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

[Creedmoor]

In before hes a perma ban.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Happily I am anti equity.

Big meany.

 

[Sigblitz]

 

[mark40sw]

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.

Why do you have a "a dozen or so firearms"?

 

[dieselrealtor]

I have a friend that lights a big bonfire every fall, stands back & watches it burn.

Huge pile burns started with a small fire.

 

[Ingomike]

The truth is @mrmiller21 is trying to goad members into name calling and such that will force the mods to give those members a time out like he got. He is doing it by attacking our deeply and sincerely held beliefs in a mocking but allowed way.

DO NOT TAKE HIS BAIT! Be careful not to call names or anything that might get you suspended. That us the goal of all these threads…

 

[Ddillard]

“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.” --James Madison

 

[deo62]

Kut? Is that you?

 

[DadSmith]

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.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

One of my favorite quotes.

 

[thunderchicken]

As a veteran and someone who owns a dozen or so guns, you should know the 2A is to give the citizens the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. Such a tyrannical gov't could be our own or an invading force wishing to control us. Have you watched the news in the last year? It could look much like Ukraine when war broke out and folks were being issued basically any available operational gun. Our gov't (on our behalf) has sent billions of dollars worth of guns, ammunition and other supplies to support the Ukrainians war effort. Yet, many of those same gov't officials want to disarm our own citizens. Why? Do we not have more than our share of adversaries around the world who wish to do us harm? Our gov't looks weak on the world stage and that makes us a target.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that could be used to describe any weapons used in an attack of any kind. Assault describes an action not an object. Banning any kind of gun only effects law abiding citizens who are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. When a type of gun gets banned another weapon type will be targeted to be banned leading to an all out ban. Furthermore, most wishing to ban guns generally know very little about them. They like to use words and phrases to to drum up fear and spread their false narratives.
In all of history those who have been on the side of banning guns have never been the good guys. Never

As a gun owner, I could care less about what kind of guns anyone may have. It's none of my business nor that of the government. Just because I may not have a real interest in that type of gun doesn't mean I don't support their right to have them. We are stronger together.
"Shall not be infringed"

 

[Brandon]

Explain to me why you need to so badly know?

Oh, you don't.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

go away troll

We have a lot of smart, educated gun owners on this site. If he’s here to actually be educated, there is plenty of that to be had here. If he’s here to pot stir and troll, we’ll show him the door.

 

[Ddillard]

As a veteran and someone who owns a dozen or so guns, you should know the 2A is to give the citizens the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. Such a tyrannical gov't could be our own or an invading force wishing to control us. Have you watched the news in the last year? It could look much like Ukraine when war broke out and folks were being issued basically any available operational gun. Our gov't (on our behalf) has sent billions of dollars worth of guns, ammunition and other supplies to support the Ukrainians war effort. Yet, many of those same gov't officials want to disarm our own citizens. Why? Do we not have more than our share of adversaries around the world who wish to do us harm? Our gov't looks weak on the world stage and that makes us a target.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that could be used to describe any weapons used in an attack of any kind. Assault describes an action not an object. Banning any kind of gun only effects law abiding citizens who are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. When a type of gun gets banned another weapon type will be targeted to be banned leading to an all out ban. Furthermore, most wishing to ban guns generally know very little about them. They like to use words and phrases to to drum up fear and spread their false narratives.
In all of history those who have been on the side of banning guns have never been the good guys. Never

As a gun owner, I could care less about what kind of guns anyone may have. It's none of my business nor that of the government. Just because I may not have a real interest in that type of gun doesn't mean I don't support their right to have them. We are stronger together.
"Shall not be infringed"

I second that! Fine wording.

 

[cg21]

I don’t believe .guv should be regulating anything ? So that argument doesn’t work on me.

I urge you to watch some of these videos. https://m.youtube.com/@ActiveSelfProtection

I doubt you will find any of the victims on there wishing they had less capacity.

In response to the slippery slope…. You’re the slope …. You’re saying “full auto is banned so it is ok to ban these others” I will play devils advocate let’s say whatever those “dozens of guns” you own…. I don’t believe you need those. What now?

And I will end with how can someone who claims a shirtless man with a flag and a Buffalo hat was going to overthrow democracy…… yet ar15’s will not protect against tyranny…..

 

[mark40sw]

Waiting for BigRed and his asterisk storm.

 

[KellyinAvon]

US v Miller (1939) upheld the NFA. That particular Miller was dead by the time it got to SCOTUS. Don't know if anybody showed up on Miller's behalf. Since 1939 was 21 years past the end of WW I, there would have been a lot of WW I Vets available to testify to how SBRs and SBSs were essential to "The Militia". But alas, Miller was dead so (IMHO) that has a lot to do with how we got here.

 

[hopper68]

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

US v Miller (1939) upheld the NFA. That particular Miller was dead by the time it got to SCOTUS. Don't know if anybody showed up on Miller's behalf. Since 1939 was 21 years past the end of WW I, there would have been a lot of WW I Vets available to testify to how SBRs and SBSs were essential to "The Militia". But alas, Miller was dead so (IMHO) that has a lot to do with how we got here.

 

[mark40sw]