NationStates

US-SSR wrote:

The Chuck wrote:Hot topic of recent note which led to a little title change, Beto saying he's coming for the ARs and Aks... anyone find it a bit ironic that the person with a burglary charge is also the one wanting to get rid of the means of defending oneself and one's property?

As noted government has the authority to regulate the right to bear arms. What kind of life -- and in what state of the Union --does one have to live that military-style weapons are the only reasonable means to defend yourself or your property? I live in a city. When I need defense I call the cops and they send me someone who not only has a gun but knows how to use it better than I ever will.

My people tried to call the cops in 1992. They either didn't show up or showed up and arrested citizens trying to protect their livelihood from getting torched. Nothing against the cops, just when shit hits the fan, it splatters all over and sometimes the cops aren't there to protect you.

Though I do find it humorous that you say go to the cops when you have lady liberty being arrested on your flag

I would like to point out that the most common hunting rifle in my area more closely aligns to the military-style gun usage that many use.

The Kimber Rifles are mostly based off the Mauser M98, which was based off the German rifle the Karabiner 98k. So, why aren't most American gun control advocates demanding the banning of that rifle if 'military-style' guns are so bad?

US-SSR wrote:The Constitution gives "the People" "the right to Keep and Bear Arms." It gives the government the authority to regulate that right. Recall from this thread that the Courts have held even undocumented migrants have Second Amendment rights; rights that are properly regulated by Congress.

But why is it when I read the old thread title I think of this...

([url=https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvietnguyen.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2FPicture-22.png&f=1&nofb=1]Image)[/url]

no comrade this is what you shall remember about that statement https://youtu.be/WYKygWsCZ-g or its gulag for you

Hammer Britannia wrote:I would like to point out that the most common hunting rifle in my area more closely aligns to the military-style gun usage that many use.

The Kimber Rifles are mostly based off the Mauser M98, which was based off the German rifle the Karabiner 98k. So, why aren't most American gun control advocates demanding the banning of that rifle if 'military-style' guns are so bad?

One of the most common deer rifles in the country is an m1 garand. Because ar-15’s just don’t have enough lethality. Also on that list is the mosin-nagant.
Why, exactly, are these not problems if military style weapons is anything other than a buzzword?

Diopolis wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:I would like to point out that the most common hunting rifle in my area more closely aligns to the military-style gun usage that many use.

The Kimber Rifles are mostly based off the Mauser M98, which was based off the German rifle the Karabiner 98k. So, why aren't most American gun control advocates demanding the banning of that rifle if 'military-style' guns are so bad?

One of the most common deer rifles in the country is an m1 garand. Because ar-15’s just don’t have enough lethality. Also on that list is the mosin-nagant.
Why, exactly, are these not problems if military style weapons is anything other than a buzzword?

That's the beauty of it all, isn't it?

It is no more than a buzzword which is, at best, a misinformed word for civilian guns like the AR-15 or, at worst, fear-mongering bullshit

Beta boy beto tried to shoot an AR and AK once, and ended standing in a puddle and it wasn't raining that day.

Grinning Dragon wrote:Beta boy beto tried to shoot an AR and AK once, and ended standing in a puddle and it wasn't raining that day.

have him shoot the SW500 it wont be banned or confiscated because according to the Dems it

Doesn't have more the 30 murder rounds
no detachable magazine
no button
no shroud
no thing that goes up
is not semi automatic

US-SSR wrote:The Constitution gives "the People" "the right to Keep and Bear Arms." It gives the government the authority to regulate that right.[/spoiler]

This is a contradictory position. The point of the first ten amendments is preventing the government from regulating those same rights.

US-SSR wrote:

The Chuck wrote:Hot topic of recent note which led to a little title change, Beto saying he's coming for the ARs and Aks... anyone find it a bit ironic that the person with a burglary charge is also the one wanting to get rid of the means of defending oneself and one's property?

As noted government has the authority to regulate the right to bear arms. What kind of life -- and in what state of the Union --does one have to live that military-style weapons are the only reasonable means to defend yourself or your property? I live in a city. When I need defense I call the cops and they send me someone who not only has a gun but knows how to use it better than I ever will.

Firstly, you underestimate your own intelligence; this only works in the government's favor.
Secondly, you're saying this while your flag is literally liberty being arrested.

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Beta boy beto tried to shoot an AR and AK once, and ended standing in a puddle and it wasn't raining that day.

have him shoot the SW500 it wont be banned or confiscated because according to the Dems it

Doesn't have more the 30 murder rounds
no detachable magazine
no button
no shroud
no thing that goes up
is not semi automatic

The hammer goes up. :^)

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Beta boy beto tried to shoot an AR and AK once, and ended standing in a puddle and it wasn't raining that day.

have him shoot the SW500 it wont be banned or confiscated because according to the Dems it

Doesn't have more the 30 murder rounds
no detachable magazine
no button
no shroud
no thing that goes up
is not semi automatic

His limp wrists wouldn't be able to stop the revolver from smacking his face.

