Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

"Name an army" is not an argument.

It simply won't be considered.

 

Since no army uses the AR or AK as configured for the civilian market then none of them are 'weapons of war'. Pretty simple,

 

Those laws would be illegal.

 

I wouldn't know why. Can you site the passage in the constitution covering this?

 

I already responded to this in post 522.

 

Which of course is false. The civilian rifle does not function like the M16 or military AK since the civilian AR and AK are semi-auto only. They shoot bullets one pull of the trigger like all semi-auto rifles and pistols. These civilian rifles are subject to 'common use' standards and fit within that category. They also function the same as all 'common use' semi-auto rifles.

What the gun grabbers want to do is pick and choose among the 'common use' rifles to subject manufacturers and owners to arbitrary rules. Right now not even machine guns are banned but the gun grabbers want to ban the most popular rifle in use in the US, the AR-15.

There is a reason none of the gun grabbers can provide a definition of 'assault weapon' since any description would be arbitrary and penalize only manufacturers and law abiding citizens to quell the gun grabbers 'feelings' and will do nothing to stop any crime.

 

Such civilian rifles are still able to function like a military one, since the military all over the globe are being trained to also shoot with semi in times of war. There is nothing false about it.

 

nonsense.

military uses full auto rifles

 

This is about what civilians are able to do. And they are able to use that weapon as a semi.
Soldiers are still trained to use that weapon as a semi. Nothing lied about it.
That soldiers also are trained to use full auto, shoot with tanks, toss bombs with drones is irrelevant.

 

You’ve been given them already. You have no idea how firearms operate. Your claims that the AR and AK are weapons of war or military weapons are demonstrably false.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty cut and dry. They were not talking about hunting rabbits in case you were confused. They said it was necessary for the security of a FREE state. You take firepower away from the citizens, and those freedoms go bye bye. Even in western nations like the UK, they do not have complete freedom of speech or expression, and their government has little to fear if they want to put stricter limitations in place.

 

I dont see a thing about semi automatic in here.

The citizens already lack the firepower against a government that can just drop a bomb on you from a stealth bomber. So this argument that a semi is needed for this purpose is total bs.

 

Soldiers also carry knives, pistols, and water. ‘Assault water’. LOL

Sorry you think two separate things are the same. Your mental gymnastics must be exhausting.

 

yes... and they also wear clothes.

The point is that civilians are raging their wars with assault weapons in the US, not water.

 

Exactly, it isn’t mentioned. So leave it the hell alone. The vast majority of firearms are semi automatic. There is no way they are being banned.

You seriously believe a US Air Force bomber pilot is going to drop bombs on a us town? Hell, most of the military would likely quit or turn on the government. The military are among the most rabid gun rights activists I know, and I know a ton of them.

Basically my entire military career was spent doing counter insurgency work, as has been the experience of the vast majority of veterans. A grass roots uprising would topple the government for sure. It wouldn’t stand a chance in hell.

 

So we can take them weapons away from those civilians, by law... perfectly fine.

That's not the point.

 

Define ‘assault weapon’.

 

How the hell do you figure that? Shall not be infringed means leave guns the **** alone.

As far as the bombers, then what is your point?

 

I'm not your Siri to be questioned around.

 

Because you don’t have a clue.

 

Because it's not in the constitution, where we already banned full auto. Might as well add semi auto.

Look... if you're going to barge into a conversation, than at least read back to what I'm replying to, to figure out the point.

 

I'm not here to be interrogated. If posters are unable to make an argument than it's their own problem. And apparently they don't have a clue, otherwise they don't need my help. Their loss, not mine.

 

And you’ve been shown that your assertion is complete bullshit.

 

The banning of full auto is also unconstitutional. Full auto is very impractical, only good for suppression though, so not many complain.

I did read back, and you don’t have a point.

 

Nope, as the Supreme Court told you. Can’t ban an entire class of firearms.