Everyone should do the right thing and purchase a nice AR-15 or AK-47 (Romanian made) rifle... There inexpensive and the best investment you can make these trouble dangerous times. If that sort of firearm is not your fit due to size.....A nice 9mm caliber handgun must become part of your lifestyle. Something smaller...Go with a .380 caliber handgun or a simple Revolver. A Nationwide Social Breakdown is in the comeing....When?....But be prepared, and not sorry.
Hunting rifle GOOD... Assault rifle BAD... Because it's always better to get shot with the bullet on the left than the bullet on the right.
Yeah, you figure my .300Winmag is about four times more powerful than my "assault weapons". Ironic part is, its not legal to hunt anything larger than coyotes with my AR-15's. Not even deer. Yet they are considered to be high powered "assault weapons" have have no use in civilian hands...... hmmmm......
Really?.....Because a lot of Anti-Gun folk believe getting whacked solid a few times in the head with a Tire Iron, is safer and less violent.
I have to disagree with your usage of that particular analogy. The King was the one who was obsessed with outward appearance. The child was the one who called him out for what he really was. If you were to apply the analogy here, those looking only at the outward appearance of the rifle and adding useless titles such as "assault weapon" are like the king and his followers saying "what a fantastic outfit the king is wearing". On the other hand, those who are looking at the actual functionality of the rifle and are not 'dressing it up', so to speak, are like the child.
What a clever counterargument. I'll give you credit for that. Good job. I would argue that my use of the analogy was accurate. I am looking at a weapon that is designed to look like a military weapon and calling it what it clearly is designed to look like and accurately calling it an "assault weapon". Many gun owners, however prefer to avoid this simple reality and ignore the appearance of the gun in question and call it something else. This avoidance of a clear and obvious reality dovetails nicely with the story of the King's Clothes. You see, it's not the logical observers, such as myself that are "dressing it up" as you said because the gun manufacturers have already done that when they made the guns to resemble military weapons. We're just calling them what they're been designed to be. Any avoidance of this reality is, in effect agreeing with the King that his clothes are beautiful.
we have a bill of rights no suggestions or needs. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (Pitt the Younger) "They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin "With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." - William Lloyd Garrison "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged "You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - Michael Shirley
your wasting your time with this LEFTEST SOCIALIST who hates Freedom and Backs RACIST Gun Control and bows to big gov and sharia law
People like Danct enjoy annoying decent law obiding people that own guns. And it's safe through internet cybor space. Because they know they can get away with doing it. People like Danct being annoying, will one day confront a person, who is not law obiding. In person.....Live. NICE
Does it matter what it is really called or what anyone chooses to label it? Is an argument of semantics addressing the real issue?
More predictable inanity from you, eh? Once again, we see you post an irrelevant retort. There was NOTHING in this discussion about "rights", friend. It has been about what these weapons are called. It's only a shame that I would have to bring this to your attention. P.S. From the Heller Opinion, the majority ruled this: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ............ We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. .......... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. " Now post something irrelevant to this. That would be cool.
Now you're resorting to threats, eh? With a gun, no less? Perhaps you've run out of insults and trolling cliche's. Pity. Wouldn't it just be easier to engage in an honest discussion? You know, like actually answering posts directed to you like this one, and this one? These were never responded to by yourself. Why?
At the risk of digressing, I am curious about your understanding of this part of the ruling. At the time muskets were the "cutting edge" weapons of the day and very much so, the weapons used to wage war. (I am purposely excluding cannons here) and in the context of this discussion, muskets were as much an assault weapon as any today. In light of that, what makes today, in the same context, a "dangerous or unusual" weapon?
Well, my opinion of the majority's meaning and my opinion as to the Framer's intent might be somewhat different, but I'll address the Court's meaning. As you know, the reference to "common use" in 'Heller' was actually a repetition of a prior ruling by a previous Court in 'Miller'. Our current Court chose to honor that part of that ruling. An important qualifier, I believe is that they specifically stated; "that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. In his Opinion, Scalia wrote: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right"[emphasis mine] In other words, they didn't put much stock in the prefatory clause (militia) and wanted to set the bar at a limitable level.
More lies the 2nd Amendment is absolute but why don't you Come and Disarm Americans and start with Texas Americans DARE you
She is not threatening anyone unlike you and your TRAITOR God Odumbo the clown. Why are Liberal Males threatened with Strong Women Like Muslim Males are?
Where? Are you calling Justice Scalia a liar? Or maybe that you aren't the one who brought "rights" into this conversation? Accusations of "lies" are usually accompanied by quotes and proof by honorable debaters. I've noticed that the ones who most freely make the charge with no proof are the ones who seem to lie the most themselves......Just sayin'. I see. We should just take your assertion at face value and ignore the documented proof that I provided you. Something for you to think about: Is our First Amendment Right an "absolute" Right? I won't hold my breath, waiting for an answer to that one. How predictable you are. Where did I say ANYTHING about "disarming" anyone? Show it. Stop trolling and be relevant to the conversation, friend.