US-SSR wrote:

The Chuck wrote:Hot topic of recent note which led to a little title change, Beto saying he's coming for the ARs and Aks... anyone find it a bit ironic that the person with a burglary charge is also the one wanting to get rid of the means of defending oneself and one's property?

As noted government has the authority to regulate the right to bear arms. What kind of life -- and in what state of the Union --does one have to live that military-style weapons are the only reasonable means to defend yourself or your property? I live in a city. When I need defense I call the cops and they send me someone who not only has a gun but knows how to use it better than I ever will.

I live in the country. If I drive as hard as I can, I can make it to the police station in about 19 minutes. That means it takes the actual police like 25.

However, being in the city don’t help. For awhile Springfield, Missouri, which isn’t even a particularly large city, had a response time of 20 minutes in an emergency. Four hours for non emergency. It’s improved somewhat.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

US-SSR wrote:The Constitution gives "the People" "the right to Keep and Bear Arms." It gives the government the authority to regulate that right.[/spoiler]

This is a contradictory position. The point of the first ten amendments is preventing the government from regulating those same rights.

Alright, the Government now has the ability to regulate the first amendment under US-SSR's logic. That pesky little 14th amendment and 15th amendment too. 19th amendment? Regulated

I mean, do you really want Donald Trump under control of your freedom of speech? Do you really want Alabama to be under control over their state's religion? Do you want those southern hicks to control those last three amendments? Do you want Sarah Palin to be under the control of the constitution? Jfc

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Gig em Aggies wrote:have him shoot the SW500 it wont be banned or confiscated because according to the Dems it

Doesn't have more the 30 murder rounds
no detachable magazine
no button
no shroud
no thing that goes up
is not semi automatic

His limp wrists wouldn't be able to stop the revolver from smacking his face.

I will admit, I laughed at trying to picture this in my head.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:His limp wrists wouldn't be able to stop the revolver from smacking his face.

I will admit, I laughed at trying to picture this in my head.

Video of beto shooting the cricket rifle

Dresderstan wrote:

Arengin Union wrote:Beto and the Democratic crowd confirmed what I've known for years.

"We're gonna take your ARs and AK"

Yeah, pry it over my cold dead body Beto.

I can see them going even further unfortunately.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:"We're gonna take your ARs and AK"

Yeah, pry it over my cold dead body Beto.

I can see them going even further unfortunately.

I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

Hammer Britannia wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I can see them going even further unfortunately.

I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

I don't know, but some countries like Australia come close.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

I don't know, but some countries like Australia come close.

I mean, 'Catagory A' guns in Australia are Non-Semi-Automatic Rim-fire rifles, Shotguns that are not pump-action or semi-automatic, Air Rifles, and Paintball guns. Of which, you can get fairly easily if you are a hunter, business owner, collector, or part of a club. So I'd hardly call them close

Hammer Britannia wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I don't know, but some countries like Australia come close.

I mean, 'Catagory A' guns in Australia are Non-Semi-Automatic Rim-fire rifles, Shotguns that are not pump-action or semi-automatic, Air Rifles, and Paintball guns. Of which, you can get fairly easily if you are a hunter, business owner, collector, or part of a club. So I'd hardly call them close

Alright, then I was wrong.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I can see them going even further unfortunately.

I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

It's very difficult to get a gun in the UK.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:I mean, is there any country in the western world where guns are fully banned?

It seems to be an exclusively American thing

It's very difficult to get a gun in the UK.

If it's in .22 LR, it isn't hard at all. The UK has over 2.5 million legal firearms in private hands...

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:I mean, 'Catagory A' guns in Australia are Non-Semi-Automatic Rim-fire rifles, Shotguns that are not pump-action or semi-automatic, Air Rifles, and Paintball guns. Of which, you can get fairly easily if you are a hunter, business owner, collector, or part of a club. So I'd hardly call them close

Alright, then I was wrong.

I was thinking of the D and H licences there, with their hoops and all, though of course I'm not an expert on Australia's laws. I've never been there.

If you are looking for a country than completely bans civilian guns, look no further than North Korea, or some other tin pot dictatorship. While guns as a right is an American thing, complete bans don't seem that popular in the world.

https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-no- ... ivery.html

lol

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.

Richard Henry Lee wrote:A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Edit: sometimes commas just mean you should do a small pause when reading it.