|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942
Campfire Sage
|
OP
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942 |
You can argue about the usefulness of AR's all day long, but that's not the point. Of course they're useful. They want to disarm America and AR's are the canary in the coal mine for gun owners. Agreed. But my point is that the left hasn't even passed the hurdle of having a logically consistent position. For those of us who stand on our rights, this is not an issue. For the rest of America, or at least those on the fence, (who have the power to deny us our rightful liberties through the political process), it is. Thus the need also to demonstrate the defect in their usefulness argument.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942
Campfire Sage
|
OP
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942 |
whenever there is a mass shooting people lose their minds
and its become a vicious circle. AR-15 is now synonymous with mass shootings and so if some whacko wants to shoot up a place, that's going to be gun of choice
but there is no correlation in banning a specific type of gun and eliminating mass shootings.
Seldom if ever, does someone intent on executing a mass shooting go to the scene with a single weapon, nor do they arrive with just the standard capacity of the weapon.
If the AR-15 is banned, we'll just have mass shootings of people using semi-auto handguns with hi cap magazines, they'll bring 5 of them to site with 20 clips.
This is why I'm lost on the logic. What about the Paris terrorist attack? In France, military style firearms are completely prohibited to the general public, yet these folks had AK-47s. Disarming the civilian population is senseless since terrorists will be supplied with whatever personal arms they need. This is a Muslim Terrorism issue, not a gun control issue.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942
Campfire Sage
|
OP
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 130,942 |
This is simple, unless you simply deny the 2nd amendment is valid. The right to keep and bear ARMS - not any specific arms - shall not be infringed. That's it. Clear. Yep, to you and me. There are folks on the fence, though, who aren't libertarian on this issue, and who don't have any interest in owning such firearms. These folks don't much care about the libertarian argument. These folks need to hear why the utilitarian arguments of the left also are false.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,125
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,125 |
You can argue about the usefulness of AR's all day long, but that's not the point. Of course they're useful. They want to disarm America and AR's are the canary in the coal mine for gun owners. Agreed. But my point is that the left hasn't even passed the hurdle of having a logically consistent position. For those of us who stand on our rights, this is not an issue. For the rest of America, or at least those on the fence, (who have the power to deny us our rightful liberties through the political process), it is. Thus the need also to demonstrate the defect in their usefulness argument. I'm afraid debating the usefulness of any given arm in and of itself is a losing battle. Would you like them to be debating the usefulness of a Remington 760, or A Winchester 71, or a Colt Python? You'll lose them all with that approach. It's about defending ourselves from tyrannical govt. That's the argument that will win, when enough people see it.
_______________________________________________________ An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
LOL
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,912
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,912 |
Exactly,and that time seems to fast approaching. Look around the world every country were these people have managed to get their way is now or is fast becoming a third world [bleep]. If and when they start taking any weapon of any sort from civilians, the time for talking will have passed.
There are no problems that cannot be resolved by the suitable application of high explosive.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,886 |
There isn't much need for discussing this with the left for they are comfortable with their ignorance. Couple of minor (?) points nonetheless.
1) The phrase "shall not be infringed" is perhaps the strongest legal language found in the Constitution. The verbiage brooks no obstruction or manipulation. One either believes in the Constitution or not. Many have taken an oath to uphold and defend the document and it is arguable that failure to do so is grounds for impeachment if the party works for the people as a civilian official, and courts marshal if in the military.
2) If one is familiar with writings of the Founders, notably Jefferson and Adams, awareness of their mindset is such that any reader would know the 2d Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement or being part of the "militia". It's purpose in the Constitution is solely and to purposefully allow The People to resist and repulse tyranny.
It is my line in the sand. Unlike recent Presidents, I'm serious about lines in the sand and I suspect there are millions more with similar sentiments.
Phuoc 'em. With malice and forethought.
D
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303 |
When the Democrats start calling for taking them away from civilian police, we'll talk. NO. We will not even talk then.... We'll talk, and explain the reasons cops and non-cops need ARs in a civilian context for the same reasons. Talk doesn't mean compromise. The first hurdle to even that, however, is for your opponent to be consistent in their views. Till then, there's no point in talking, even to explain their errors. "WE ?" Don't you DARE presume to speak for me, or my peers, you interminably mouthy, and incredibly screwed up POS.
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,166
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,166 |
Black market AKs are pretty cheap.
Its all right to be white!! Stupidity left unattended will run rampant Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,595
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,595 |
Why are so many civilian police departments armed with them? Clearly they believe that they are not strictly useful "on the battlefield." When the Democrats start calling for taking them away from civilian police, we'll talk. The country was founded because civilian owned weapons enabled the defeat of Tyrant King George. The second amendment gives the citizens the right to keep and bear roughly the same weapons as that used by modern infantrymen. This allows citizens to protect their liberty from future tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Obama and Hillary.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,942
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,942 |
They don't want to accept that...."a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state",.... means a citizenry with the necessary arms and equipment to overthrow a out of control government.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,635
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,635 |
As for the North Hollywood bank robbery fiasco....one old geezer with his well worn deer rifle could have solved that issue quickly!! Those perps walked around like they were just taking a quiet stroll down 5th Avenue! ONE...well aimed shot...at the end! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc
Last edited by Sharpsman; 06/20/16.
Even birds know not to land downwind!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610 |
Why are so many civilian police departments armed with them? Clearly they believe that they are not strictly useful "on the battlefield." When the Democrats start calling for taking them away from civilian police, we'll talk. Depends on the definition of battlefield and who the enemy is.
"Hey jackass, get your government off my freedom." MOLON LABE
|
|
|
722 members (117LBS, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 01Foreman400, 10Glocks, 77 invisible),
2,685
guests, and
1,309
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,187,683
Posts18,399,735
Members73,820
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|