Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Xiaodong]

So the Constitution is unalterable all of a sudden?
Damnit guess slavery's still a thing.

Oh and the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about automatic weapons either.

The 1st doesn't mention the internet, T.V. or radio yet it certainly applies to those.

The second doesn't mention nuclear and chemical weapons, which are "arms". By that logic, they should be legalised for civilian use.

Plus, the 1st amendment seems to guarantee free speech with a few to no exceptions. The 2nd specifically mentions that the right to be bear arms should be in the context of a "well regulated Militia" which implies some regulation/restrictions.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

Citizens also own Predator drones and Hellfire missiles don't forget. *nod*

If you found someone to sell you those you could buy them on a Form 4, or make your own on a Form 1.

[Big Jim P]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Banning assault weapons isn't the fix.


The universal background checks, and that proposed tax on ammunition sounds fine.

Or, higher taxes on fully automatic rifles.

Automatic rifles already HAVE a higher tax added to the transfer.

[Purpelia]

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

1. No private citizen in any civilized western country or america owns the kind of anti tank weaponry that would be reasonably effective against modern armored vehicles when operated by a professional military. Your molotovs and other junk might have done the job back in the 30's. But now a days a tank can spot you from several kilometers out and through a wall using thermal imaging and just shoot you. Or it might not bother because it has artillery and you don't.

2. No private citizen owns the kind of things needed to effectively fight a modern military including but not limited to artillery, anti aircraft systems, counter battery tracking radar equipment, secure communications etc.

3. Even if you had all of #1 and #2 the average weekend warrior militiaman is not a trained soldier operating in a unit commanded by trained officers and trained generals and working within a trained large formation with proper logistics, intelligence and all the other things that actually make an army win.

[Ohioan Territory]

Every gun law is an infringement. If you seek to take my guns, I will resist you. If you don't see a problem with the government getting stronger and trying to disarm the citizens, then you're an idiot.

Whilst taking peoples property away is indeed a topic for discussion I think you overstepped here just a tad. Let's be real. Your government has access to tanks, aircraft and even atomic weapons. Just what do you think armed citizenry is going to be able to do against those? Are you going to shoot at the mushroom cloud until the hit points run out? The day and age where a militia was anything but a bump stop are dead and gone. Just realize that.

Now, can we get back to how you should all vote for Trump so that she who must not be named does not come into power and take all your guns away?

So, because the government has weapons that are more powerful than any average US citizen may own, every gun-owner should turn in their weapons because there is no possible way they could (successfully) resist tyranny? They should just submit to the will of a tyrant because people like you think that they're unable to beat them? I don't know if you know your history, but the last time a tyrant had power on American soil, the armed populace didn't appear to have much of a chance against him.

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

Don't believe in personal, home or property defense I take it.

Oh yes. Those lefties don't understand that here in 'Murica, it's like living in a war zone, the criminals are always armed to the teeth, and they
have missile launchers, assault rifles and machine guns etc. Now how are we supposed to protect ourselves with just simple
45s and Glock 36s, .357 Magnum Desert Eagles, .357 Magnum Colt Pythons, .44 Magnum Colt Anacondas, Smith & Wesson Model 500 Magnums etc.

How can one defend their home with these puny weak useless things being in a constant war zone!?



If you take away guns, you might as well take our away our arms too because without a gun you literally can't defend yourself nor
do any other alternative weapons exist either.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The 1st doesn't mention the internet, T.V. or radio yet it certainly applies to those.

The second doesn't mention nuclear and chemical weapons, which are "arms". By that logic, they should be legalised for civilian use.

Plus, the 1st amendment seems to guarantee free speech with no exceptions. The 2nd specifically mentions that the right to be bear arms should be in the context of a "well regulated Militia" which implies some regulation/restrictions.

The well regulated militia is every member of the National Guard and every male citizen from 17-45.

WMD's aren't protected under the 2A because they aren't in common military usage and they aren't useful for self defense, therefore there's no argument for them under any of the SCOTUS rulings.

[Paddy O Fernature]

How about gun laws that do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them?

Just what exactly would those entail, unless that's just Trumpian vagueness to dismiss the issue altogether?

