Explain this to me as if I am a 5 year old.

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thank you, jamil! This point needs to be made far more loudly and far more often. Despite being peddled by supposed experts, and even those in the highest levels of political leadership, it is a complete, 100% myth that there were any weapons outlawed for civilian ownership in the early days of our country. Start looking for examples of gun control in our country's early days, and guess what you'll find: it's that the first gun control efforts were intended to stop blacks and Indians from owning firearms. Think about that. They understood very well back then that the first step to oppressing and enslaving someone is to disarm him.

It’s not a dissertation but it is a bite size rebuttal to this perrenial myth.

Second Amendment Myths and Misinformation

False Claim #1: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Has Always Been Heavily Regulated.

www.heritage.org

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So as much as we dislike some of his opinions, lets all try to be respectful.

Thank you, also for giving this reminder. I know I've come to develop a greater appreciation for our right to keep and bear arms even in my short time here, and it wouldn't have happened without a great number of fine folks who were willing to discuss with me (read: school me ) and not just run me off.

Also, @mrmiller21 , just in case you do come back, you may not know this, but I actually started out my time on this site with some rather controversial viewpoints as well, somewhat like you. If you want to hear more about the opposite viewpoint, I not too long ago saw a video that really spells things out in a very detailed, practical way. I know the crux of the argument comes down to the fact that a RIGHT doesn't need a practical justification, but I also realize that this simply doesn't fly with a lot of people, so if you have any openness to learning about the actual history of firearms, firearms regulation, and why, in practical terms, we believe that civilians should be allowed to own weapons of war, I recommend the following video (I know I hate it when people post a greater than 5 minute video and expect me to watch it in order to get their point of view, so I try to never post anything longer than that myself, but in this case I just really do think this is worth the watch, so I'll break my own rule, and hope you can find the time to watch it.)

 

[bobzilla]

This may prove to be true. We’ll find out soon enough.

Told you before I could smell him a mile away.

 

[BigRed]

@mrmiller21 dont delete your thread starters.

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

"Explain this to me as if I am a 5 year old."​

The 5 year olds I know already understand it.

 

[BigRed]

Senator Young begs to differ…

He was a marine you know.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

Stop feeding the troll, moving on....................

 

[purdue98]

Would be interesting to ask the German Jews as they were being loaded onto cattle cars for their government established camps.
"Was it worth surrendering your firearms knowing at this moment what you didn't know in that moment you surrendered them"?

What the founding fathers knew (based on their own writing's) is that ALL governments have the strong potential to usurp power.
While they elected the Roman Senate (Constitutional Republic) model, history was quite clear. An unarmed population is completely subjected to the dictates of an armed government.

Regarding the individual who initiated this thread. Your talking points appear to be taken from one of multiple anti-firearm ngo groups. Your use of the assault weapon is a primary indication of your sourcing. To be clear, any tool can be used as assault.
Modern day weapons like the M16A1 I was issued during basic training in 1981 was meant for combat duty. It was a piece of junk from the Vietnam era and was prone to double feed. Never would I want to go to war with it and we joked that the first Russian AK we took, we would use.
I could have used an assault screwdriver or assault hammer more effectively than it.

When the government agencies disarm and ONLY the military have weapons, I will consider going strictly to a revolver for personal protection. Until then....

 

[Lpherr]

Yeah, I'll just keep my revolvers too.

5 shot snubby?

 

[Sigblitz]

5 shot snubby?

It's all I need.

 

[Donovan48]

Twentieth century history indicates that rational people have more to fear from government than from criminal civilians. Look up "Democide" if you have doubts. Maybe you feel that sort of thing could never happen here. If so, try this thought experiment. If you tend to vote Democrat, would you be comfortable with a law allowing only Republicans to own firearms? Or if you vote Republican would you be comfortable with a law allowing only Democrats to own firearms?

 

[Bugzilla]

If explaining to a 5 year old; Because I (the Constitution) said so.

 

[EyeCarry]

Explain it to you like I would a 5 year old....

Because I said so. I am the adult and you are a child. When you grow up you will understand that I am right.

There you go, right there!
As I have said many times, Soooo many "adults" did not learn an important word as a child and that word is "NO."

 

[Combat Engineer]

This should help

 

[indyblue]

To be fair, NOBODY uses the search function here when they have a question.

I guess I'm not NOBODY then.

I frequently use the search function, although I wish it were more searchy. Why won't it even find substring matches, it only does whole word matches.

 

[Sigblitz]

I guess I'm not NOBODY then.

I frequently use the search function, although I wish it were more searchy. Why won't it even find substring matches, it only does whole word matches.

I probably searched for an hour today. It is tedious.

 

[snapping turtle]

Explain like I would to a five year old?

”because I said so.”

Five year olds only need to be told what is.

 

[Mongo59]

I haven't taken the time to read all of this tripe, but to the op I have to ask if he has ever even read the 2nd amendment?

It is about taking down a squirrel rebellion or hunting Biden's kevlar vested deer. It is about a resolve to tyranny for all the people.

If the .gov is invested in tyranny they won't be coming at you with a musket, why should that be our response?

All these milk toast liberals have it in mind that the total power of the police is to first ensure their private well being. They have made the police into groups that stretch the yellow tape and draw chalk lines around the bodies. The logo of "Protect & Serve" should be forcibly removed from anything to do with our brothers in blue due to the mandated inability for them to act rather than react.

I say to you, hand in all your crap and buy a double barrel shotgun like the prez says and shoot into the air as he advocates and after you are arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm within city limits and the gun confiscated, they don't have to mug you on the street anymore, they can do it in the comfort of your own living room, kitchen, bathroom or bedroom.

But then again, home safety is a byproduct of the 2nd amendment, not the primary reason for it. Read it! Your buddy Nadler obviously hasn't along with the other members of congress that lack sphincter control. They want you to think it is about hunting and sport, it isn't.

Then seriously ask yourself if YOU have the nards to defend America and Americans. If the answer is no, then microwave your soy latte, go back into your mom's basement and type away ridiculing the very people who provide for your safety. Oh, and remember to put a nipple on that latte...

 

[Colt556]

Lots of these lately. Oh well, maybe if we stopped feeding them they’d go away.

 

[bobzilla]

Lots of these lately. Oh well, maybe if we stopped feeding them they’d go away.

Nah. They’re trying to stir us into a froth so they can go back and point to us “crazy gun people”.

 

[edporch]

@mrmiller21 dont delete your thread starters.

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

Being that REAL "Assault Rifles" (which are machine guns according to federal law ), are ALREADY virtually banned for civilians to own , "Assault Rifles" are already illegal.
Which actually they shouldn't be.

Civilians should be allowed to at least own the common military standard issue rifle rifle of the day,
and to not be able to, is a violation of our rights.

So then adding to things by lying, and calling a semi-automatic ONLY rifle an "assault rifle", then calling for it to be banned, screams that the anti-Bill of Rights crowd has as it's long term agenda, the full disarmament of the every day American citizen.
AND they will make up every false promise and lie to accomplish this.