@VegasFrank said:
Thank you @webmost and @Amos_Umwhat. Fair replies there. Fair one even by @ShawnOL and @Diver43 and everyone else. Although we disagree on conspiracies or vocabulary or fine points, I appreciate the adult tone of the conversation. All points well taken and understandable.
A couple of clean-ups that I owe you guys:
I am really ambivalent or unemotional about the subject. I really don't care if you have ARs or not. I am against dead kindergarteners and concert goers, but I think you are too.
You want your guns, and people want to take them from you. You have to own a solution that works for the others, or they COULD own a solution that WON'T work for you. Not fair? That's called life.
Why do gas stations and bars enforce sin age restrictions so vigorously? They don't want to loose the income. You should also want to own a solution and police yourselves, so that someone doesn't do it for you.
Registration is merely MY suggestion. i made it from a non emotional position
I neither want your guns nor want you to have them. Your current proposals, which I can only summarize as "now's not the right time to talk about it" and "enforce the (unenforceable) laws on the books" and "second amendment" won't cut it forever. How many amendments does the PATRIOT Act violate? Plenty, in my estimation.
True the government can't pull 100s of millions of guns off the street. True also that if they tried, you could still have them, but you'd be a law breaker and would risk prosecution and incarceration.
They CAN find other ways to restrict guns. They can RFID every piece of ammo produced from today forward. how is that for tracking? They can impose a $10,000 "schp" like tax on each new gun sold. That new 30-06 will only cost $10,399! They can restrict the sale of used guns. They can restrict sales of NEW guns. They can do any horrible thing that you see right now with cigars. Sky's the limit.
I heard some "that'll never happen" right before massachusetts made newports illegal....
Thanks guys!
@VegasFrank that is because we are adults. It is OK to not agree 100%
A dear friend and I are opposite poles politically, but if he called and said he needed help, he would still be explaining why as i drove to meet him. and the same for him also.
Most of us are nicknames and words on a computer, but we share cigars, send some that another can't get locally or just because. Why? because everyone that regularly posts here is a decent person and we have stuff in common. Rich, poor, black, white, green, purple, democrat, republican, independent, whatever. Cigars and camaraderie is enjoyed by all.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
Folks with anger management issues seem to be in the news today. They are the worst enemies of lawful gun owners. Haven't got a clue about how to deal with them though.
After 30 years in law enforcement, my only fear about gun laws is that criminals don't care.
If you are going to rob a bank, do you really care if there is a stiffer sentence if you use a gun?
I have a permit to carry from my county and a Homeland Security permit as a former officer, but the only place I carry is in church at the request of my Pastor. I really don't care about being registered because I don't plan on doing anything bad with my guns.
You want your guns, and people want to take them from you. You have to own a solution that works for the others, or they COULD own a solution that WON'T work for you. Not fair? That's called life.
Here's how it works: As soon as gun advocates compromise, the hoplophobes move the goal posts. Been there, done that, & that's why we have 23,000+ gun laws on the books, yet hoplophobes are still not done.
One-sided compromise is no more than gradual surrender.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
@d_blades said:
I'm fairly certain that registration has always been followed by confiscation. Not immediately but eventually,you know that is the end game they are looking at.
Why else would you have registration? That's the only purpose for it.
Examples please.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@d_blades said:
I'm fairly certain that registration has always been followed by confiscation. Not immediately but eventually,you know that is the end game they are looking at.
Why else would you have registration? That's the only purpose for it.
Examples please.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
I don’t think we need to worry about Canada and/or Mexico invading us tho.
@d_blades said:
I'm fairly certain that registration has always been followed by confiscation. Not immediately but eventually,you know that is the end game they are looking at.
Why else would you have registration? That's the only purpose for it.
Examples please.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
I don’t think we need to worry about Canada and/or Mexico invading us tho.
@d_blades said:
I'm fairly certain that registration has always been followed by confiscation. Not immediately but eventually,you know that is the end game they are looking at.
