June 15, 201610 yr I found this on Facebook today and it made a lot of sense. Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid stuff is being supported. First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively. So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are considered deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are: A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts. So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available. To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you need educated. Consider yourselves educated on this matter.
June 15, 201610 yr I support the second amendment. I have a gun, will probably have more in the future. I don't see the necessity for most people to have some of the weapons they do. A couple of points. The necessity argument has been addressed. Let's say for a second everyone agrees and owning an AR is not necessary. Why does it have to be? The vast majority of things we purchase and own aren't necessary. Alcohol isn't necessary and more people are killed yearly because of alcohol than because of an AR. The reason the pro gun crowd fights so hard against banning is because they know what's next. Today it's ARs, tomorrow it's clips that hold over 6 rounds, then semi auto pistols altogether, then semi auto shotguns, ect.... Before it's over we have only flint locks.
June 15, 201610 yr The problem here is that just because someone may think a gun should be banned, doesn't mean anybody loses their constitutional right to have guns. They just can't have that particular one. The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to bear AR-15's... The way I understand it, the 2008 Heller decision the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed (not granted) a pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Further, it said that the government cannot ban guns which are in common use. While there is no universally-accepted number, it’s widely acknowledged that tens of millions of MSRs have been sold, and are owned by Americans. This certainly puts them in "common use" as an AR-15 is an extremely popular (common use) rifle. So, IMO, a ban on them would be an infringement.
June 15, 201610 yr I found this on Facebook today and it made a lot of sense. [ATTACH]56462[/ATTACH] Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid stuff is being supported. First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively. So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are considered deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are: A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts. So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available. To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you need educated. Consider yourselves educated on this matter. Will fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. Several of us pointed this out on here before. Nothing sunk in. Some are just ruled by fear and are driven by the lies they're fed.
June 16, 201610 yr This country has guns period. There are many countries that don't allow them and everyone is free to move. Trying to take the peoples right to bear arms is no different than the immigrants that come here and try to change America instead of becoming American. Enough is enough. If it's too hot in the kitchen pack a bag and become a french citizen. As long as the bad guys have them so do I.
June 16, 201610 yr The problem here is that just because someone may think a gun should be banned, doesn't mean anybody loses their constitutional right to have guns. They just can't have that particular one. The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to bear AR-15's... Exactly. To me it is kind of similar to race cars used in NASCAR that are banned from being on regular streets.
June 16, 201610 yr I've said it before and I'll say it again. The United States has changed so much since 1776 that the entire constitution needs to be repealed/amended/edited/rewritten. No one can convince me that in 2016 and beyond that we should be living under rules made 240 years ago. That's asinine. I'll also add that if folks were going around having mass shootings like they are now when the constitution was initially drafted then there wouldn't be a second amendment saying you have a right to bear arms. To think there still would have been is naive.
June 16, 201610 yr I've said it before and I'll say it again. The United States has changed so much since 1776 that the entire constitution needs to be repealed/amended/edited/rewritten. No one can convince me that in 2016 and beyond that we should be living under rules made 240 years ago. That's asinine. I'll also add that if folks were going around having mass shootings like they are now when the constitution was initially drafted then there wouldn't be a second amendment saying you have a right to bear arms. To think there still would have been is naive. The constitution doesn't set rules, at least not for us. It puts limits on the government, and puts faith in the people. It is perfect in that it can be changed, by the people, if we want to change it. Personally I like protection from the government. There were many mass shootings/killings back in the day: - between English settlers and French settlers - between most settlers and Native Americans - between Texans and Mexicans - etc,etc,etc People have been killing over land, money, and religion for 1000's of years. We just don't think of them as such. We called it battles or war. To the Islamic Radicals this is war. And we better wake up to that fact. Taking away peoples ability to get guns is not the answer.
June 16, 201610 yr The constitution doesn't set rules, at least not for us. It puts limits on the government, and puts faith in the people. It is perfect in that it can be changed, by the people, if we want to change it. Personally I like protection from the government. There were many mass shootings/killings back in the day: - between English settlers and French settlers - between most settlers and Native Americans - between Texans and Mexicans - etc,etc,etc People have been killing over land, money, and religion for 1000's of years. We just don't think of them as such. We called it battles or war. To the Islamic Radicals this is war. And we better wake up to that fact. Taking away peoples ability to get guns is not the answer. Right. And if we have Islamic radicals that were born on American soil presently on the No Fly list then at the very least we should be making it harder for them to get the guns they need for their war.
June 16, 201610 yr The constitution doesn't set rules, at least not for us. It puts limits on the government, and puts faith in the people. It is perfect in that it can be changed, by the people, if we want to change it. Personally I like protection from the government. There were many mass shootings/killings back in the day: - between English settlers and French settlers - between most settlers and Native Americans - between Texans and Mexicans - etc,etc,etc People have been killing over land, money, and religion for 1000's of years. We just don't think of them as such. We called it battles or war. To the Islamic Radicals this is war. And we better wake up to that fact. Taking away peoples ability to get guns is not the answer. And those battles were over land and territory and things of that nature. Entirely different than what is taking place today.
June 16, 201610 yr Right. And if we have Islamic radicals that were born on American soil presently on the No Fly list then at the very least we should be making it harder for them to get the guns they need for their war. I absolutely agree with you on this. I have said many times we need more thorough back ground checks.
June 16, 201610 yr And those battles were over land and territory and things of that nature. Entirely different than what is taking place today. Not to the Islamic Radicals it isn't.
June 16, 201610 yr Author The way I understand it, the 2008 Heller decision the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed (not granted) a pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Further, it said that the government cannot ban guns which are in common use. While there is no universally-accepted number, it’s widely acknowledged that tens of millions of MSRs have been sold, and are owned by Americans. This certainly puts them in "common use" as an AR-15 is an extremely popular (common use) rifle. So, IMO, a ban on them would be an infringement. To clarify, I'm not necessarily in the camp that thinks rifles should be banned. But I absolutely believe they should be much more difficult to obtain than they are. A sudden need for such a gun doesn't just pop up, IMO.
June 16, 201610 yr I've said it before and I'll say it again. The United States has changed so much since 1776 that the entire constitution needs to be repealed/amended/edited/rewritten. No one can convince me that in 2016 and beyond that we should be living under rules made 240 years ago. That's asinine. I'll also add that if folks were going around having mass shootings like they are now when the constitution was initially drafted then there wouldn't be a second amendment saying you have a right to bear arms. To think there still would have been is naive. Bad idea. We have forgotten the reasons why the constitution was written as it was written. We have forgotten the lessons of history. The document we would draw up now would be terribly flawed and would end in more government power, perhaps centralized government, and a loss of liberty. "We the people..." would be replaced by "The elite whom we have empowered to rule over us..." The principles of limited government and liberty for the people hold today as much as they ever did.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.