It really is impossible for you to have a serious discussion, isn't it.

[The balkens]

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

1. No private citizen in any civilized western country or america owns the kind of anti tank weaponry that would be reasonably effective against modern armored vehicles when operated by a professional military. Your molotovs and other junk might have done the job back in the 30's. But now a days a tank can spot you from several kilometers out and through a wall using thermal imaging and just shoot you. Or it might not bother because it has artillery and you don't.

2. No private citizen owns the kind of things needed to effectively fight a modern military including but not limited to artillery, anti aircraft systems, counter battery tracking radar equipment, secure communications etc.

3. Even if you had all of #1 and #2 the average weekend warrior militiaman is not a trained soldier operating in a unit commanded by trained officers and trained generals and working within a trained large formation with proper logistics, intelligence and all the other things that actually make an army win.

You appear to be implying that the US military would follow gov orders ALL the time.

[Purpelia]

A well-organized militia could protect the populace. A well-organized plan could take over a National Guard armory, and then another and another, if need be. There will always be a way.

And what would you do with those? Nothing because any half competent army will react to this by dropping artillery on your head and laughing at you for being so kind to bunch your self up in a single nice location.

So, because the government has weapons that are more powerful than any average US citizen may own, every gun-owner should turn in their weapons because there is no possible way they could (successfully) resist tyranny? They should just submit to the will of a tyrant because people like you think that they're unable to beat them? I don't know if you know your history, but the last time a tyrant had power on American soil, the armed populace didn't appear to have much of a chance against him.

Basically firearms are really just the beginning. They make up maybe 1% of an armies ability to fight, at best. The rest is all the things that a militia does not have including logistics, training, communications, leadership, artillery, air support, large unit coordination, armored vehicles etc. A squad of militiamen could in theory outfight a squad of soldiers. But that relies entirely on said squad being nice and not calling in mortars, artillery or any number of things that those militiamen have no answer to.

Face it people. Firearms are property, they are antiques, they are collectibles, tools and frankly they are also toys. There are plenty of reasons why you would not want them banned. But being part of a militia that can actually stand up to a government just is not one of those reasons.

You appear to be implying that the US military would follow gov orders ALL the time.

No, I am not. I am simply ignoring the obvious fact that they aren't brainwashed peons who would immediately turn on their people at the flip of a button because unless I do the whole militia angle starts looking even more ridiculous and meaningless.

[Big Jim P]

How about gun laws that do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them?

Just what exactly would those entail, unless that's just Trumpian vagueness to dismiss the issue altogether?

It's the gun-grabbers proposing the laws. Pro-gun people have already had enough of being unduly burdened. When the GGs actually educate themselves and come up with a decent, semi-intelligent idea, then maybe more people would listen and maybe even agree.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

1. No private citizen in any civilized western country or america owns the kind of anti tank weaponry that would be reasonably effective against modern armored vehicles when operated by a professional military. Your molotovs and other junk might have done the job back in the 30's. But now a days a tank can spot you from several kilometers out and through a wall using thermal imaging and just shoot you. Or it might not bother because it has artillery and you don't.

2. No private citizen owns the kind of things needed to effectively fight a modern military including but not limited to artillery, anti aircraft systems, counter battery tracking radar equipment, secure communications etc.

3. Even if you had all of #1 and #2 the average weekend warrior militiaman is not a trained soldier operating in a unit commanded by trained officers and trained generals and working within a trained large formation with proper logistics, intelligence and all the other things that actually make an army win.

1. No, there's plenty of people in the US who own working rocket launchers, anti tank guns of various sizes etc.

2. Artillery and anti air systems are both privately owned in the US, though the second is a bit more rare to see. I can't really speak for the other two things, though secure communications isn't hard.

3. Plenty of those weekend warriors are veterans with training, though it's not like we're ever actually going to have a civil war or some shit again barring some real insanity.

[Big Jim P]

Don't believe in personal, home or property defense I take it.

Oh yes. Those lefties don't understand that here in 'Murica, it's like living in a war zone, the criminals are always armed to the teeth, and they
have missile launchers, assault rifles and machine guns etc. Now how are we supposed to protect ourselves with just simple
45s and Glock 36s, .357 Magnum Desert Eagles, .357 Magnum Colt Pythons, .44 Magnum Colt Anacondas, Smith & Wesson Model 500 Magnums etc.

