Posted by
Message
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
12529 posts

The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
1. "Nobody needs an AR-15 for hunting."

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. This is a non-argument.

2. "Nobody needs a military style rifle for home defense against intruders. A shotgun is better"

Sure, in close quarters I would prefer a short-barrel pistol grip semi-auto shotgun. But, the 2nd Amendment wasn't designed for implementation once an intruder enters your home. What do you do about advancing threats at intermediate and long range? What about the millions of people who do not live on a postage stamp in San Francisco or NYC? The people on acreage have as much a right to defend their property and person as everybody else.

3. The founders never envisioned such weaponry or intended for us to use military grade arms

The first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought over cannon... Specifically, high-powered cannon that matched the firepower of the British navy. These cannon were held by colonists for safe keeping and concealment, and could take out British ships. They were the most powerful weapons of that period. Are we supposed to believe they made the Constitution apply for their time and not the distant future?

4. "You will not stop the US military with an AR-15, so it is pointless to have one."

One colonist couldn't defend his home from the British military, either. But, hundreds of thousands of armed colonists made it so difficult and costly for the British to maintain power that they gave up and ceded independence to the colonies. There are roughly 1.5 million service members in the US Military. If they were to somehow ALL follow orders of a future dictator and fight against the US citizenry, they are still no match for 20-50 million(or more) armed countrymen. THIS is what the 2nd Amendment is for. WE THE PEOPLE are to defend ourselves from tyranny, and when necessary, "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants."

The same goes for foreign invading forces.

I ask you, how would we accomplish this without "military-grade" weaponry? How would we accomplish this as citizens if all the guns were held by the government in a keep or armory? Answer... we were never intended to rely solely on our government for the protection of our rights. We were never intended to be defenseless against threats by any government, foreign or domestic.

I am not willing to gamble the lives and freedom of hundreds of millions of my future countrymen, who are ALL going to be children, so that a few people can feel like they did something to "save the children" in schools by restricting or banning weaponry. Your problem isn't with the guns. Your problem is with the source of why people feel the need to kill and why they choose to do so... but that's a different thread.




/rant
This post was edited on 3/2 at 10:49 am


DabosDynasty
Clemson Fan
Member since Apr 2017
1274 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. This is a non-argument


Thank you. This argument has been and is a distraction from the real and explicit intent of the amendment.


TaderSalad
LSU Fan
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
11616 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Excellent post.



ETA: Brace yourself for the fricktards.
This post was edited on 3/2 at 10:59 am


Pettifogger
Atlanta Braves Fan
Member since Feb 2012
49123 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Arguing with liberals based on the Bill of Rights is like arguing with atheists and appealing to the Bible

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it's largely futile


DabosDynasty
Clemson Fan
Member since Apr 2017
1274 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Agree.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
Rougarou13
LSU Fan
Jackson MS
Member since Feb 2015
4096 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Image: https://i.imgur.com/kZoTt4k.jpg


quote:

"I have discover'd an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time."


But they could never envision a firearm more advanced than a single shot muzzleloading flintlock.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
291
SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
12529 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

Arguing with liberals based on the Bill of Rights is like arguing with atheists and appealing to the Bible



Not when they use the "well regulated militia" phrase as their argument. The point is to beat them into submission on any constitutional argument so they have to cede their actual wish of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

The ones who are honest enough to actually tout abolition of the 2nd Amendment are at least honest enough to debate.


WildTchoupitoulas
Oscillating Fan
Member since Jan 2010
28504 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
If the US government issued an '03 Springfield and a Stevens SXS to each able bodied male, and prohibited the purchase of any firearms, would the 2nd Amendment still be protecting our right to bear arms?

The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.


Centinel
Alabama Fan
South Carolina
Member since Sep 2016
10826 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

If the US government issued an '03 Springfield and a Stevens SXS to each able bodied male, and prohibited the purchase of any firearms, would the 2nd Amendment still be protecting our right to bear arms?

The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.


This is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.


TaderSalad
LSU Fan
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
11616 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.



