SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're the one left babbling bullshit, bunky
An honest question on assault rifles.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
you're the one left babbling bullshit, bunky
According to the articles someone linked to about previous mass shootings, rifles were only used in about 25%. Handguns and shotguns have also been used. At least one only involved a bolt-action rifle.
Have you got anything to substantiate that?
Besides the militia aspect, the 2nd codifies the basic human right to self defense.
Look up Madison’s original wording of the 2nd. It had a conscientious objector clause.
Yes, it is your error. Up until the Civil War, virtually all gun regulations were aimed at blacks, both free and slave. One of the reasons given in Dred Scott v. Sandford why blacks could not be considered citizens was because it would give them the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". That was the standard interpretation of the 2nd until after the Civil War.
https://www.encounterbooks.com/features/racist-roots-gun-control/
Not a citation of an actual “could have” that has actually occurred.
One can have self defense without guns. And the 2nd says nothing about personal self defense. Heller does, however. But it says not all guns, not anywhere, not anytime. In other words, INFRINGED.
Fail
Which was just the usual propaganda being pushed by the gun control wackos. That definition had no technical backing. It was purely political in nature. And you do keep trying to equate the modern AR-15 with the original AR-15.
Pretty much everything you post is ignorant dreck, based on ideological dogma, not reality. As others have stated, the 'popularity' of semi-auto rifles for mass shootings is probably due to your flagrant obsession with them. The more you scream about how deadly they are, the more attractive they become. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual honesty, of which you have repeatedly demonstrated you have none. It was purely extremist tripe. You appear to be the troll, unable to diacuss the issue honestly, because reality doesn't agree with your dogma.
And the history of the National Guard has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You don't have any "historical, documented fact" to support your position. You just post unrelated stuff that you hope will be accepted by those as brain dead as you appear to be.
But an informed citizenry is dangerous to kooks like you. They won't blindly accept your dogma as fact. And note that guns don't shoot people. There are millions of guns in this country, and the vast majority are never used to shoot anyone. Pehaps we need to focus on the people who use them to shoot people. You are a dogmatic idiot, with no ability or desire to adress issues honestly.
Last edited:
Coming from you, that's a compliment, as you keep demonstrating your delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty. BTW, try and learn the difference between adjectives ("intellectual") and adverbs ("intellectually").
Pay attention moron.....the AR15 IS NOT a full battlefield weapon nor next best thing
....its no more than any other semi-automatic rifle....its just scary looking like you were told above....
I didn't say they were. But the measures you support for guns will work just about as well as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. And, again, there's no point in answering the OP, since there was no point to the OP in the first place. Just the usual brain dead nonsense promoted by a brain dead gun control hack. You do know that the KKK was the first American gun control organization. Good company you keep.
Still doesn't appear to have been the same incident. BTW, your gun control propaganda is part of that "universal deceit", which is why you can't abide the truth.
coined a new phrase I see..... "civilian assault rifles"...
Words mean things......
An assault rifle is one that lets you choose between semi-automatic and automatic fire. As many other people have correctly answered, these are very expensive and hard to get, and in some states are completely illegal.
“Assault weapon”, on the other hand, is a made-up term that has no precise definition, and in practice means any weapon that the speaker wants to make sound dangerous and scary. The weapons that get this name are usually no more dangerous than other ones that don’t. There’s no rhyme or reason to it.
All you have is denial. As I pointed out, you proved my original claim. You are just too blinded by your dogma to be able to acknowledge that. And why this obsession with the meaningless OP? You are the one blathering.
Everything you've posted, especially the OP, is pathetic.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
No, I said that the 2nd Amendment still needs to exist, because people like you oppose American liberty. You cannot claim to support the 2nd Amendment, all the while opposing the very arms it is intended to guarantee.