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

quote:

---

Thanks, Jonah Goldberg, but no.

---

Tell me how communism and socialism are different. I'd love to hear it.

Communism is the final stage of socialism. Freedom is nowhere near those two. Please elaborate. Enlighten us.

quote:

---

quote:
act so as to limit

Can you please remove a little more context from that?

---

Context? from a dictionary definition? I posted the whole thing a few posts ago. WTF are you thinking?

quote:

---

"If we were issued arms, we could bear them at will."

---

You can bear them... until they break, or you run out of ammunition. Are you saying we get unlimited replacements, parts, and ammo? How about the varying sizes of people? Are the issued weapons made in many sizes to fit everyone? What about varying loads for different sizes and strengths of people?

You skipped these

quote:

---

quote:
the reason why you want them banned in the first place?

What the frick are you talking about? Do you have a link to where I've said I want guns banned?

---

I apologize. That was an overly general statement, and I made an incorrect assumption about you.

quote:

---

My sole point in this exercise is to determine how far the government can go with restrictions on guns. ban fully auto weapons, check. ban semi-auto weapons? If they were able to ban fully-auto, why not semi-auto under the exact same justification? Once they're there, what's to stop them from proposing just what I proposed, issue arms that the government is comfortable with the citizenry bearing, remove all others and make it illegal to trade arms?

---

IMO, that would require military action. There would be way too many people with guns that would rather die than see the government come take them... and that's the point of the 2A.

quote:

---

I made an incorrect assumption about you.

---

That's okay, it's the same emotional knee-jerk response everyone else is having. At least you've hung tough to try to understand.

quote:

---

until they break, or you run out of ammunition. Are you saying we get unlimited replacements, parts, and ammo?

---

I'm saying once the gov't issues it, it's your gun. You buy ammo, pay for service, etc...

Instead of trying to imagine ridiculous scenarios to prove it wouldn't work, try to imagine how the government might try to work around the 2nd Amend. In other words, everything else is the same, it's your gun, you can use according to current laws on the books, the only difference is that citizens can only possess two types of arms, a high powered rifle and a scatter gun - specifically a 30-06 '03 Springfield, and a 10-20 gauge Stevens SXS.

I just don't see how anyone could say the government wasn't protecting our right to bear arms under this scenario. While I'd like to have a Springfield and a Stevens, I wouldn't want to give up the firearms I already own. Well, I might give up the Mosins for the two above.

I'm just wondering how much wiggle room the government has, because the 2nd Amendment is rather vague and seems like there's a lot of room for the government to restrict the types of arms available - especially in light of the National Firearms Act of 34.

quote:

---

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."

---

Excuse me, what?

You think the people of the united states stand any chance against the kind of technology the government has? Talk about fricking delusional.

What a fricking dork!

The absurdity with the left picking its battles with the AR-15 platform as the 'war to end school/mass shootings' is only exceeded by their lack of research on the subject.

The AR series of weapons has successfully bridged the gap into a favorite weapon of choice for all types of big game hunting.

Honestly the calibers,options,and customization of features along with the ability build your own are vast and varied as ones imagination.

Once again, this is a weapon that is preferred for hunting by a new large group of Americans today and rightfully so, as it and can serve multiple roles in our lives from family defense to aiding in gathering table fare.

It's the new Swiss army knife of our time. IMO.

I agree with you.
We should be requiring every legal person to own one,even subsidizing it.

quote:

---

the 2nd Amendment is rather vague

---

It is as straightforward as any amendment - or the constitutional wording itself.

For instance, one could argue that 'freedom of the press' only refers to the mechanical processes that were extant in the late 1700s. Under that 'restriction' telephones, faxes, internet, TV, Radio, could be freely restricted.

In fact the word 'press' is no more defined in the constitution as amended, than is the terms 'arms.' Both are obviously intended to be references to the common understanding of those terms within the common usage of the time.

The constitution was written to protect a republic governed by honorable people. We are approaching being a population that would not be recognized by the founders. A population such as we have today would still be subjects of England, or Nazi Germany, or the USSR.

quote:

---

Instead of trying to imagine ridiculous scenarios to prove it wouldn't work, try to imagine how the government might try to work around the 2nd Amend. In other words, everything else is the same, it's your gun, you can use according to current laws on the books, the only difference is that citizens can only possess two types of arms, a high powered rifle and a scatter gun - specifically a 30-06 '03 Springfield, and a 10-20 gauge Stevens SXS.

I just don't see how anyone could say the government wasn't protecting our right to bear arms under this scenario. While I'd like to have a Springfield and a Stevens, I wouldn't want to give up the firearms I already own.

---

And this is what it's for. Giving up what you own or want is the part of the equation that infringes on the 2nd Amendment and right to bear arms. They would have to enforce that, and there are enough people that would say "frick you, come take them" that it would not happen.

quote:

---

I'm just wondering how much wiggle room the government has, because the 2nd Amendment is rather vague and seems like there's a lot of room for the government to restrict the types of arms available

---

I don't see it as very difficult to understand, but maybe that's me. The wiggle room is determined by their ability to enact what you hypothesize. Without amending the Constitution, I don't think you could get to that. The military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States first and foremost.

I own a Springfield 30-06, and a Stevens 20 ga single barrel. I'll be damned if I let any fricker tell me that's all I am "allowed" to have.