Why else would you have registration? That's the only purpose for it.
Examples please.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
I don’t think we need to worry about Canada and/or Mexico invading us tho.
So, you think the Australians were worried about being invaded by Borneo? Then changed their minds? I'm not worried about Canada or Mexico, there are plenty of homegrown criminals right here. I'm guessing you're too young to remember the movie A Clockwork Orange, watch it sometime and reflect on our society today. My guess is that couple whose Home was invaded would have fared better with a simple 5 shot .38 revolver than the empty hands that you advocate.
Or perhaps you'd like us to emulate Germany? It's perfectly legal to own a Glock 9mm with a 14 shot magazine. Of course, you have to keep it in a locker, at the firing range, and show your passport to check it out and fire it when it's your turn on the range. Doesn't do much good when the thugs are penetrating your wife with a broomstick, though. Just something to think about.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@d_blades said:
I'm fairly certain that registration has always been followed by confiscation. Not immediately but eventually,you know that is the end game they are looking at.
Why else would you have registration? That's the only purpose for it.
Examples please.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
I don’t think we need to worry about Canada and/or Mexico invading us tho.
So, you think the Australians were worried about being invaded by Borneo? Then changed their minds? I'm not worried about Canada or Mexico, there are plenty of homegrown criminals right here. I'm guessing you're too young to remember the movie A Clockwork Orange, watch it sometime and reflect on our society today. My guess is that couple whose Home was invaded would have fared better with a simple 5 shot .38 revolver than the empty hands that you advocate.
Or perhaps you'd like us to emulate Germany? It's perfectly legal to own a Glock 9mm with a 14 shot magazine. Of course, you have to keep it in a locker, at the firing range, and show your passport to check it out and fire it when it's your turn on the range. Doesn't do much good when the thugs are penetrating your wife with a broomstick, though. Just something to think about.
I’ve written and deleted and rewritten and deleted about 6 responses. I honestly have no good response to using a Stanley Kubrick movie as a point of reference on gun ownership. I do know the movie, well tho. I am for gun ownership tho. I’m for owning 10000s of guns if you like. But 500k rounds of ammo..... I’m not sure.
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
I appreciate your response and position. The point of the movie as a reference was that it is a visual aid in describing what can happen during a home invasion, and when societal norms break down. I used that because one doesn't usually have footage of actual home invasions, for instance there are no films of the Sharon Tate murders that I'm aware of, but it still happened.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The way I understand it from the Germans is that even if you had your gun present you still don’t have the right to defend yourself or your property. If you where to injure a criminal you yourself could be charged by the police and liable for lawsuits from said criminal. To quote the German who explained it to me, “yeah it’s really **** up”.
@deadman said:
The way I understand it from the Germans is that even if you had your gun present you still don’t have the right to defend yourself or your property. If you where to injure a criminal you yourself could be charged by the police and liable for lawsuits from said criminal. To quote the German who explained it to me, “yeah it’s really **** up”.
There's a female state legislator in Texas who's advocating that Texan laws be changed to this very stance right now, claiming that just because someone is engaging in "transfer of property" i.e. breaking, entering, thieving, assaulting in your home, is no reason that you should have the option of using deadly force to defend your home and family.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@deadman said:
The way I understand it from the Germans is that even if you had your gun present you still don’t have the right to defend yourself or your property. If you where to injure a criminal you yourself could be charged by the police and liable for lawsuits from said criminal. To quote the German who explained it to me, “yeah it’s really **** up”.
There's a female state legislator in Texas who's advocating that Texan laws be changed to this very stance right now, claiming that just because someone is engaging in "transfer of property" i.e. breaking, entering, thieving, assaulting in your home, is no reason that you should have the option of using deadly force to defend your home and family.
If I were a gun owner (and probably the reason why I’m not) and someone steps into my home and I am armed..... there would be one+ spent casing(s) on my floor. I am for gun ownership (legally obtained and registered) and I am for stand your ground in your own home. 500 round drum magazines are IMHO not needed in a civilian application.
