This is an admission on your part, you want limits on 2A. That civilians should not own bombs, claymores, grenades, etc? It appears to be.
Meaning that it is not actually possible for yourself to explain the rambling, incoherent nonsense that is being presented on the part of yourself.
Then explain the matter so everyone present may have an understanding of the subject. How would the use of fully-automatic firearms serve to make mass shootings worse than when semi-automatic firearms are used instead?
Meaning, if you don’t know that a full automatic is more lethal then a comparable semi automatic and you need that explained to you...... is no indication of You being a gun guru.....indiscriminate and repetitious use of person pronouns aside.
The above assumption is factually incorrect. No such statement has been made, nor even an allusion to such.
There is absolutely no difference in terms of lethality between a fully-automatic firearm, and a semi-automatic firearm. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate not only utter foolishness, but a complete lack of understanding of basic mechanics and physics. Off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Seriously, look up the meaning of “ lethality” before you pretend you know anything about......literally, anything on this topic. This is a statement even the NRA would not make in public.
Really. You've been arguing against private ownership, or for unimpeded ownership of bombs, claymores, grenades, and other militia arms. Are you saying all citizens should be able to own, without infringement, any arms a militia has? Because all your posts suggest otherwise.
Go back to those providing the pre-approved talking points, and inform them that they need to do a better job at providing clarity as to exactly what is supposed to be said.
The matter has indeed been well researched. Such is ultimately why the statement can be made in the first place. Fully-automatic firearms are no more dangerous or lethal than semi-automatic firearms. The fully-automatic M16 rifle utilized by the united states military, poses no more danger or risk of harm to the public than a semi-automatic AR-15. What the NRA would or would not do is of no relevance to the discussion at hand, as it does not change basic facts.
If the arms in question are appropriate for use by the military and law enforcement for protecting the public of the united states from harm, there is no legitimate reason to argue the same arms are not appropriate for ownership by the same united states public they are supposed to be protecting.
Sure, if you had any reliable evidence from anyone but an nra lackey, you’d include it. Fake news people are Loaded with.....” the matter has been well researched”....followed by, blank, nothing. Tell Mr. X, , which is more lethal, getting hit by one round in .5 seconds, or three ? It’s absolutely laughable. Maybe we should just do away with all machine guns in the military. Maybe even, rock throwing could replace the cannons on fighter jets...any-other suggestions Mr. Totally uninformed ? Ha ha...oh, it goes along with other ridiculous line like, Climate change and the Virus are all hoaxes . https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nazi-germanys-5-most-lethal-weapons-war-19575 Machine guns are up there with tanks in lethality during war
These guys live in an alternate universe. Either that, or they just totally discard the English language.
Of course they are. Else the military would not have them in their arsenal. But we have infringements on owning full auto rifles, claymore mines, hand grenades, bombs, etc. Many of our 2A rights are being infringed upon.
That poster now says, anything a militia has, a civilian can have. Per 2A, that's how I see it also. But we aren't allowed all those same arms without infringements.
After active duty I spent ten years in a Guard Unit . The public would crap in their pants if they thought any of these “guns at all cost” jokers had access to the weapons we did. Guard [ militia Units ) work because they are held to the same UCMJ standards as regulars in their use of force. Free range gun crazed delusionals have no idea. .
If these guys want to play soldier, let them enlist. Otherwise, they’re just beating their uninformed gums.
13 yrs ARNG myself. Had to opportunity to shoot LAW, 50 Cal, Grenade launchers, etc. Never a flame thrower though. Can't imagine civilians being able to own all those without some sort of infringements.
I don’t call myself an Guru of anything. I have opinions and observations based on my experience in a number of arenas, that others either find useful or they don’t. Each has the right to evaluate and and consider if what I share works for them or to challenge my opinions and if challenging them, we can go from there. What I don’t do is blindly regurgitate the mantras of ideological dogma. Often, there is more to learn from discussion of opposing opinions or challenging questions that following my, or, anybody’s opinion blindly. As to Irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? I wasn’t responding to you. Did you just decide you wanted to interject to launch a left hand insult? A claim was made and I was responding to it and posing a question directed to address what I suspect is not only an erroneous perception, but how it would apply to your attempt to make a case that the 2A doesn’t prohibit gun regulations. Hmm. Like the dog that is running so fast, it’s head out distances it’s legs, and it falls face first.
I was on the other end. When not driving a military ambulance, I worked in the OR helping make whole, service men wounded by all sorts weapons of war. My experience there and as a cop later, made me a long time Gun control advocate. I believe in self defense and at the right time, places and types, firearms are an effective tool. But, like all deadly products, they need to be highly regulated.
You are predictable in a humorous sort of why. There are a lot of laws and regulations that are on the books today, at the local, state and Federal level that likely couldn’t withstand a SCOTUS review; I can think of a dozen off the top of my head. That they exist doesn’t mean they are either Constitutional or effective in their purported intent, if they were, there’d be little purpose for the Judicial Branch.
Yawn. Sure, you can think of a dozen fabrications but you can’t state them. . There are no rulings that don’t support gun regulation, including Heller. It’s laughable, a guy needs to register his gun just to carry it in his own home. Delusion reached a new level when you declared that a victory agaisnt regulation. That means, any. other state can do the same....
