New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

Originally Posted by evolved

Fair enough, agree to disagree.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think that health care is a right.

I wasn't referring to you, but there are guys on this board that feel that way and feel that people don't have a right to guns. It is retarded logic.

Originally Posted by JonJon

DC vs Heller

Individual right not militia
-and-
"Well regulated" is not referencing or applied to "guns"

I agree with the Heller decision. I'd still argue that the current state of individual ownership requires a liberal reading of 2A.

Originally Posted by dwass325

I agree with the Heller decision. I'd still argue that the current state of individual ownership requires a liberal reading of 2A.

"shall" is one of the strongest words used in law, if not the strongest.

Originally Posted by Act of God

The decision in Roe v. Wade was a bit of a stretch legally, that's why liberals are so scared of it being overturned. I support abortion 100% and do not think enough people have abortions...but I am an attorney and I know questionable decisions when I see them, even if I agree with the result.

You should try thinking for once in stead of emotional (over) reacting.

Do you even know what well-regulated means in the context of the second amendment? I bet soup to nuts you're clueless.

Interesting. One little poke of the hornets nest and you start calling strangers clueless.

As for militias in the context of 2A, which part would you like to discuss? How much the idealistic system failed? The part where there was compulsory service that most ignored? The part where courts have wrangled for ages on the individual vs collective views?

Originally Posted by Act of God

"shall" is one of the strongest words used in law, if not the strongest.

Is your argument, then, that the first half should be ignored? That its superfluous?

How do you think it should be interpreted in modern times when the only militias we have are generally viewed as crazy people in the woods that will not be called on in emergency?

Originally Posted by dwass325

I agree with the Heller decision. I'd still argue that the current state of individual ownership requires a liberal reading of 2A.

When the framers drafted it, civilians had the same arms as the military.
Present day, I see NO problem with civilians having access to fully automatic weapons. We do, but they are TAXED and do to regulation very EXPENSIVE
Do you know how many people have been killed outside of war with automatic weapons?

Semiautomatic weapons? Again, not even close to a problem. Hand/Feet/Fists kill more people every year than ALL rifles and shotguns COMBINED.

If you take emotion out of this and use pure logic... ITS RETARDED

Originally Posted by dwass325

Is your argument, then, that the first half should be ignored? That its superfluous?

How do you think it should be interpreted in modern times when the only militias we have are generally viewed as crazy people in the woods that will not be called on in emergency?

what do you think the national guard is, if not a militia composed of citizens who serve a part time military duty?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

what do you think the national guard is, if not a militia composed of citizens who serve a part time military duty?

So where does that leave those of us who own guns and are not in the national guard, considering that there were compulsory service laws for men 18-45?

Originally Posted by JonJon

When the framers drafted it, civilians had the same arms as the military.
Present day, I see NO problem with civilians having access to fully automatic weapons. We do, but they are TAXED and do to regulation very EXPENSIVE
Do you know how many people have been killed outside of war with automatic weapons?

Semiautomatic weapons? Again, not even close to a problem. Hand/Feet/Fists kill more people every year than ALL rifles and shotguns COMBINED.

If you take emotion out of this and use pure logic... ITS RETARDED

I don't disagree with you at all. I am firmly of the opinion that we should reference the facts on these types of issues (which is why people who are up in arms about texting and driving are misguided).

The discussion came out of legal decisions based on the letter of 2A.

Even though I support status quo gun ownership, it doesn't mean I can't recognize (or opine) that it requires a very liberal interpretation of 2A.

Originally Posted by dwass325

So where does that leave those of us who own guns and are not in the national guard, considering that there were compulsory service laws for men 18-45?

you can still be called into compulsory service. Have you registered for the draft.

But the second amendment requires no militia service in order to bear arms.

I would like to add that I am sick of people posting on facebook about automatic weapons, like people just have those sitting around. Ignorant libtards ranting and repeating things is one of the hardest things to deal with in a civil manner.

it just goes to show you that people are stupid and will believe anything that they hear on tv

Originally Posted by Sentaruu

it just goes to show you that people are stupid and will believe anything that they hear on tv

I explained that automatic weapons are now already illegal and his response was "riiiiiight"

Originally Posted by Act of God

I would like to add that I am sick of people posting on facebook about automatic weapons, like people just have those sitting around. Ignorant libtards ranting and repeating things is one of the hardest things to deal with in a civil manner.

I get similarly aggravated when people post equally ignorant/clueless statements about abortions, gays, taxes, etc.


Got an abortion? You must be a slvt.

You're gay? You're immoral going to hell.

Hates the 47%. On welfare/food stamps.


Idiots come in all shapes, sizes and colors.

Originally Posted by Act of God

I explained that automatic weapons are now already illegal and his response was "riiiiiight"

Automatic weapons aren't illegal, though.

Originally Posted by evolved

Automatic weapons aren't illegal, though.

You cannot go to the store and purchase a new automatic rifle

Originally Posted by Act of God

You cannot go to the store and purchase a new automatic rifle

No, but you can purchase a used one with the proper paperwork. Like I said, automatic weapons are not illegal to own.

It would be great if the people who are publicizing information and passing judgment or laws on certain topics were required to be educated and experienced with the topics at hand. Even if they would just Google or wikapedia something before spewing ignorant emotional catch phrases it would be leaps and bounds above what is happening now.

sent from my ATARI sc1224

Originally Posted by evolved

No, but you can purchase a used one with the proper paperwork. Like I said, automatic weapons are not illegal to own.

Yes, understood...but said person was acting like the NRA is trying to assure that you can go to wal mart and buy an AK47 tomorrow

Originally Posted by HiHoBrian

It would be great if the people who are publicizing information and passing judgment or laws on certain topics were required to be educated and experienced with the topics at hand. Even if they would just Google or wikapedia something before spewing ignorant emotional catch phrases it would be leaps and bounds above what is happening now.

sent from my ATARI sc1224

Very true. I've been amazed at how many people don't know what "semi-automatic" actually means.