- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The justification for owning tatical weaponry
Posted on 2/25/18 at 3:25 pm to Kriegschwein
Posted on 2/25/18 at 3:25 pm to Kriegschwein
quote:
Actually an AR fires in an arc.
Not very flat.
Should have said flatter shooting
All rifles of every caliber flies at an arc.
The 5.56x45 shoots a hell of a lot flatter than a 30/30 win for example
Don’t know if you are trying to be cute
1
Posted on 2/25/18 at 4:33 pm to Volvagia
quote:
My home being broken into is a highly tactical situation.
A 22 cal fully automatic is hard to beat in that situation.
Posted on 2/25/18 at 5:50 pm to ruzil
quote:
quote:
Even if you and all of your friends had this kind of weaponry and trained frequently, do you think you'd stand a chance against the might of the US military?
Assuming the military would side with the tyrants is bit a a stretch, no?!
If the military doesn't side with the tyrants why do you need the weaponry to protect yourself?
Posted on 2/25/18 at 5:51 pm to mtntiger
quote:
My justification is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Nowhere in that amendment is the word "gun" used. Instead, the 2nd Amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed."
Arms can be ANYTHING used for a defensive or offensive purpose.
So you'd be ok if a private citizen owned a tank or fighter jets if they could personally afford it? Otherwise you are limiting our constitutional right to bear arms
Posted on 2/25/18 at 5:55 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
quote:
Even if you and all of your friends had this kind of weaponry and trained frequently, do you think you'd stand a chance against the might of the US military?
If as little as 20% of the US population revolted against the government, there would be almost no chance that the US military could over come them.
Where do you come up with an assumption like this?
You apparently must thing pretty poorly of the US military.
Posted on 2/25/18 at 5:56 pm to Wtxtiger
Was a master gunner in the Army for about a decade.
There are lots of people, even in the military, that think bullets fly straight. Lol.
A 22-250 flies fairly straight, same as an APFSDS-T round on a Bradley.
There are lots of people, even in the military, that think bullets fly straight. Lol.
A 22-250 flies fairly straight, same as an APFSDS-T round on a Bradley.
Posted on 2/25/18 at 6:22 pm to rebeloke
Private citizens owned cannons during the revolutionary war. Many merchants had a swivel gun(s) mounted on their ships to defend against pirates and the British Navy.
It would be equivalent to a 5” gun mounted on most modern day destroyers. So the argument that the founding fathers couldn’t foresee the type of weapons we have today can be put in perspective that the citizens had military grade firearms at the time is ludicrous.
LINK
Also if the argument for taking away modern Day guns because the founders couldn’t imagine current modern technology in regards to guns the same can be said for the first amendment. I doubt the founders could have imagined the porn, art, and other deviant shite around in today’s technology filled world.
It would be equivalent to a 5” gun mounted on most modern day destroyers. So the argument that the founding fathers couldn’t foresee the type of weapons we have today can be put in perspective that the citizens had military grade firearms at the time is ludicrous.
LINK
Also if the argument for taking away modern Day guns because the founders couldn’t imagine current modern technology in regards to guns the same can be said for the first amendment. I doubt the founders could have imagined the porn, art, and other deviant shite around in today’s technology filled world.
This post was edited on 2/25/18 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 2/25/18 at 6:40 pm to rebeloke
I like to pretend I’m Rambo. Not Sylvester Stallone Rambo. Baton Rouge Rambeezy style Rambo, but less dead. Did that make sense?
Posted on 2/25/18 at 9:00 pm to lsufan1971
I fear the power grid going out. In 3 days the country is returned to the Stone Ages. I fear having to defend myself from a large mob armed from any hardware store or Walmart sporting goods store. They will have hunting rifles and shotguns. I just justified owning heavy equipment and high functioning light arms, if we could form a militia that would be great. I just justified using any type of military armaments that I can afford.
Posted on 2/25/18 at 9:44 pm to rebeloke
quote:Yet "you call it" "military grade" or "tatical weaponry"?
I don’t care what you call it
Perhaps you've provided a clarification of such terms, with specific delineation as to which handguns, rifles, or knives they would involve.
If you have, I've missed it.
Until you create some reasonable differentiation i.e., muzzle velocity, speed of semiautomatic action, etc., it's hard for me to see where a demarkation could occur.
This post was edited on 2/25/18 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 2/25/18 at 10:41 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The only thing I've learned about military grade is that it's shitty and cheap. Oh and it always breaks when you actually go to use it. Some people think that's a compliment I guess.
Posted on 2/25/18 at 10:53 pm to ctalati32
quote:
So you'd be ok if a private citizen owned a tank or fighter jets if they could personally afford it? Otherwise you are limiting our constitutional right to bear arms
They already do...
Posted on 2/26/18 at 12:55 am to NC_Tigah
You missed the point. The type of weapon is totally nebulous. So the type isn’t the issue. The liberals want to take away all guns. But you need to justify why you need guns. So I can justify owning any grade weapon because I have a lawful intent.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:16 am to Capital Cajun
quote:
I have a Colt revolver that in 1942 was used by military, is that military grade? What about police grade? Is that OK?
Off topic
I have an M1917 as well. Mine was used in the western front in WW1. Beautiful shooting revolver. I just had El Paso Saddlery make a replica of the original issued holster.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:21 am to TheGooner
Very nice 
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:23 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
If as little as 20% of the US population revolted against the government, there would be almost no chance that the US military could over come them.
Not to mention- if we're talking about conservatives revolting against a tyrannical government then a good portion of the military would be joining them.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Hell, if the top 20% just stopped paying taxes, the government would be broke in a couple of weeks.
If as little as 20% of the US population revolted against the government, there would be almost no chance that the US military could over come them.
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:28 am to SabiDojo
quote:I'm going to take this as sarcasm.
NO ONE should be able to own a fully semiautomatic weapon
Posted on 2/26/18 at 1:50 am to mtntiger
quote:
Nowhere in that amendment is the word "gun" used. Instead, the 2nd Amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed."
Arms can be ANYTHING used for a defensive or offensive purpose.
Actually the term "to bear arms" means anything you can carry. Maybe you shouldn't be such a smartass until you actually learn the 2nd Amendment instead of regurgitating other's arguments. Dick.
The best part is the 7 upvotes from people just as clueless about uhhhh MUHHHH 2nd Amendment as you.
This post was edited on 2/26/18 at 1:53 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News