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
So like today then you’re saying. Over 30% of the population owned not only warships.... they owned cannons? With chain, ball, and grape shot? Loaded and manned by a crew I can only assume was volunteering there efforts? And were there to stop a home invasion? A war ship...... you literally just compared a high cap semi-auto riffle that can be had for under 2 grand with ammo......To a fully manned 18th century warship?
✌️ I’m not sure I can logically and reasonably respond to that. We are slipping into madnesses here you know.
@deadman said:
The way I understand it from the Germans is that even if you had your gun present you still don’t have the right to defend yourself or your property. If you where to injure a criminal you yourself could be charged by the police and liable for lawsuits from said criminal. To quote the German who explained it to me, “yeah it’s really **** up”.
There's a female state legislator in Texas who's advocating that Texan laws be changed to this very stance right now, claiming that just because someone is engaging in "transfer of property" i.e. breaking, entering, thieving, assaulting in your home, is no reason that you should have the option of using deadly force to defend your home and family.
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
So like today then you’re saying. Over 30% of the population owned not only warships.... they owned cannons? With chain, ball, and grape shot? Loaded and manned by a crew I can only assume was volunteering there efforts? And were there to stop a home invasion? A war ship...... you literally just compared a high cap semi-auto riffle that can be had for under 2 grand with ammo......To a fully manned 18th century warship?
✌️ I’m not sure I can logically and reasonably respond to that. We are slipping into madnesses here you know.
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
Actually, the founding fathers saw rapid development of firearms technology in their own time. You'd be surprised at the different arms available at the time. Had they meant muskets they probably would have said so. They used the term Arms to mean all weapons worthy for fighting purposes so not to limit protection to just one type of arm. They wanted Americans to be able to fight and kill those who would oppress us.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
So like today then you’re saying. Over 30% of the population owned not only warships.... they owned cannons? With chain, ball, and grape shot? Loaded and manned by a crew I can only assume was volunteering there efforts? And were there to stop a home invasion? A war ship...... you literally just compared a high cap semi-auto riffle that can be had for under 2 grand with ammo......To a fully manned 18th century warship?
✌️ I’m not sure I can logically and reasonably respond to that. We are slipping into madnesses here you know.
Red Sox look good tho!
I made no such simile.
All's I'm saying is, they said arms, not muskets.
Same's they said speech, not quills.
Get hold of yourself & you won't slip into madness.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
So like today then you’re saying. Over 30% of the population owned not only warships.... they owned cannons? With chain, ball, and grape shot? Loaded and manned by a crew I can only assume was volunteering there efforts? And were there to stop a home invasion? A war ship...... you literally just compared a high cap semi-auto riffle that can be had for under 2 grand with ammo......To a fully manned 18th century warship?
✌️ I’m not sure I can logically and reasonably respond to that. We are slipping into madnesses here you know.
Red Sox look good tho!
I made no such simile.
All's I'm saying is, they said arms, not muskets.
Same's they said speech, not quills.
Get hold of yourself & you won't slip into madness.
I am firmly rooted in sanity. Can you elaborate on the various gun powder firearms available to our Founding Fathers that were carried and operated by a single person other then the muzzleloader and single shot pistol of the time?
Edit:
Other then “because I want to” why would a citizen need to carry or own a magazine of say..... 25+ rounds? Poor aim? Zombie invasion? Red Dawn?
Edit edit:
Not once have I said any guns should be taken away from law abiding citizens of this great country. Again. I am for gun owners rights.
This may or may be not be off topic but why is it I can’t get steroids or HGH? I need to go to a clinic for TRT but can’t get HGH or steroids? Please explain why that is? It’s my body right?
@Vision said:
This may or may be not be off topic but why is it I can’t get steroids or HGH? I need to go to a clinic for TRT but can’t get HGH or steroids? Please explain why that is? It’s my body right?
