Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Purpelia]

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.

Well, yes, they probably wouldn't. But if they don't that only makes militias even more ridiculously useless because in a conventional battle between your army and NG they will at best get in the way. Not to mention the fact that both sides would be actively recruiting so who ever is in your militia would be the guys and girls that were rejected.

For a militia to stand even a remote chance of playing any significant part in an american civil war you effectively have to wish the NG away and turn the army into brainwashed droids who won't just turn it into a civil war between factions.

[Paddy O Fernature]

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.

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

[Genivaria]

Nice avoidance.

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

Posting, and posting about posting are two different things.

[Big Jim P]

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.

Indeed. I have not been shy, nor is it possible to stutter in text.

[Gauthier]

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.

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.

viewtopic.php?p=29097925#p29097925

viewtopic.php?p=29098031#p29098031

viewtopic.php?p=29098070#p29098070

viewtopic.php?p=29098078#p29098078

viewtopic.php?p=29098190#p29098190

viewtopic.php?p=29098247#p29098247

viewtopic.php?p=29098278#p29098278

Oh yeah, those look like insightful and detailed proposals on fair and balanced gun laws. Absolutely.

[Big Jim P]

Nice avoidance.

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

It's not like I have a sig or anything either.

Seeing only what they want to see, things that support their narrative, while ignoring anything that doesn't is a common trait among the anti-gun types.

[Xiaodong]

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.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

SCOTUS rulings brah, Miller in particular in that case.

[Big Jim P]

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

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.

viewtopic.php?p=29097925#p29097925

viewtopic.php?p=29098031#p29098031

viewtopic.php?p=29098070#p29098070

viewtopic.php?p=29098078#p29098078

viewtopic.php?p=29098190#p29098190

viewtopic.php?p=29098247#p29098247

viewtopic.php?p=29098278#p29098278

Oh yeah, those look like insightful and detailed proposals on fair and balanced gun laws. Absolutely.

Why are you worried about fair and balanced now? We passed that point a long time ago.

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

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!?

(Image)

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.

Amen brother.

[May Mays]

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.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

While I strongly doubt our own military would do such a thing, let us theorize.

There are actually many people in parts of the country with weapons very capable of at the least, damaging a tank.
Not to mention that in urbanized parts of the country, tanks would be almost useless.

But this is unimportant.

Just like gun-control is not nearly as important as the left makes it out to be.

[The balkens]

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.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

The US military is NOT the PLA.

[Imperializt Russia]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

The US military is NOT the PLA.

The NG deployed tanks to Detroit.

[Paddy O Fernature]

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

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.

viewtopic.php?p=29097925#p29097925

viewtopic.php?p=29098031#p29098031

viewtopic.php?p=29098070#p29098070

viewtopic.php?p=29098078#p29098078

viewtopic.php?p=29098190#p29098190

viewtopic.php?p=29098247#p29098247

viewtopic.php?p=29098278#p29098278

Oh yeah, those look like insightful and detailed proposals on fair and balanced gun laws. Absolutely.

Your SO close. Dig a little deeper and you will find what you seek. I have faith in you!!!

[Big Jim P]

viewtopic.php?p=29097925#p29097925

viewtopic.php?p=29098031#p29098031

viewtopic.php?p=29098070#p29098070

viewtopic.php?p=29098078#p29098078

viewtopic.php?p=29098190#p29098190

viewtopic.php?p=29098247#p29098247

viewtopic.php?p=29098278#p29098278

Oh yeah, those look like insightful and detailed proposals on fair and balanced gun laws. Absolutely.

Your SO close. Dig a little deeper and you will find what you seek. I have faith in you!!!

Maybe it is time to just put it all in a single text file to cut and paste. Save me some time. Might even have a books worth.

[Purpelia]

There are actually many people in parts of the country with weapons very capable of at the least, damaging a tank.
Not to mention that in urbanized parts of the country, tanks would be almost useless.

Tanks are anything but useless in urban areas. In fact they are one of the most useful weapons that can be found in such a situation. They are heavily armored, have excellent sensors and a big gun that can and will take down anything and everything. Thus the are the dream of any urban combatant, something which they have proven time and time again throughout the last century.

The only times when armor has proven it self deficient in urban combat was when it was employed by frankly idiots.

[The balkens]

The US military is NOT the PLA.

The NG deployed tanks to Detroit.

For looting Arson and sniping.

did we also deploy commandos to slaughter people?

[Genivaria]

It's not like I have a sig or anything either.

Seeing only what they want to see, things that support their narrative, while ignoring anything that doesn't is a common trait among the anti-gun types.

Can you go 5 minutes without just insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
Believe it or not that doesn't count as an argument.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Your SO close. Dig a little deeper and you will find what you seek. I have faith in you!!!

Maybe it is time to just put it all in a single text file to cut and paste. Save me some time. Might even have a books worth.

If people can't be bothered to read your sig, I doubt they would read a book on the subject.

[Imperializt Russia]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anywhere that the arms in question have to be in common military usage and useful for self defence. It simply says that "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". Plus an assault rifle isn't very useful if the government deployed say tanks to crush dissent (like the Chinese did).

While I strongly doubt our own military would do such a thing, let us theorize.

There are actually many people in parts of the country with weapons very capable of at the least, damaging a tank.
Not to mention that in urbanized parts of the country, tanks would be almost useless.

But this is unimportant.

Just like gun-control is not nearly as important as the left makes it out to be.

"Almost useless"

[Big Jim P]

It's not like I have a sig or anything either.

Seeing only what they want to see, things that support their narrative, while ignoring anything that doesn't is a common trait among the anti-gun types.

Can you go 5 minutes without just insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
Believe it or not that doesn't count as an argument.

If pointing out obvious behaviors is insulting, then I suggest different behaviors.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It's not like I have a sig or anything either.

Seeing only what they want to see, things that support their narrative, while ignoring anything that doesn't is a common trait among the anti-gun types.

Can you go 5 minutes without just insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
Believe it or not that doesn't count as an argument.

I fail to see any insult here.

[The balkens]

While I strongly doubt our own military would do such a thing, let us theorize.

There are actually many people in parts of the country with weapons very capable of at the least, damaging a tank.
Not to mention that in urbanized parts of the country, tanks would be almost useless.

But this is unimportant.

Just like gun-control is not nearly as important as the left makes it out to be.

"Almost useless"

Would a American tanker see his fellow citizen as a Insurgent in fallujah?

the world wonders.

[Big Jim P]

Maybe it is time to just put it all in a single text file to cut and paste. Save me some time. Might even have a books worth.

If people can't be bothered to read your sig, I doubt they would read a book on the subject.

Good point.

[Gauthier]

Maybe it is time to just put it all in a single text file to cut and paste. Save me some time. Might even have a books worth.

If people can't be bothered to read your sig, I doubt they would read a book on the subject.

Because screeds on how evil gun grabbers are and how everyone supposedly has an inalienable right to carry whatever firearms they can afford are perfectly reasoned out proposals on what gun laws should be.