How can one defend their home with these puny weak useless things being in a constant war zone!?



If you take away guns, you might as well take our away our arms too because without a gun you literally can't defend yourself nor
do any other alternative weapons exist either.

It is irrelevant whether they are armed or no. Duh.

[Gauthier]

Just what exactly would those entail, unless that's just Trumpian vagueness to dismiss the issue altogether?

It really is impossible for you to have a serious discussion, isn't it.

Nothing serious about asking for the specifics of gun laws that "do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them" now?

[Gauthier]

Just what exactly would those entail, unless that's just Trumpian vagueness to dismiss the issue altogether?

It's the gun-grabbers proposing the laws. Pro-gun people have already had enough of being unduly burdened. When the GGs actually educate themselves and come up with a decent, semi-intelligent idea, then maybe more people would listen and maybe even agree.

In other words you either don't know what your ideal gun laws would exactly entail or you don't want to come out and say it because you really don't want any gun laws in place to begin with.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The 1st doesn't mention the internet, T.V. or radio yet it certainly applies to those.

The second doesn't mention nuclear and chemical weapons, which are "arms". By that logic, they should be legalised for civilian use.

Plus, the 1st amendment seems to guarantee free speech with a few to no exceptions. The 2nd specifically mentions that the right to be bear arms should be in the context of a "well regulated Militia" which implies some regulation/restrictions.

Enjoy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's the gun-grabbers proposing the laws. Pro-gun people have already had enough of being unduly burdened. When the GGs actually educate themselves and come up with a decent, semi-intelligent idea, then maybe more people would listen and maybe even agree.

In other words you either don't know what your ideal gun laws would exactly entail or you don't want to come out and say it because you really don't want any gun laws in place to begin with.

How about my proposals on gun laws? Most people have seemed to agree on them with me.

[Big Jim P]

It really is impossible for you to have a serious discussion, isn't it.

Nothing serious about asking for the specifics of gun laws that "do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them" now?

That is the whole problem with gun-grabbers: they have no compunction against trampling the rights of lawful citizens (repeatedly), and really don't give a damn about punishing the criminals who provide them with their soapbox.

[May Mays]

Guns are not half as large a problem as the media makes them out to be, it is a scapegoat designed to tarnish the reputation of the republican party and polarize conservative and liberal Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading ... -death.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Firearm-related homicides barely even break 1/4 the deaths of the 10th leading cause of death in the USA.

4 out of the 10 leading causes of death are directly associated with obesity, either being indirectly caused by it or a greatly increased risk of it.

And yet there is a fat acceptance movement in the country.

Two of them are mental health issues, and unsurprisingly, the USA has some of the worst mental healthcare in the world.

I also believe stronger mental healthcare could wipe out at least half of the 11,000 gun homicides in one year.

[Big Jim P]

It's the gun-grabbers proposing the laws. Pro-gun people have already had enough of being unduly burdened. When the GGs actually educate themselves and come up with a decent, semi-intelligent idea, then maybe more people would listen and maybe even agree.

In other words you either don't know what your ideal gun laws would exactly entail or you don't want to come out and say it because you really don't want any gun laws in place to begin with.

I have posted what I would like, repeatedly, here.

[Purpelia]

1. No, there's plenty of people in the US who own working rocket launchers, anti tank guns of various sizes etc.

All of which are more or less useless. It's not like an anti tank gun from the 30's or a LAW is going to be making a significant impact against a proper army. Especially not once you factor in the fact that you have no way of supplying those things with ammo.

2. Artillery and anti air systems are both privately owned in the US, though the second is a bit more rare to see. I can't really speak for the other two things,

How long do you think it would take for the american air force with its F-15's and F-22s to sweep all civilian traffic from the skies? All of it.
How long do you think what ever meager artillery is in private ownership would stand up to modern mechanized artillery pieces and multiple missile launchers?
How many of those that do would be manned by trained crews and coordinated with trained and expert artillery spotters on the ground attached to front line units?
Not many.