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
T**echnically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
**
My reply to that is always:
Anyone using their first amendment right to tell me the 2nd amendment only covers muskets because the AR was not invented yet,
Get off your computer/phone and write me a letter with a quill pen, then have it delivered to my house by a guy on a horse and then and only then can we start the discussion of why you are wrong.
Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
@ShawnOL said:
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
T**echnically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
**
My reply to that is always:
Anyone using their first amendment right to tell me the 2nd amendment only covers muskets because the AR was not invented yet,
Get off your computer/phone and write me a letter with a quill pen, then have it delivered to my house by a guy on a horse and then and only then can we start the discussion of why you are wrong.
Please help me understand then. Where, anyplace, at all.... does it mention “writing” anything down at all in the first amendment?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From Cornell Law
Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.
A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Welp then. You got me there. You have completely changed my mind.
Comments
@VegasFrank that is because we are adults. It is OK to not agree 100%
A dear friend and I are opposite poles politically, but if he called and said he needed help, he would still be explaining why as i drove to meet him. and the same for him also.
Most of us are nicknames and words on a computer, but we share cigars, send some that another can't get locally or just because. Why? because everyone that regularly posts here is a decent person and we have stuff in common. Rich, poor, black, white, green, purple, democrat, republican, independent, whatever. Cigars and camaraderie is enjoyed by all.
Folks with anger management issues seem to be in the news today. They are the worst enemies of lawful gun owners. Haven't got a clue about how to deal with them though.
After 30 years in law enforcement, my only fear about gun laws is that criminals don't care.
If you are going to rob a bank, do you really care if there is a stiffer sentence if you use a gun?
I have a permit to carry from my county and a Homeland Security permit as a former officer, but the only place I carry is in church at the request of my Pastor. I really don't care about being registered because I don't plan on doing anything bad with my guns.
Here's how it works: As soon as gun advocates compromise, the hoplophobes move the goal posts. Been there, done that, & that's why we have 23,000+ gun laws on the books, yet hoplophobes are still not done.
One-sided compromise is no more than gradual surrender.
2 that immediately come to mind, when Hitler's forces marched into Paris one of their first priorities was to pull the files of registered gun owners and go house to house confiscating said weapons. In Australia, the anti-gun forces used all the same rhetoric that's being used here, and eventually ended up making sure than nearly every form of multi-shot weapons were confiscated and destroyed. Katrina's already been mentioned.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
But it's for the children. If it saves just one life. You like dead babies. The 2A is for muskets. Blah blah blah.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
I don’t think we need to worry about Canada and/or Mexico invading us tho.
Mexico is doing it now!
So, you think the Australians were worried about being invaded by Borneo? Then changed their minds? I'm not worried about Canada or Mexico, there are plenty of homegrown criminals right here. I'm guessing you're too young to remember the movie A Clockwork Orange, watch it sometime and reflect on our society today. My guess is that couple whose Home was invaded would have fared better with a simple 5 shot .38 revolver than the empty hands that you advocate.
Or perhaps you'd like us to emulate Germany? It's perfectly legal to own a Glock 9mm with a 14 shot magazine. Of course, you have to keep it in a locker, at the firing range, and show your passport to check it out and fire it when it's your turn on the range. Doesn't do much good when the thugs are penetrating your wife with a broomstick, though. Just something to think about.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I’ve written and deleted and rewritten and deleted about 6 responses. I honestly have no good response to using a Stanley Kubrick movie as a point of reference on gun ownership. I do know the movie, well tho. I am for gun ownership tho. I’m for owning 10000s of guns if you like. But 500k rounds of ammo..... I’m not sure.
Technically it was written for Muskets and Flintlocks tho. We can’t believe that the Founding Fathers foresaw semi-auto weapons and high cap magazines right?
