Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You automatically assumed I am both a leftist and want to “disarm” you simply because I support gun control measures.

Stop watching Alex Jones. You have erred in judgment against me. Take a deep breath and go re read what I wrote.

The only gun control measures I proposed was a ban on automatic fire mimicing devices, and reasonable limits on how many firearms someone can purchase. I will also amend my view to say this: the gun limit should apply only to assault rifles. You can own as many handguns, shotguns, and rifles as you want. Assault rifles should be limited to 3 per person to stop the proliferation of them on the streets and to discourage whackos like Paddock from stockpiling military arms.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You read your own prejudices into my post and projected onto me what you assume all people who support gun control must automatically be.

I am a US Military marksman, a vociferous Constitutionalist, and a firearms enthusiast. Yet I support common sense gun control.

God bless.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Assault rifles should be limited to 3 per person to stop the proliferation of them on the streets and to discourage whackos like Paddock from stockpiling military arms.
Click to expand...
Assault rifles are, by real definition, fully automatic, so they are already severely restricted. You need s class 3 license. I do agree regarding bump stocks
 
Not true.

Assault rifle: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also :a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

An AK style or AR style rifle, whether it be semi automatic or capable of automatic fire, is an assault rifle.

The assault rifle I trained on and became a marksman with in the US Military was an M-16A1. The fire selector on the weapon I used had three settings - safe, semi auto, and three round burst fire. Technically it wasn’t a fully automatic weapon, but it most certainly was an assault rifle.

We’re not talking about technicalities, we’re talking about common knowledge. Show an AR-15 next to an M-16 and ask people which one is the assault rifle and watch what happens.

It doesn’t matter if an AR-15 is not selective fire so not “technically” an assault rifle by the narrowest standards. It is well known common knowledge an AR-15 is an assault rifle.
 
Last edited:
An AR-15 is a civilian rifle, a modern sporting rifle, not an assault weapon. It is not selectable. It cannot fire in 3 round bursts or fully automatic. That is one of the criteria that makes a rifle an assault weapon.
 
I was not questioning your personal commitment; yet, compare to your own, how was it for the rest of the people, were there hundreds/thousands doing exactly what you say you did?

In my neck of the woods there was no mobility ('77, 03, 12); people were content with “church” drives (drop unwanted/unneeded things off); the active agents were the same faces–the party/drinking gatherings were well populated; the complaints about the gov. not doing enough or the utilities not doing enough extremely over-the-roof.

Though I cannot state with absolute certainty that that is how man behaves, it is quite telling–even now when you hear about a fire destroying homes and property you often hear how the elderly or children somehow get left behind by their own family members… its the “me” and the “internet”/cameras syndrome.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I understand the technical terminology.

But the common sense view is this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is a sporting rifle

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is an assault rifle.

I will never call AR or AK style rifles sporting rifles. They are assault rifles designed for combat. And again I will repeat this - I am an expert marksman per the US Military and I am a firearms enthusiast.

Calling an AK-47 a sporting rifle, to me, is disingenuous. It is an assault rifle.
 
Hi, Jon!

You are so right!

…of course these are excellent examples of tyranny… yet, do you truly believe there was no cause?

Were the “setters” loving the Lakota aborigine or were they looking for any excuse to exterminate them?

Since I’m not too savvy about most things, could you place me in that 1940’s issue with the American Japanese? Did this happen prior to the kamikazes’ exploitations or afterwards?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Spyridon said:
I understand the technical terminology.

But the common sense view is this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is a sporting rifle

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is an assault rifle.

I will never call AR or AK style rifles sporting rifles. They are assault rifles designed for combat. And again I will repeat this - I am an expert marksman per the US Military and I am a firearms enthusiast.

Calling an AK-47 a sporting rifle, to me, is disingenuous. It is an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot-on.
 
No. Target the distribution points, including the hub of manufacturing–criminals do not walk into establishments and remove these weapons… otherwise there would be news reports on them and the companies raking up the money from the insurance agencies as they would report the missing weapons as theft/loss of revenue.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
the interesting thing is with the top gun paddock could have killed more people. it has a mag, range and optics.

the top gun is more dangerous than the bottom one in capable hands.

he had 72 minutes and thank God didn’t use the top gun.

what weapons do snipers use?

the mosin nagant is a rifle similar to the top gun and has been used since 1891 thru the modern day. it was used to defend Afghanistan against the ruskies and reportedly used in the present conflict of the Syrian Civil War. it has been reported to have been used to kill more people than any other style of gun.

what a weapon looks like is unimportant. unless you have an agenda to push.
Mosin–Nagant is a five-shot, bolt-action, internal magazine–fed, military rifle developed by the Imperial Russian Army from 1882 to 1891, and used by the armed forces of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and various other nations. It is one of the most mass-produced military bolt-action rifles in history with over 37 million units having been made since its inception in 1891, and, in spite of its age, it has been used in various conflicts around the world even up to the modern day. wiki
Click to expand...
 
Nonsense.

He hit over 550 people in like 10 minutes.

Absolutely no way he could have done that with a sniper rifle.

Why so much issue with bump stocks being banned? What purpose do they serve?
 
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Again, ad nauseam, the issue is guns and poor people.

When you have a high supply of both, you have high gun-crime.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is nauseating the way you are placing all poor people into a group and implying they are violent.
Click to expand...
No, that’s just your frantic attempt to twist what’s true. Poor people aren’t generally violent. But violent people are generally poor.

“Sorry bro”, dems da’ facts…
Click to expand...
It is the facts, but individual constitutional rights are not infringed upon based on what a general group does, or based on an elitist progressive notion that we know better. The vast amount of gun violence in Chicago is young black males. You seem squeamish about targeting those groups- youth, blacks, males, but you’re sure ready to infringe on the rights of the law abiding poor simply because they are poor.
Click to expand...
Because the majority of gun violence in my area is done by young, white males.

What do they have in common with the undesirables in Chicago?

Poverty and the consequences of experiencing it for multiple generations.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
Nonsense.

He hit over 550 people in like 10 minutes.

Absolutely no way he could have done that with a sniper rifle.

Why so much issue with bump stocks being banned? What purpose do they serve?
Click to expand...
i wrote in capable hands he could have killed more than 58.

your sporting rifle can achieve the same desire as your assault weapon.

if he was into maiming he could have used the bomb making material in his car that was reportedly parked near the exit of the venue.

as for a bump stock i can achieve the same result with a rubber band on an ar-15. will you ban them?
 
Spyridon said:
It doesn’t matter if an AR-15 is not selective fire so not “technically” an assault rifle by the narrowest standards. It is well known common knowledge an AR-15 is an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
If it isn’t technically an assault rifle, then it isn’t one.
 
I disagree.

Something can be de jure one way yet de facto another.

Mickey Mouse could be King of Disney de jure but Donald Duck could be King of Disney de facto.

An AR-15 may be a “modern sporting rifle” de jure, but the de facto consensus is it is an assault rifle.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
as for a bump stock i can achieve the same result with a rubber band on an ar-15. will you ban them?
Click to expand...
Averaging a 7 pound factory trigger pull, you think a rubber band is going to discharge your average AR 500+ times?

One time?

Get real.
 
Spyridon said:
An AR-15 may be a “modern sporting rifle” de jure, but the de facto consensus is it is an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Again, spot on.

I saw this when I took my banker brother in law to a large gunstore last fall. The “little black rifles” freaked him out a little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top