An honest question on assault rifles.

[sear]

Art. 1, Sec 10. Clause 3...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops" SY #180

That's splendid.

But the assertion was:

" the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops." SY #168

Which then is false.

For your quotation indicates not that our Constitution "specifically forbidding",
but instead merely requires congressional consent.

Ordinarily I wouldn't say so, but you seem to need to be told:
When statements are made under pseud, the credibility of the pseud is enhanced when the claim is true, and undermined when it is not.

The credibility you have undermined here is your own.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's splendid.

But the assertion was:

Which then is false.

For your quotation indicates not that our Constitution "specifically forbidding",
but instead merely requires congressional consent.

Ordinarily I wouldn't say so, but you seem to need to be told:
When statements are made under pseud, the credibility of the pseud is enhanced when the claim is true, and undermined when it is not.

The credibility you have undermined here is your own.

well you're completely full of horseshit. what I said was completely correct, that the constitution prohibits the states from keeping their own troops. your caveat of 'congressional consent' provides an exception to the prohibition and that is all. don't be mad that I pointed out something you didn't know. just accept the info I gave you and be appreciative.

 

[Taichiliberal]

it's pretty accurate describing your handwringing about not being able to be decisive

To a willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest blowhard like yourself, that's not surprising.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.

probably a typo on your part, but its 1986, not 1968.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.

I'm not a hunter. I don't like sport hunting, therefore I have no need of hunting weapons. My choice of weapons is predicated upon two things......what am I good with and what does the job I need it for. The job I need it for is killing and that means good rounds, fast action, and decent usability. The AR15 fits that purpose for me.

Yep, I reversed the dates. My bad.

So you've just admitted that the ONLY reason why you like the AR-15 is because it is a more efficient killing machine of people.....that is why it's original design was designated as an ASSAULT RIFLE....that is why it is classified as an ASSAULT WEAPON....which is why it and similar weapons have been the choice of mass shooters....like you, they felt it's the best weapon for the job. Finally, an honest answer.

So all you're doing is "prepping" for that civil war/conflict....I've been reading about folk like you in their various forms and titles since the 1980's. Lot of those folks are now in their 60's and 70's. What a sad waste of life and resources, instead of contributing to solving the problems.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Why would a citizen have a right to any weapon at all, if they can't have one for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment?

Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.

As the old song lyric goes, 'you can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard, you just might find, you get what you need".

Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Right, because YOU are so off the grid...no social security, no veterans benefits.....you drive without a license or registration and rarely get ticketed, you don't pay taxes....and yet you manage to afford an enormous amount of time on the internet (without paying fees?).

You're so full of it.

when you have no argument, resort to hyperbole. I have seen it many times. i'd explain to you how i'm able to do what I do, but you'd not believe me because intellectually inferior people can't seem to comprehend that there are people out there with job skills that are so needed, that companies will pay them to work from home.....which is what I do. and paying fees? i'm paying a corporation to provide me internet access. Now personally I have issues with how the regulations keep it limited to a few corporations, but I do have to work within the system at times. I just keep it to a minimum.

translation: junior here shovels more BS....vague claims that a his internet is a free ride via a "corporation". Hmmm, poor folk can get that via the federal gov't if they qualify. But our anti-gov't oather/threeper, etc., etc. doesn't mind working for and sucking off the teat of a corporation that he alleges to hate when it suits him.

Can you say BS hypocrite boys and girls?

Keep it coming, toodles.....you so mired in your on BS it's laughable.

 

[Airstrip One]

Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.

As the old song lyric goes, 'you can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard, you just might find, you get what you need".

Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

By what right do people own guns? Because they "do," is pretty weak. Meanwhile, we have the 2nd Amendment and its authors contradicting you.

You can't repeal the 2nd, so you will do everything you can to undermine it, because you love hunting defenseless animals, and hate America.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The national guard evolved out of the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, you braying jackass. and then there's this https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...s-the-u-s-army

Stop ignoring what you don't like, bunky. Join the real world.

the national guard evolved out of the dick act and has nothing to do with the 'well regulated' militia because it isn't the militia. the militia is 'we the people, except a few public officials'. so maybe you need to stop ignoring what you don't like about the constitutional debates and commentaries.

Take off the blinders, son....know ALL your history:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dick-act-of-1902/

http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

And if you're going to mock me, at least have a winning position based in ALL the facts....makes you look less foolish.

 

[Taichiliberal]

So ? The 2nd amendment is not about game hunting.

Nor is it about letting yahoos have para-military weapons. Things have evolved via laws.

 

[domer76]

Yep, I reversed the dates. My bad.

So you've just admitted that the ONLY reason why you like the AR-15 is because it is a more efficient killing machine of people.....that is why it's original design was designated as an ASSAULT RIFLE....that is why it is classified as an ASSAULT WEAPON....which is why it and similar weapons have been the choice of mass shooters....like you, they felt it's the best weapon for the job. Finally, an honest answer.

So all you're doing is "prepping" for that civil war/conflict....I've been reading about folk like you in their various forms and titles since the 1980's. Lot of those folks are now in their 60's and 70's. What a sad waste of life and resources, instead of contributing to solving the problems.

Excellent response. You nailed it perfectly.

 

[RB 60]

By what right do people own guns? Because they "do," is pretty weak. Meanwhile, we have the 2nd Amendment and its authors contradicting you.

You can't repeal the 2nd, so you will do everything you can to undermine it, because you love hunting defenseless animals, and hate America.

WTF???

 

[Taichiliberal]

It isn't splitting hairs you moron. They are very different weapons. The reason the AR style is chosen could just as much be blamed on the media coverage of said weapon.

