"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

You keep making this same invalid argument. What you or anyone else thinks I “need” is irrelevant to my right to own it.

 

Are you aware of the origin of the second amendment? It comes from the English Bill of rights, which gave the right to Defend ones self with arms. Nothing more nothing less.

Behold the original right to arms

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

It is not a right to have any gun you wish just because it shoots bullets. It is self defense nothing more nothing less.

 

That'll show all the criminals trying to buy their guns at gun stores.

 

Yeah I remember Iraq saying the same thing.

 

Are you saying Virginia should secede from the U.S. because a few extremist gun owners feel angry over new gun laws that would affect a small portion of the VA population?

 

Did I say that?

 

Did I say anything about our Revolutionary War or the reasons it happened?

 

Nope. But you did make a statement that counters the very reason that America exists.

 

What is not understood on the part of yourself is that the AR-15 of today and for sale to the general public, is not the same thing as the M16 rifle, or even the Armalite AR-15 prototype. It is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle, absolutely no different than any other semi-automatic rifle currently on the private market.

It is not a military firearm, nor can it be considered one as it is not built to their specifications. The AR-15 rifle was marketed from its very outset as a civilian sporting rifle. Even the united states federal government admitted to such.

The Colt manufacturing company is indeed still producing such rifles, and still offering them to sale to the general public.

https://www.colt.com/department/rifles

How would it not violate the second amendment? Explain such. The united state supreme court held in Heller the second amendment extended to all implements that constituted bearable arms.

The current round of proposed legislation, including confiscation, suggests otherwise.

If these firearms are not suitable for private citizens to use for their own purposes, then why are they suitable for law enforcement purposes? What possible reason could law enforcement officers have for needing the ability to kill as many individuals as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible?

 

Is the united states located in the nation of England? If not then the above is meaningless and irrelevant.

The united state supreme court has ruled, in absolute terms, the second amendment pertains to the ownership and use of firearms for all legitimate purposes, even if said purpose is not personal defense.

 

british bill of rights is irrelevant. the plain language of the amendment is all that matters.

irrelevant to US law.

In Britain, I agree. However we don't live in Britain. The right in the US is not limited to self defense.

 

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not citizens) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." At the time of the second amendment the necessity of caring arms was to defend against the native tribes, european powers, and the federal government. If they wanted it to be a right to own weapons for the citizens, they would have made it clear by saying citizens.

other then the fact that US law is based off of common law

For now until the political make up of the court switches.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

All of which holds absolutely no bearing to the law of the united states.

And currently, in the nation of England and elsewhere, common law holds that the citizens may not legally use force to defend themselves that may cause harm or injury to their assailants.

Which will take decades to come to pass, unless there is a coup attempt to immediately shift the current makeup of the united state supreme court by killing specific justices.

 

Or stacking the courts. Which after Mitch's games would be justified.

 

they did say citizens. who do you think the "people" are?

US law is based off the constitution.

the makeup of the court is irrelevant. the issue has already been ruled on. you need an amendment to change it

 

True, semi-automatic rifles have been around for 100 years.

 

Winning an election does not mean that winner gets to eliminate or pervert constitutional protections

 

Then we should have the right to defend our self with the same equipment from which we will have to defend from.

 

From whom do you need more than a handgun?

 

If the pro gun people are complaining about this rather weak gun control they should put in place the assault weapons ban. If they want to complain give them something to complain about.

 

I need the right to bear arms and fight back against my government if the need arises. Along with all other Americans.

"Assault" weapons cause such a low percentage of crimes. There is no reason to ban them or any other gun for that matter under constitutional law.

 

Your perception of need has no bearing on the firearms I have a right to own and use.

 

.You have no idea what this means,

 

Where does the united states constitution specify "need" as a requirement for individuals to be able to freely exercise their constitutional rights?