[Hermen_eutics]

Originally Posted by toothless gumflapper

I do.

Also...Assault rifles=scary looking rifles according to clueless liberals.

My scary AR15 (AR is short for Armalite Rifle, the original producer of the civilian AR15, not Assault Rifle as the ignorant fucks say) is nothing compared to my hunting rifles. The AR is a tiny bullet with only 55 grains of powder behind it. The rifle I use for hunting is much more powerful. If I handed a civilian AR to a Marine going to Afghanistan...he would say..YOURE DUMB AS FUCK!

[vta]

Assault Weapons Preserve the Purpose of the Second Amendment
By David French


Alec Murrary holds an AR-15 assault rifle at the Ringmasters of Utah gun range, in Springville, Utah (George Frey/Reuters)

Banning them would gut the concept of an armed citizenry as a final, emergency bulwark against tyranny.

Arguments about guns tend to suffer from two distinct problems. The first — and most obvious — is they quickly get screechy. The arguments devolve into shouting matches and temper tantrums. The goal isn’t to persuade but to mock and bully, as if stigma alone can decisively shift the public debate. The second problem occurs when the debate gets too wonky. Charts and graphs fly across Twitter, as if fundamental questions about liberty and American society can be answered by the right kind of cross-country comparison with Australia, Great Britain, or Switzerland.

When facing the big questions about guns — such as whether America should “ban” an entire category of weapons (such as “assault weapons”) — it’s better, I think, to go back to the first principles embodied in the Second Amendment. At its core, the Amendment protects a person’s individual inherent right of self-defense and empowers the collective obligation to defend liberty against state tyranny. As Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller, this concept was fully embedded in the founding generation:

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.

Any given gun-control measure must be evaluated against the background of those twin purposes. That’s one reason why statements such as “The Second Amendment was only designed to protect muskets” are so ridiculous. Imagine trying to defend your family with a flintlock pistol. The right of self-defense is best understood as a right of effective self-defense, and the tools for effective self-defense will evolve right along with weapon design and development. Any other conclusion leads to absurd results. Consequently, as the Supreme Court held, the amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time.”

This means that if gun-control measures “freeze” the nature and types of guns that are lawful for civilian use, even as broader gun development proceeds apace, there will be an ever-widening gap between the capacity of a criminal to do harm and law-abiding citizens’ ability to protect themselves from that harm. It will also lead to such a yawning gap between citizen and state that private gun ownership no longer provides any meaningful deterrent to tyranny.

And this brings us to the two favorite targets of those who argue for so-called commonsense gun control — assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. While the term “assault weapon” is vague, we’ll define it as a semi-automatic rifle with cosmetic features similar to military weapons. They’re typically paired with high-capacity magazines. In fact, an “assault weapon” without a high-capacity magazine is little more than a menacing-looking hunting rifle.

There are millions of assault weapons in America. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the nation. There are tens of millions of high-capacity magazines, and they’re extraordinarily easy to make. Both are unquestionably in “common use.”

This means that the foreseeable criminal threat to you or your family comes from a person wielding — at the very least — a semiautomatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine. This is one reason that police typically don’t carry revolvers. Their own weapons of choice have evolved to deal with the threat, and — as my colleague Charlie Cooke is fond of noting — if a person doesn’t “need” a high-capacity magazine to defend himself, then why do the police use them?

If I use an AR-15 for home defense, then I possess firepower that matches or likely exceeds (given how rarely rifles are used in gun crimes) that of any likely home intruder. Limit the size of the magazine to, say, ten rounds, and you’ve placed the law-abiding homeowner at a disadvantage. Prohibit them from obtaining a compact, easy-to-use, highly accurate carbine, and you’ve ensured that homeowners will be defending themselves with less accurate weapons. The best weapons “in common use” would be reserved for criminals.

Moreover, an assault-weapon ban (along with a ban on high-capacity magazines) would gut the concept of an armed citizenry as a final, emergency bulwark against tyranny. No credible person doubts that the combination of a reliable semiautomatic rifle and a large-capacity magazine is far more potent than a revolver, bolt-action rifle, or pump-action shotgun. A free citizen armed with an assault rifle is more formidable than a free citizen armed only with a pistol. A population armed with assault rifles is more formidable than a population armed with less lethal weapons.

The argument is not that a collection of random citizens should be able to go head-to-head with the Third Cavalry Regiment. That’s absurd. Nor is the argument that citizens should possess weapons “in common use” in the military. Rather, for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.
Comments

I fully recognize that there are many millions of Americans who flatly disagree with the notion that armed citizens either can or should try to deter tyranny. Either their trust in the government is so complete (or their sense of futility in the face of its armed might so great) that they don’t believe private ownership of weapons is a meaningful check on lawless government action, or they believe that the cost of widespread civilian gun ownership is simply too high to pay in exchange for a theoretical check on state power. That’s a debate worth having — in the context of a long-term progressive effort to repeal the Second Amendment. But for now, the Founders have settled question.

As Justice Scalia ably articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment was designed to protect what Blackstone called “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” Without access to the weapons in common use in our time, the law-abiding citizen will grow increasingly — and intolerably — vulnerable to the lawless. Thus, to properly defend life and liberty, access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn’t a luxury; it’s a necessity.





In other words....FUCK YOU !

[vta]

Originally Posted by Hermen_eutics

View Image

Nice mate you got there...

[vta]

Originally Posted by Rubber Chicken

People who don't know the minor details about Rifle specification are ignorant but people who dance around behind the 2nd amendment as if it's some great scripture are really clued-up.... sheesh.

In other words...I don't know shit about what I'm talking about but you seem to know the laws...but still..you are wrong.

What a joke.

[vta]

Chicken....I would like to give a shout out to the best hard rock band out of your homeland. One of the BEST !
The quality of this video is amazing ! RIP Bon.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

[Rubber Chicken]

[Wendull C.]

Originally Posted by mean mr.mustard

Unless causes and effects are misconstrued by another narrow-minded individual.

Narrow minded? Deranged? Probably worse too. But I sincerely hope you have a good weekend with your family and friends mustard.

Even when disagreeing, you have been courteous to me. I thank you for that.

[Wendull C.]

If anyone is thinkin Im on new meds, its called a 28 year old chick and a new silver tequila called D. Reasonable price, plus my biker bros own the bar... good times equal good mood I guess.

[mean mr.mustard]

I'm simply stating that anyone can blame anything in their own head.

Being open minded and considering others' positions from our own is not the same thing as being narrow minded and judging others.

Everybody love everybody.

I have to go to work.

[St. Phatty]

The AR15 works SO MUCH BETTER with a 24 inch heavy barrel.

Shooting wise, noise wise & recoil wise.

The 3rd loudest firearm I've ever shared the range with was an AR15 with a 16 inch barrel and a muzzle brake that was very effective at sending sound sideways.

1st loudest, 30 cal Weatherby, next range over, separated by a berm about 15 feet high. Changing my targets, walking about 100 yards from the firing line. DAMN that was impressively loud, you almost need hearing protection even 100 yards way.

2nd loudest, 30 Win Mag, shooter was prone. Shooter was a retired Marine Sniper instructor, very helpful, answered a bunch of questions I had saved up. He was shooting on a concrete floor and the sound went sideways. DAMN, I wore my earmuffs and went and sat at the picnic bench and sorted ammo for a half hour.