Wrong as usual. You can repeat yourself ad nausea...doesn't change the history of this weapon...and folk like you got their wish and put this back on the market...the retailers advertised it's efficiency, and people bought it on that salesmanship...as did the perpetrators of recent mass shootings. Deal with it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Art. 1, Sec 10. Clause 3....to wit...

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And the National Guard of each state is by consent of Congress. Next.

 

[sear]

"well you're completely full of horse$#@!" SY #182

Thank you doctor for you diagnosis of equine scatology.

And of course, that's why there's no such thing as the National Guard; you know, the military troops under command of State governors.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today responded to the federal government’s request for additional California National Guard personnel with …

Governor Cuomo Declares State of Emergency for …
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/go...tate-emergency-counties-affected-winter-storm

Nov 17, 2014 · Ahead of a grand jury's decision on whether to indict a police officer in the killing of Michael Brown, Missouri has both called in the National Guard and diminished the role of the Ferguson Police Department. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency Monday as a precaution, he said, in ...

You know. The ones that serve with the consent of congress?

You DON'T?!

Well FYI
it's more than just army style military troops. As you can see below, it's also naval and air national guard as well.

New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs
http://dmna.ny.gov/
New York’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs encompasses all of New York’s Reserve Forces including the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Naval ...

New York Guard State Volunteer Force
http://dmna.ny.gov/nyg/
The New York Guard. The New York Guard is a state volunteer force which augments and supports the New York National Guard with manpower and skills.

BUT !!
SY asserts:

"well you're completely full of horse$#@!" SY #182

Don't you EVER tire of being wrong SY ?!

No. Apparently not. Happy 4/20 (apparently I may be too late)

 

[RB 60]

So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.

You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.

I'll tell you why I have military issued rifles. I bought them from the Army to use in service rifle competitions. I recently acquired an M1-A too, just as an investment and for target shooting.
I also have numerous hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns as well, each in different calibers for specific hunting and shooting uses.
Although I could obtain the proper permits to own a "machine gun," I have no interest in owning one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you've just admitted that the ONLY reason why you like the AR-15 is because it is a more efficient killing machine of people..

no, and one last time I will tell you so please read and understand. I, myself PERSONALLY, prefer it NOT because it's a more efficient killing machine, but because of MY FAMILIARITY with it, I am a more efficient killing machine. Now you might find that aberrant, but it matters little. That is what I was trained to do as a marine, FOR YOU. If you don't like it, change the military mindset.

...that is why it's original design was designated as an ASSAULT RIFLE....that is why it is classified as an ASSAULT WEAPON....which is why it and similar weapons have been the choice of mass shooters....like you, they felt it's the best weapon for the job. Finally, an honest answer.

are you referring to the M16, the AR15, or both?

So all you're doing is "prepping" for that civil war/conflict....I've been reading about folk like you in their various forms and titles since the 1980's. Lot of those folks are now in their 60's and 70's. What a sad waste of life and resources, instead of contributing to solving the problems.

'solving' the problem doesn't include denying me, or those like minded as me, the RIGHT to own and be prepared to USE these weapons, should it ever become necessary. WE hope that it doesn't, but with the libs and cons doing what they are doing, it's not looking good.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

translation: junior here shovels more BS....vague claims that a his internet is a free ride via a "corporation". Hmmm, poor folk can get that via the federal gov't if they qualify. But our anti-gov't oather/threeper, etc., etc. doesn't mind working for and sucking off the teat of a corporation that he alleges to hate when it suits him.

Can you say BS hypocrite boys and girls?

Keep it coming, toodles.....you so mired in your on BS it's laughable.

you really don't read well, do you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And the National Guard of each state is by consent of Congress. Next.

the national guard is NOT the militia of the 2nd Amendment. Next.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And of course, that's why there's no such thing as the National Guard; you know, the military troops under command of State governors.

You know. The ones that serve with the consent of congress?

You DON'T?!

Well FYI
it's more than just army style military troops. As you can see below, it's also naval and air national guard as well.

lets see if you and taichi can follow this simple logic. The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from regulating our arms because the anti federalists feared a standing army run by a central government, therefore the framers believed that the militia was necessary to the security of a free state.......that militia being we the people. Now, everyone wants to assert that the Guard is the militia that the 2nd talks about but that is impossible for two reasons. 1 - the guard wasn't an idea back then and 2 - it would not be possible without the consent of congress.

Now ask yourself this question, if the states or the people needed to defend itself from an oppressive central government, what stops them if congress withdraws its consent? i.e. federalizes the guard?

one of these days you people are going to wake up and understand that you've been led around to believe a bunch of bullshit, like a sheep.

 

[Taichiliberal]

By what right do people own guns? Because they "do," is pretty weak. Meanwhile, we have the 2nd Amendment and its authors contradicting you.

You can't repeal the 2nd, so you will do everything you can to undermine it, because you love hunting defenseless animals, and hate America.

You queried " Why would a citizen have a right to any weapon at all, if they can't have one for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment?"

I answered; Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.
Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

Obviously, you need further clarification: the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety gives you the right to own a firearm.....it does NOT give you the right to own anything you please in that regard. Just look at the evolutionary history of what constituted a well regulated militia in relation to weaponry, and the history of weapon regulation for the militia, the military and the civilian. If you're still in the dark (willfully or congenitally), I can provide the links to valid documented history to prove what I'm saying.

As to your second sentence: regurgitated NRA mantras that are all bluster and no substance that has been disproven and disregarded numerous times over the decades. And I notice that you STILL have not answered the question. When and if you have the guts to do so, here it is: why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".