I appreciate your response and position. The point of the movie as a reference was that it is a visual aid in describing what can happen during a home invasion, and when societal norms break down. I used that because one doesn't usually have footage of actual home invasions, for instance there are no films of the Sharon Tate murders that I'm aware of, but it still happened.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The way I understand it from the Germans is that even if you had your gun present you still don’t have the right to defend yourself or your property. If you where to injure a criminal you yourself could be charged by the police and liable for lawsuits from said criminal. To quote the German who explained it to me, “yeah it’s really **** up”.
There's a female state legislator in Texas who's advocating that Texan laws be changed to this very stance right now, claiming that just because someone is engaging in "transfer of property" i.e. breaking, entering, thieving, assaulting in your home, is no reason that you should have the option of using deadly force to defend your home and family.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
If I were a gun owner (and probably the reason why I’m not) and someone steps into my home and I am armed..... there would be one+ spent casing(s) on my floor. I am for gun ownership (legally obtained and registered) and I am for stand your ground in your own home. 500 round drum magazines are IMHO not needed in a civilian application.
Who makes a 500 round drum? I'd buy one.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
General Electric makes a couple. Ya gotta have a pretty beefy generator or hydraulics to make ‘em work tho...
At the time of the founding fathers, many rich guys owned ships armed with cannons. Ball for hull, chain shot for rigging, and grape to sweep the deck.
So like today then you’re saying. Over 30% of the population owned not only warships.... they owned cannons? With chain, ball, and grape shot? Loaded and manned by a crew I can only assume was volunteering there efforts? And were there to stop a home invasion? A war ship...... you literally just compared a high cap semi-auto riffle that can be had for under 2 grand with ammo......To a fully manned 18th century warship?
✌️ I’m not sure I can logically and reasonably respond to that. We are slipping into madnesses here you know.
Red Sox look good tho!
The citizens are not fans of the law.
I want a canon now.
Actually, the founding fathers saw rapid development of firearms technology in their own time. You'd be surprised at the different arms available at the time. Had they meant muskets they probably would have said so. They used the term Arms to mean all weapons worthy for fighting purposes so not to limit protection to just one type of arm. They wanted Americans to be able to fight and kill those who would oppress us.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
I made no such simile.
All's I'm saying is, they said arms, not muskets.
Same's they said speech, not quills.
Get hold of yourself & you won't slip into madness.
I am firmly rooted in sanity. Can you elaborate on the various gun powder firearms available to our Founding Fathers that were carried and operated by a single person other then the muzzleloader and single shot pistol of the time?
Edit:
Other then “because I want to” why would a citizen need to carry or own a magazine of say..... 25+ rounds? Poor aim? Zombie invasion? Red Dawn?
Edit edit:
Not once have I said any guns should be taken away from law abiding citizens of this great country. Again. I am for gun owners rights.
PS. I’m assuming the sarcasm didn’t come thru on the 500 round mag?
That would be what.... 40+ lbs? Try holding a 45# plate weight in front of you and have it kick you in the shoulder.
Just an attempt at humor.
This may or may be not be off topic but why is it I can’t get steroids or HGH? I need to go to a clinic for TRT but can’t get HGH or steroids? Please explain why that is? It’s my body right?
The government knows what’s best for you Pete.
The weight would reduce felt recoil.
Pete, just ripping off rounds in rapid succession is fun at the range, expecially when shooting steel targets.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
**
My reply to that is always:
Anyone using their first amendment right to tell me the 2nd amendment only covers muskets because the AR was not invented yet,
Get off your computer/phone and write me a letter with a quill pen, then have it delivered to my house by a guy on a horse and then and only then can we start the discussion of why you are wrong.
Please help me understand then. Where, anyplace, at all.... does it mention “writing” anything down at all in the first amendment?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From Cornell Law
Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.
A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Welp then. You got me there. You have completely changed my mind.
Speech. Press, = spoken or written word
To say 2A only covers muskets is the same as saying you dont have free speech on the phone or computer, over a loud speaker etc