aren't any more dangerous than bolt action rifles or handguns. They are in fact responsible for an average of 3% of firearms-related crime nationwide, and have been for years now. Should we outlaw all scary looking dogs even though they aren't responsible for more crimes? That sounds pretty stupid.
Anti-gunners greatest fault is their inability to examine facts and use relationships to gain a better understanding on a situation. Maybe they're born with defective left brains?
Secondly, you should talk about the "want" aspect. People don't "need" dogs, they want them. These are animals that we have domesticated and give us happiness, exercise, protection, but also sometimes do bad things like bite people. None of these things are necessary for our daily survival. Some dogs look scarier than others are no more dangerous than others unless they are not trained well.
Similarly, weapons termed "assault rifles" LOOK scarier than others, but statistically speaking they aren't any more dangerous than bolt action rifles or handguns. They are in fact responsible for an average of 3% of firearms-related crime nationwide, and have been for years now. Should we outlaw all scary looking dogs even though they aren't responsible for more crimes? That sounds pretty stupid.
Anti-gunners greatest fault is their inability to examine facts and use relationships to gain a better understanding on a situation. Maybe they're born with defective left brains?
renegade1alpha
Member.
When I was in Iraq and came under fire I don't remember ever having to drop my "assault rifle" and grab my "defensive rifle" to defend myself. Or get rid of my "defensive rifle" and use my "assault rifle" to attack a position. That is just a buzzword that anti gunners like to use.
When our founding fathers fought for our independance, they all carried black powder rifles. Since those were the military arms of that period they could technically be construed as "assault rifles". The same could be said for the bolt action Springfield in WW I or the Garand of WW II and Korea.
What about a "survival knife"? If I glue a compass on the butt of my 10" boning knife, does that automatically constitute a "survival knife?"
Next time some anti-gunner starts spewing they ignorant rhetoric, ask them to explain to you what an assault rifle is. Then commend them on their "expertise" on firearms. While you are at it ask them to explain quantum physics or neurosurgery to you too. When they can't ask them why not and they will tell you they don't know anything about those subjects because they never went to school on those things. Next ask them where they "went to school" to learn gunsmithing, tactics, or marksmanship. They will usually shut up then.
When our founding fathers fought for our independance, they all carried black powder rifles. Since those were the military arms of that period they could technically be construed as "assault rifles". The same could be said for the bolt action Springfield in WW I or the Garand of WW II and Korea.
What about a "survival knife"? If I glue a compass on the butt of my 10" boning knife, does that automatically constitute a "survival knife?"
Next time some anti-gunner starts spewing they ignorant rhetoric, ask them to explain to you what an assault rifle is. Then commend them on their "expertise" on firearms. While you are at it ask them to explain quantum physics or neurosurgery to you too. When they can't ask them why not and they will tell you they don't know anything about those subjects because they never went to school on those things. Next ask them where they "went to school" to learn gunsmithing, tactics, or marksmanship. They will usually shut up then.
mmbasser,
There are no federal laws banning any firearms. While the NFA of 1934 controls machine guns and other title 2 weapons, it does not ban them. Do not help the other side by claiming that some of the guns we like to own are illegal. You need to educate yourself a lot more.
Ranb
There are no federal laws banning any firearms. While the NFA of 1934 controls machine guns and other title 2 weapons, it does not ban them. Do not help the other side by claiming that some of the guns we like to own are illegal. You need to educate yourself a lot more.
Ranb
A few times a person has said they were nervous that I owned various firearms. I responded to their statements with, "What do you plan on doing to me that makes you think I will harm you with my rifle?" They are of course too ignorant to give me a reasonable response.
Ranb
Ranb
General Geoff
Member
It does ban machine guns made after 1986 from civilian possession.
- Status
