Trump Thread 2.0

[cale]

And an AR10 will put a round through another house after that, don't see anyone chasing those down. The capabilities of a firearm has little to do with this discussion, it's entirely about optics.

[R3Z3N]

Remember how the bump stock ban only bans in name and not function, because the NFA still defines Machine Guns and multiple shots per trigger pull until the trigger is let go? They only banned it by naming it, not by function. The NFA is still unconstitutional. It's main function was to take weapons away from those that could not afford the fees.

Your opinion on whether a bump stock is functional or not does not matter. It is unconstitutional to ban any part of a firearm. It is my right to own one.

Normal Capacity Magazines are now legal in CA (or what the anti-rights crowd call high capacity). It's been a fairly new tactic to outlaw parts of a gun, when the citizens militia actually had a minimum of ammo they had to carry. It's a good 80+ page read:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rnias-mag-ban/

This hill is worth dying for. Hence why the founding fathers made it the Second in the the Bill of Rights, because it allows you to fight for your freedoms when the law says you may not practice your freedoms. The current crop worth dying over are the Red Flag laws which are wholly unconstitutional. There is no trial, your property is taken and you have no way to contest. A few examples have lost their property because it was presumed a family member in another house might be a threat. That is of no fault of the owner. If ever on jury, I will rule against the state in all of these cases.

[R3Z3N]

Edit* Before anyone comes back with " I need an AR because _______ ".

In the US, the 2A has nothing to do with need. It is your right to own and operate one. I challenge you to state why it is any different than any other magazined rifle. It also happens to be one of the most commonly owned civilian rifles, making it legal according to Heller, which was still a deeply flawed ruling that cut another slice of 2A to discard.

[cale]

It is unconstitutional to ban any part of a firearm.

You can repeat something as many times as you'd like, however it doesn't make it true. The Supreme Court has successfully argued multiple times the legality of controlling firearms to some degree. You don't have free reign to anything you want.

[R3Z3N]

^Ah yet it is true whether the Supreme Court agrees or not! That is the awesomeness of our Bill of Rights! Learn them. Love them, because even your right lies in that document until government treats them as a shredded document and the only way to win that way is via another revolution. Otherwise you lose by default by relying on the government that swears to take away your rights.

[cale]

You need to expand your understanding of things. The US Constitution isn't a perfectly clear body of text, it requires interpretation to be clearly understood. You'll have to forgive me and any other rational thinking person if I defer to the court who's job actually is to interpret that document, and not some random dude on the internet spitting out nonsense. You're clearly lacking a complete understanding.

[R3Z3N]

^"Shall not infringe" was written to be very clear. Yet you want to try to read it as more complex. I feel sorry for those that wan't to be protected by the government. It is why we have the ghettos. It is the whole Democrat platform, to make slaves unto themselves and buy the people back with their own money.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[cale]

I get it, you're incapable of producing your own thoughts or even maintaining a conversation. Enjoy the drone life.

[R3Z3N]

Oh I do enjoy life. Shoot a couple thousand rounds tomorrow. Drive the S54 E30. Then bring the car to the beach, ride bikes, read The Expanse, then BBQ with my lovely wife!

Then off to work and remaining 5* service!

Yet never a subject, but a willing citizen which is the best feeling in the world! I will protect my freedoms even with my life should I ever need to, because it will be worth it for my future kids so that they shall never be afraid of the government, and also ready to stand up for what is right, which is never a relative idea and always worth sacrificing for.

[CarpHunter]

In the US, the 2A has nothing to do with need. It is your right to own and operate one. I challenge you to state why it is any different than any other magazined rifle. It also happens to be one of the most commonly owned civilian rifles, making it legal according to Heller, which was still a deeply flawed ruling that cut another slice of 2A to discard.

I'll answer your question, but first I think it appropriate to get a baseline. At what level of weaponry do you feel the government is infringing on your right? Can be nukes to slingshots. Throw in weapons platforms, tanks, ships, aircraft, ect.. I'm guessing there's a level at which even you would be uncomfortable with in the hands of normal citizens. Where exactly did the government cross the line in your opinion?

[z31maniac]

What are you rambling about?

You made an assertion, I asked for sources to back it up.

You couldn't, so you make a super lame Ad Hominem comment.


Go back, re-read what you wrote, and try again.

[decay]

And an AR10 will put a round through another house after that, don't see anyone chasing those down. The capabilities of a firearm has little to do with this discussion, it's entirely about optics.

the relevance is that you should buy the firearm that's right for your use case. you don't need an AR15 just because you've seen all the recruiter videos of soldiers and marines running through mortar fire carrying them.

a bump stock *has no* use case other than as a force multiplier in a mass-casualty event, or just going "yeehaw" while you burn through a 30-round faster than you can pull the trigger.

adhering to an absolutist viewpoint on the 2A is poorly advised because when this country was founded, the technology to even create a bump stock didn't exist. this rise in spree killings is blowback- unintended consequences- from laws not keeping up with advances in technology.

the constitution was written on paper, not set in stone, because it is a living document.

[R3Z3N]

You don't need a foreward grip on your rifle but in CA that is a felony. The law is silly and obstructive.

"this rise in spree killings is blowback- unintended consequences- from laws not keeping up with advances in technology."

Again here we go with the law, thinking it did anything to stop crime. Rifles are used in few shootings, knives and fists cause much more damage combined. This is not about reducing "mass murder" or violence, this is solely muddying the waters convincing such as your self and others that desire security over freedom that such laws are effective. You sadly keep repeating yourself thinking the law or lack of law here is at fault. What is at fault is the morals of those committing the crime, not any tool they use. Keep pushing that narrative and showing your lack of understanding to why the 2A exists, and thinking that the world will be more peaceful if only we make law abiding citizens follow the law with an iron fist.

I'll answer your question, but first I think it appropriate to get a baseline. At what level of weaponry do you feel the government is infringing on your right? Can be nukes to slingshots. Throw in weapons platforms, tanks, ships, aircraft, ect.. I'm guessing there's a level at which even you would be uncomfortable with in the hands of normal citizens. Where exactly did the government cross the line in your opinion?

Well a firearm is a device that uses explosive to launch a projectile...
Here is a good definition of such:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
However, there is nothing more or less dangerous about an AR-15, 9 or 10. It is just a rifle that many want to blame for problems, when in fact the benefit of it is its simplicity and ease of modification for its intended purpose.

[cale]

the constitution was written on paper, not set in stone, because it is a living document.

Enough bickering on firearms, that's a debate for another thread.

I agree with this, however you're going to have a great difficulty dealing with the people who not only think otherwise, but think their interpretation is the accurate one and anything else goes against it. It's quite clear that even in this thread there is a hurdle to cross of people who are incapable of turning of the automaton mode. Good luck with them...

[CarpHunter]

Well a firearm is a device that uses explosive to launch a projectile...
Here is a good definition of such:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

However, there is nothing more or less dangerous about an AR-15, 9 or 10. It is just a rifle that many want to blame for problems, when in fact the benefit of it is its simplicity and ease of modification for its intended purpose.

At no point in this ramble did you answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition of a firearm. I asked at what level of armaments do you feel the government has overstepped your rights to ownership?

Now please answer the question, and i will gladly answer yours.