And again, even if we are generous and assume they just don't care how many of those aircraft and artillery pieces come with a steady supply of munitions, spare parts and everything else needed to keep a fight up for any meaningful duration? How many factories do you know would supply high tech AA missiles to your rebellion as opposed to the national military who would be dam quick to occupy such sites?

though secure communications isn't hard.

On the contrary, they are very hard. Modern militarizes struggle to make their communications secure from one another. And this is not even mentioning the sheer burden of establishing a communication network within an army, let alone what would effectively be a bunch of small unconnected warbands. Military communications and logistics are a huge thing.

t3. Plenty of those weekend warriors are veterans with training, though it's not like we're ever actually going to have a civil war or some shit again barring some real insanity.

So at best we are looking at a bunch of squad or platoon sized warbands with some individual fighting skill but zero coordination, higher command, supply and support or familiarity and trust to one another. I'll bet on the real army.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It's the gun-grabbers proposing the laws. Pro-gun people have already had enough of being unduly burdened. When the GGs actually educate themselves and come up with a decent, semi-intelligent idea, then maybe more people would listen and maybe even agree.

In other words you either don't know what your ideal gun laws would exactly entail or you don't want to come out and say it because you really don't want any gun laws in place to begin with.

You clearly haven't paid attention very well in ANY gun thread that you... posted in.

Jim has said his views on the subject again, and again. Might do you well to actually read what people are saying/have said.

[Wolf Pack Purity]

A well-organized militia could protect the populace. A well-organized plan could take over a National Guard armory, and then another and another, if need be. There will always be a way.

And what would you do with those? Nothing because any half competent army will react to this by dropping artillery on your head and laughing at you for being so kind to bunch your self up in a single nice location.

So, because the government has weapons that are more powerful than any average US citizen may own, every gun-owner should turn in their weapons because there is no possible way they could (successfully) resist tyranny? They should just submit to the will of a tyrant because people like you think that they're unable to beat them? I don't know if you know your history, but the last time a tyrant had power on American soil, the armed populace didn't appear to have much of a chance against him.

Basically firearms are really just the beginning. They make up maybe 1% of an armies ability to fight, at best. The rest is all the things that a militia does not have including logistics, training, communications, leadership, artillery, air support, large unit coordination, armored vehicles etc. A squad of militiamen could in theory outfight a squad of soldiers. But that relies entirely on said squad being nice and not calling in mortars, artillery or any number of things that those militiamen have no answer to.

Face it people. Firearms are property, they are antiques, they are collectibles, tools and frankly they are also toys. There are plenty of reasons why you would not want them banned. But being part of a militia that can actually stand up to a government just is not one of those reasons.

You appear to be implying that the US military would follow gov orders ALL the time.

No, I am not. I am simply ignoring the obvious fact that they aren't brainwashed peons who would immediately turn on their people at the flip of a button because unless I do the whole militia angle starts looking even more ridiculous and meaningless.

I highly doubt the National Guard would follow the orders of the government against the people. It's against their oath. They serve the people, not the government.

[Flauc]

Don't believe in personal, home or property defense I take it.

Oh yes. Those lefties don't understand that here in 'Murica, it's like living in a war zone, the criminals are always armed to the teeth, and they
have missile launchers, assault rifles and machine guns etc. Now how are we supposed to protect ourselves with just simple
45s and Glock 36s, .357 Magnum Desert Eagles, .357 Magnum Colt Pythons, .44 Magnum Colt Anacondas, Smith & Wesson Model 500 Magnums etc.

How can one defend their home with these puny weak useless things being in a constant war zone!?



If you take away guns, you might as well take our away our arms too because without a gun you literally can't defend yourself nor
do any other alternative weapons exist either.

The USA is not a war zone. If you know what you are doing and stay out of trouble or shady neighborhoods, then you are okay.

[Genivaria]

Nothing serious about asking for the specifics of gun laws that "do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them" now?

That is the whole problem with gun-grabbers: they have no compunction against trampling the rights of lawful citizens (repeatedly), and really don't give a damn about punishing the criminals who provide them with their soapbox.

Nice avoidance.