It also doesnt prohibit the right to purchase arms, and it also doesnt specify which sorts of arms we can own. It says we have the right to bear arms. Therefore, the government is more than able to supply us with weaponry and if we feel that it isnt adequate, we are entitled to go out and purchase whatever the frick else we want, unregulated.

The full auto ban is enough regulation and is unconstitutional


Wtodd
Missouri Fan
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
32027 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Don't need 4
quote:

The 2nd Amendment

is the only one you need


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
31
WildTchoupitoulas
Oscillating Fan
Member since Jan 2010
28504 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.

And that's one of the stupidest responses you can make. Congrats.

How would our right be infringed if the government actually supplied us with arms?

(In case you're wondering, this is a 'hypothetical' question.)


WildTchoupitoulas
Oscillating Fan
Member since Jan 2010
28504 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

It also doesnt prohibit the right to purchase arms, and it also doesnt specify which sorts of arms we can own. It says we have the right to bear arms. Therefore, the government is more than able to supply us with weaponry and if we feel that it isnt adequate, we are entitled to go out and purchase whatever the frick else we want, unregulated.

Imagine, if you will, the federal government confiscating all guns from the People, prohibiting the purchase/sale of all firearms, and issuing the Springfields and the Stevens. Would our right to bear arms be infringed?


Pettifogger
Atlanta Braves Fan
Member since Feb 2012
49123 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:


Not when they use the "well regulated militia" phrase as their argument. The point is to beat them into submission on any constitutional argument so they have to cede their actual wish of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

The ones who are honest enough to actually tout abolition of the 2nd Amendment are at least honest enough to debate.



For a long time the text was a trump card, in a way.

The left is increasingly moving more left, and in that regard, I think you'll see an increase in the "who gives a shite about the amendment" argument. Of course, I agree with you on the honesty front, but unfortunately, there isn't much to argue over with people like that.

If we don't share a fundamental view about individual rights, then arguing over nuances of whether gun control will work or not in various forms seems pretty pointless.


SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
12529 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

If the US government issued an '03 Springfield and a Stevens SXS to each able bodied male, and prohibited the purchase of any firearms, would the 2nd Amendment still be protecting our right to bear arms?


I'll take a couple free guns. Good luck stopping me from buying more.

quote:

The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.


If it doesn't specify what types of arms, then it's open. Prohibiting the sale and manufacture of arms is an infringement. The government-issued weapons will not last forever. Your argument would have a half a leg if the Continental Congress issued weapons to every able-bodied man. They did not. Most of our guys fought with their own weapons.


yallallcrazy
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2007
492 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Good post, but you don't need all that.

Best argument - ask them to define exactly what, mechanically, they would propose to ban.

It is just a semi-auto, just like the majority of "acceptable" firearms that they have no issue with.

If I can have a 10/22, or a handgun, or a Remington 1100, what makes this different? The only real difference is it is modular.

The problem is, they for the most part do not wish to discuss or be educated.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
70
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2008
59640 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
OP is correct but I have to gripe about the use of the term "full semi automatic"

WTF is that.


TaderSalad
LSU Fan
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
11616 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

Imagine, if you will, the federal government confiscating all guns from the People, prohibiting the purchase/sale of all firearms, and issuing the Springfields and the Stevens. Would our right to bear arms be infringed?



I dont live in alternate realities. I also dont try to invent something that wont happen in order for a "gotcha" moment.

Imagine if our government allowed us to live by the Constitution and never let the regressives advocate for change.

For the sake of your "argument," the government arming us is a terrible idea. They can then order us to go fight and all we have is a pistol and a shotgun to ward off whatever they got.


SoulGlo
LSU Fan
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
12529 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
quote:

Imagine, if you will, the federal government confiscating all guns from the People, prohibiting the purchase/sale of all firearms, and issuing the Springfields and the Stevens. Would our right to bear arms be infringed?


Yes.

Even if they issued everyone a tank and an F-35, banning the manufacture and sale of weapons is infringement.

in·fringe
in'frinj
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
This post was edited on 3/2 at 11:30 am


Walkthedawg
Georgia Fan
Dawg Pound
Member since Oct 2012
2865 posts

re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram