• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?


  • Total voters
    69
That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.

Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
There are almost no firearms that are reasonable to limit. Explosives, bombs, artilery are different(and aren't firearms). The thing is all firearms do one thing, fire a basic projectile and where things change is the delivery mechanism and rate of fire. Muzzle loaders, semi/fully automatic, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all use the ignition of powder to launch either a ball bearing, bullet, or slug.

This being said you cannot declare one dangerous over another because of this due to ownership, same thing with speech, words themselves aren't banned but certain context/usage is, IOW "yelling fire" is legal when there is a fire, it's actually legal when there isn't a large crowd to panic, it is not legal when it can cause a large panic. You cannot say "let's hang all the (insert hated group here)" with the intention to start a riot or violent act but you may say it in a context such as a bad joke, or a passing thought, the call to action is the limit. Same thing with firearms, if I have an M249 LMG hanging around unloaded(or loaded) in my gun cabinet and secure it won't hurt anyone, the ownership doesn't equal criminal action/intent, if I fire it in my own cities borders though that is a different story it is obviously malicious because the amount of rounds and that large of a powder load guarantees collateral damage.
 
There are almost no firearms that are reasonable to limit. Explosives, bombs, artilery are different(and aren't firearms). The thing is all firearms do one thing, fire a basic projectile and where things change is the delivery mechanism and rate of fire. Muzzle loaders, semi/fully automatic, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all use the ignition of powder to launch either a ball bearing, bullet, or slug.

This being said you cannot declare one dangerous over another because of this due to ownership, same thing with speech, words themselves aren't banned but certain context/usage is, IOW "yelling fire" is legal when there is a fire, it's actually legal when there isn't a large crowd to panic, it is not legal when it can cause a large panic. You cannot say "let's hang all the (insert hated group here)" with the intention to start a riot or violent act but you may say it in a context such as a bad joke, or a passing thought, the call to action is the limit. Same thing with firearms, if I have an M249 LMG hanging around unloaded(or loaded) in my gun cabinet and secure it won't hurt anyone, the ownership doesn't equal criminal action/intent, if I fire it in my own cities borders though that is a different story it is obviously malicious because the amount of rounds and that large of a powder load guarantees collateral damage.

That is your opinion about how the Second amendment should be limited. It is just as valid as anyone else's opinion, of course, but that's all it is. There is nothing in the amendment than indicates just how it should be limited. The wording, in fact, is "shall not be infringed." If you take that literally, then there is no limit, which is something that no one today is willing to argue.
 
Three questions:

1. What reasons do you believe the founding fathers included the "Second Amendment"?

2. Exactly what do you believe to be "reasonably regulated" concerning the people's Second Amendment?

3. Who do you believe are affected most by those regulations, law abiding citizens or criminals and terrorists?

1. I think they included the 2nd for two reasons; state militias for insurrection, invasion, martial law and disaster control, which are basically the National Guard now. And so that our people did not feel the government had an absolute control through force and the right to defend their self, family and property. It goes towards allowing sovereign citizens of their states the rights and freedoms that go with a lawful nation.

2. Anything that is a combination of legislated laws and voted referendums towards governing and protecting the rights of individuals, whether to own firearms or be protected against the use of them.

3. Hopefully "criminals and terrorists" by a long shot though it is often argued and sometimes reasonably that by allowing no access to certain types of weapons (assault rifles) for certified, lawful registrants their rights are being violated. I tend to agree since the ban has affected the law abiding citizen more than the average hardened criminal.
 
1. I think they included the 2nd for two reasons; state militias for insurrection, invasion, martial law and disaster control, which are basically the National Guard now. And so that our people did not feel the government had an absolute control through force and the right to defend their self, family and property. It goes towards allowing sovereign citizens of their states the rights and freedoms that go with a lawful nation.
The national guard is a state militia, it's actually a branch of the army. The militia as the founders intended were all able bodied male citizens in good standing between the ages of 18-41.

2. Anything that is a combination of legislated laws and voted referendums towards governing and protecting the rights of individuals, whether to own firearms or be protected against the use of them.
Here's the thing, there are laws against using arms against others, these laws are assault, battery, negligent injury/homicide, and murder/attempted murder. Very few of the tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books are proper, however many of us on the pro side do agree with things like criminal/involuntary comission laws, concealed carry laws, etc.

3. Hopefully "criminals and terrorists" by a long shot though it is often argued and sometimes reasonably that by allowing no access to certain types of weapons (assault rifles) for certified, lawful registrants their rights are being violated. I tend to agree since the ban has affected the law abiding citizen more than the average hardened criminal.
Your typical criminal won't use an assault rifle, too bulky and hard to conceal, also too expensive to ditch. Terrorists on the other hand tend to have backers, but they aren't going to buy these guns from a legit source to begin with, too easy to trace.
 
That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.

Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.

The problem is that while few argue that argue that the right to keep and bear is absolute, although the 2nd is to me pretty clear, that is not true of the reverse. There are lots of groups and individuals that argue that all guns of any sort should be banned.

I am personally comfortable with the laws as they exist in Virginia at present as I can possess and carry at my discretion most firearms. The process to obtain CCW and purchase permits are a small inconvenience, and I have no problem demonstrating an ability to handle firearms safely. The one change I would make is to correct the problem of transporting a weapon through other states, even if you have carry permits. You cannot easily carry a sidearm across the country without violating the law somewhere.

Most anti gun groups will accept only total ban, and look at slight changes as incremental steps toward that goal.
 
The national guard is a state militia, it's actually a branch of the army. The militia as the founders intended were all able bodied male citizens in good standing between the ages of 18-41.

I know that's why I said the old militias were now the Natl Guard. Same thing is it not?

Here's the thing, there are laws against using arms against others, these laws are assault, battery, negligent injury/homicide, and murder/attempted murder. Very few of the tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books are proper, however many of us on the pro side do agree with things like criminal/involuntary comission laws, concealed carry laws, etc.

Good point that I think a lot of us "gun control advocates" miss. There are enough laws and probably too many regulations but I still hate what guns do to people. Though I actually find firearms fascinating because of my enjoyment of well made toys. People who target shoot, collect and hunt (not fond of) are the types I can associate with though I understand the need for equal protection against the lunatic fringe. I actually have a folding knife collection but I see them as tools, not weapons though a few in my collection are military and personal protection based.

View attachment 67121003

View attachment 67121004

Your typical criminal won't use an assault rifle, too bulky and hard to conceal, also too expensive to ditch. Terrorists on the other hand tend to have backers, but they aren't going to buy these guns from a legit source to begin with, too easy to trace.

Except in the North Hollywood incident, which I think they meant to really commit suicide and the old pump shotgun was a robber fav at one time. Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.

View attachment 67121005

Though I agree with this statement
Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
I believe in some limits in the way of access to proper citizens without criminal records or psychiatric problems.
 
Last edited:
That's the whole crux of the debate over second amendment rights. Nobody is arguing that the right to bear arms is absolute. The disagreement is over where the line should be drawn, and there is nothing in the amendment itself that says where it should be drawn.
Do you suppose "Shall Not Be Infringed" suggests the founding fathers possibly believed that limitations on personal firearms was not an option???__There were human neccessities other than hunting and self-defense that motivated them.

The Constitution indicates the founding fathers strongly believed that government was the #1 threat to freedom and foresaw the likelyhood that the people may someday find it neccessary to once again rebel against a goverment that has grown too large and intrusive.

Still, whenever there is any proposal to limit a type of firearm, it's always a violation of the second amendment, and anyone who is in favor of the limitation is anti second amendment.
There are powerful forces at work in the world whose agenda includes the total disarmament of all civilian populations which is supported by many elements of government and by many Americans as well who have been made to believe they will be safer without gun rights.

The United States is the last holdout__Could it be that those forces have resorted to a new strategy of pecking away at the Second Amendment untill it is no longer a threat to whatever plan they have for us?__Restricting types of guns__Types of ammunition__Magazine capacities, etc, etc, etc.

There are never-ending attempts by congress to enact new gun regulations and taxes and increases on existing taxes that will price firearms and ammunition out of reach of average americans__You must ask yourself "why is disarming the American population so important to the UN and the Progressive Movement that now controls the Democrat Party???"
 
I know that's why I said the old militias were now the Natl Guard. Same thing is it not?
No, the NG is actually a state run branch of the military, they train on the same weapons, usually a generation prior actually as the army. They may be called up by the president under certain circumstances as a branch of the military. As well they are subject to call ups during a time of war, the classic definition would be if we were to be conscripted into local defense under martial law if there were to be a military invasion on U.S. soil. In that sense we are the militia and are not as such required to drill or arm(though it is our right within limits). Any male 18-41 is subject to such a call, women, children, the infirm, or disabled are not required under the definition.



Good point that I think a lot of us "gun control advocates" miss. There are enough laws and probably too many regulations but I still hate what guns do to people. Though I actually find firearms fascinating because of my enjoyment of well made toys. People who target shoot, collect and hunt (not fond of) are the types I can associate with though I understand the need for equal protection against the lunatic fringe. I actually have a folding knife collection but I see them as tools, not weapons though a few in my collection are military and personal protection based.
You won't find most pro-second or many(I must qualify, there are crazies) firearms fanatics that enjoy the idea of ever having to injure or take a life, however if it's a choice of our own safety or that of our family(or innocent third party) then we are willing to use our best tools to increase our odds of stopping the threat. We are also firmly of the belief that those tools are protected and must be made available should we have the means to attain them.



Except in the North Hollywood incident, which I think they meant to really commit suicide and the old pump shotgun was a robber fav at one time. Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.
This is true, and a very rare exception. To me these guys were probably more tactically smart and realistically stupid, probably saw a few to many movies and thought they were at an advantage. They chose assault rifles and high density armor, but that only works to a certain extent and at some point you have to have an exit strategy(sorry for the cliche) and a means to throw off investigators(my criminal justice behavioral college credit is kicking in).. These guys basically planned to fail. Most of the thugs who get away with activity used a "junk gun" something filed, bought for the cheap street price, and dumped in a river/woods/etc.


Though I agree with this statement I believe in some limits in the way of access to proper citizens without criminal records or psychiatric problems.
There are possibly merited arguments, I would just have to see something and discuss it. I'm not saying no to all, but it's got to have a very strict scrutiny.
 
1. I think they included the 2nd for two reasons; state militias for insurrection, invasion, martial law and disaster control, which are basically the National Guard now. And so that our people did not feel the government had an absolute control through force and the right to defend their self, family and property. It goes towards allowing sovereign citizens of their states the rights and freedoms that go with a lawful nation.
You appear to have confused inalienable rights as being granted to people by government.

Remember, anything granted by government can be taken away by government__Inalienable is non-negotiable.

No lawful government would ever attempt to deprive or restrict an inalienable right__It would be a criminal offense.

Unalienable rights - encyclopedia article about Unalienable rights.

"The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property."

2. Anything that is a combination of legislated laws and voted referendums towards governing and protecting the rights of individuals, whether to own firearms or be protected against the use of them.
Owning a firearm is paramount when defending ones self and/or family against an armed criminal.

Unless of course you can afford to pay for private security or convince a cop to park outside your home.

3. Hopefully "criminals and terrorists" by a long shot though it is often argued and sometimes reasonably that by allowing no access to certain types of weapons (assault rifles) for certified, lawful registrants their rights are being violated. I tend to agree since the ban has affected the law abiding citizen more than the average hardened criminal.
The government will and has misclassified certain types of guns to include them in a "ban list"__The anti-Second Amendment lobbiest petition the government constantly to chip away at gun rights.

The banned "assault weapon" you referred to is not actually an assault weapon__Anyone who has been in the military knows a true assault weapon is a high powered magazine fed rifle with a selector switch to fire either semi or fully automatic__The gun control lobby has proved itself to be unqualified at making Second Amendment restrictions.
 
Ever see the Steve McQueen film "The Getaway"?
He buys a 12 gauge pump with double #00 buck, then blows a cop car down to the frame. After that he goes into a hotel and proceeds to cut a wall in half. Even cops carry the old riot gun.

67121005d1326220279-pro-2nd-amendment-500px-highstandardk120shotgun.jpg

Are you seriously citing an exaggerated Hollywood movie as an example of the sort of “damage” that this specific weapon is allegedly capable of causing? Do you really believe that because a Steve McQueen character was shown “blow[ing] a cop car down to the frame” and “cut[ting] a wall in half” with a shotgun that a real person can do these things in real life with a similar weapon?
 
You won't find most pro-second or many(I must qualify, there are crazies) firearms fanatics that enjoy the idea of ever having to injure or take a life, however if it's a choice of our own safety or that of our family(or innocent third party) then we are willing to use our best tools to increase our odds of stopping the threat. We are also firmly of the belief that those tools are protected and must be made available should we have the means to attain them.

Yeah, but if you could've taken an attacker out with less lethal force than with a gun you'll never know since you blew someone away out of fear. I'm not saying that using deadly force in the right scenario couldn't be warranted but I like to err in the direction of peace. It's kind of a spiritual thing with me where I'm not the one to really push into a corner but I'm not as deadly as a fearful person.


This is true, and a very rare exception. To me these guys were probably more tactically smart and realistically stupid, probably saw a few to many movies and thought they were at an advantage. They chose assault rifles and high density armor, but that only works to a certain extent and at some point you have to have an exit strategy(sorry for the cliche) and a means to throw off investigators(my criminal justice behavioral college credit is kicking in).. These guys basically planned to fail. Most of the thugs who get away with activity used a "junk gun" something filed, bought for the cheap street price, and dumped in a river/woods/etc.

These guys were gun literate but absolutely out of their minds. They planned to die because realistically there was no other option taking on law enforcement. They'll call on any reinforcements necessary to accomplish their goal.


There are possibly merited arguments, I would just have to see something and discuss it. I'm not saying no to all, but it's got to have a very strict scrutiny.

I'll agree with that, though everyone who seems to be for some regulations aren't necessarily against the 2nd, just some interpreting to what extent rights apply.
 
Are you seriously citing an exaggerated Hollywood movie as an example of the sort of “damage” that this specific weapon is allegedly capable of causing? Do you really believe that because a Steve McQueen character was shown “blow[ing] a cop car down to the frame” and “cut[ting] a wall in half” with a shotgun that a real person can do these things in real life with a similar weapon?

No, I'm actually not relating a Hollywood movie to the extent to what damage a particular weapon can accomplish. I'm going by the experience of someone who's used said weapon with the ammunition supplied and attested too me that the scenes were accurate in the amount of damage that shotgun can perform. I questioned the movie because I thought it was extreme but he said a 12 gauge with double #00 buck could literally almost cut a human in half. We're not talking about one shot but repeated blasts at the same area with enough lead (8.38 mm ball size) to equal several handguns shots in a small diameter.

Here's the shot pattern of 9 pellets with 2 missing of #00 buck at 15 yards, which gets a tighter pattern at shorter distances, especially those in the movie.

View attachment 67121012
 
Last edited:
You appear to have confused inalienable rights as being granted to people by government.

Remember, anything granted by government can be taken away by government__Inalienable is non-negotiable.

No lawful government would ever attempt to deprive or restrict an inalienable right__It would be a criminal offense.

Unalienable rights - encyclopedia article about Unalienable rights.

"The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property."

Owning a firearm is paramount when defending ones self and/or family against an armed criminal.

Unless of course you can afford to pay for private security or convince a cop to park outside your home.

The government will and has misclassified certain types of guns to include them in a "ban list"__The anti-Second Amendment lobbiest petition the government constantly to chip away at gun rights.

The banned "assault weapon" you referred to is not actually an assault weapon__Anyone who has been in the military knows a true assault weapon is a high powered magazine fed rifle with a selector switch to fire either semi or fully automatic__The gun control lobby has proved itself to be unqualified at making Second Amendment restrictions.

I haven't confused anything. I'll let your fan club speak for me.
 
Yeah, but if you could've taken an attacker out with less lethal force than with a gun you'll never know since you blew someone away out of fear. I'm not saying that using deadly force in the right scenario couldn't be warranted but I like to err in the direction of peace. It's kind of a spiritual thing with me where I'm not the one to really push into a corner but I'm not as deadly as a fearful person.
It all comes down to situational awareness and what means more to whom in the "showdown". For instance if all I have is a gun and someone's life is in danger I will not hesitate, however if I feel that a Tazer is sufficient and have one my goal is to stop the aggressor so that would be an option. Heck, if all I've got is my hands or my gun I will quickly make a choice.

I will say it is a noble goal for a peaceful existence and I agree with you on that. The only violence I like is entertainment(movies, contact sports) and I always prefer to laugh. However I think nobility comes with responsibility as well, and that entails being ready to defend if peace is off the table.




These guys were gun literate but absolutely out of their minds. They planned to die because realistically there was no other option taking on law enforcement. They'll call on any reinforcements necessary to accomplish their goal.
There is nothing worse than a psychopath with a death wish.



I'll agree with that, though everyone who seems to be for some regulations aren't necessarily against the 2nd, just some interpreting to what extent rights apply.
I don't necessarily judge a restriction stance as much as how complete the data and logical process is. I simply don't do emotional arguments.
 
The problem is that while few argue that argue that the right to keep and bear is absolute, although the 2nd is to me pretty clear, that is not true of the reverse. There are lots of groups and individuals that argue that all guns of any sort should be banned.

I am personally comfortable with the laws as they exist in Virginia at present as I can possess and carry at my discretion most firearms. The process to obtain CCW and purchase permits are a small inconvenience, and I have no problem demonstrating an ability to handle firearms safely. The one change I would make is to correct the problem of transporting a weapon through other states, even if you have carry permits. You cannot easily carry a sidearm across the country without violating the law somewhere.

Most anti gun groups will accept only total ban, and look at slight changes as incremental steps toward that goal.

All of the things you've mentioned are "infringements", yet they are all reasonable. That's why I think that it is a matter of where to draw the line.

What groups actually want to ban all guns? I wouldn't think there would be a lot of support for that idea.
 
All of the things you've mentioned are "infringements", yet they are all reasonable. That's why I think that it is a matter of where to draw the line.

What groups actually want to ban all guns? I wouldn't think there would be a lot of support for that idea.

This an excerpt from a quick Google.

The Brady Campaign, for example, when it was called Handgun Control, Inc., was led by Nelson "Pete" Shields, who told New Yorker magazine in 1976 what the ultimate objective was:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is another group that changed its name. Once calling itself the Coalition to Ban Handguns, their name change came as a result of deciding that handguns weren't the only guns they wanted to ban:

In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is at least honest enough to continue to openly acknowledge advocating a complete handgun ban, with executive director Josh Sugarmann having published Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.
 
This an excerpt from a quick Google.

The Brady Campaign, for example, when it was called Handgun Control, Inc., was led by Nelson "Pete" Shields, who told New Yorker magazine in 1976 what the ultimate objective was:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is another group that changed its name. Once calling itself the Coalition to Ban Handguns, their name change came as a result of deciding that handguns weren't the only guns they wanted to ban:

In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is at least honest enough to continue to openly acknowledge advocating a complete handgun ban, with executive director Josh Sugarmann having published Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

OK, so there are some on that extreme. I doubt that they have a lot of support, but maybe.

Now, if they could ban criminals having guns, I'd be for that.

maybe they could just ban criminals.

In the real world, their goals are no more attainable than the above.
 
OK, so there are some on that extreme. I doubt that they have a lot of support, but maybe.

Now, if they could ban criminals having guns, I'd be for that.

maybe they could just ban criminals.

In the real world, their goals are no more attainable than the above.

I would be in favor of any laws that would ban criminals, or criminals having guns, that does not interfere with my rights. Unfortunately, I think that too many look at total banning of firearms as the goal, and incremental steps as the means of attainment. The F & F fiasco more and more looks like a deliberate attempt at banning other than handguns, and the willingness to condone murder to achieve those goals by the highest levels of government is disturbing to me. We may never know all the facts surrounding the action as the records have been sealed or destroyed by those who were involved. There are rumors of a back door signing of UN resolutions which advocate total gun control.
 
I would be in favor of any laws that would ban criminals, or criminals having guns, that does not interfere with my rights. Unfortunately, I think that too many look at total banning of firearms as the goal, and incremental steps as the means of attainment. The F & F fiasco more and more looks like a deliberate attempt at banning other than handguns, and the willingness to condone murder to achieve those goals by the highest levels of government is disturbing to me. We may never know all the facts surrounding the action as the records have been sealed or destroyed by those who were involved. There are rumors of a back door signing of UN resolutions which advocate total gun control.

F & F fiasco??
 
Josh Sugarmann is one of the most dishonest POS's to ever infect american political discourse. In the late 80s he realized that the effort to ban handguns was waning. so he looked for a new target-the then increasing in popularity military styled semi autos. they were the exact opposite of what the VPC claimed about handguns for they were

1) expensive
2) large
3) hard to conceal
4) very accurate
5) and had almost no history of criminal misuse

but they looked like the stuff we see in RAMBO, MISSING IN ACTION, DELTA FORCE and other uberviolent movies

so Josh the POS sent a paper to liberal newspapers where he told them that the public can easily be CONFUSED over the fact that these weapons were not machine guns but THEY LOOK LIKE MACHINE GUNS so the MSM ought to deliberately confuse the public and pretend that "assault weapons" (a made up term by the VPC and their toadies in the press) were the same as real assault rifles. Proof-when ABC did a story on the clinton gun ban sunsetting in 9/04, the story started with two bankrobbers hosing down the streets of LA with MACHINE GUNS

after clinton's magazine ban was passed. many gun makers realized that selling a pistol big enough to hold 17 shots was stupid if those guns were limited to 10 round magazines. so what happened-they started making more compact versions of their bigger handguns. Sugarmann had a fit whining that these makers were making MORE CONCEALABLE "Pocket rockets"

when gun makers avoided the clinton gun ban by getting rid of cosmetic features-such as folding stocks or flash hiders, Sugarmann whined that the makers were "evading the spirit" of the moronic law

face it-the VPC and its lead man are turds and their smell is ever increasing
 
Josh Sugarmann is one of the most dishonest POS's to ever infect american political discourse. In the late 80s he realized that the effort to ban handguns was waning. so he looked for a new target-the then increasing in popularity military styled semi autos. they were the exact opposite of what the VPC claimed about handguns for they were

1) expensive
2) large
3) hard to conceal
4) very accurate
5) and had almost no history of criminal misuse

but they looked like the stuff we see in RAMBO, MISSING IN ACTION, DELTA FORCE and other uberviolent movies

so Josh the POS sent a paper to liberal newspapers where he told them that the public can easily be CONFUSED over the fact that these weapons were not machine guns but THEY LOOK LIKE MACHINE GUNS so the MSM ought to deliberately confuse the public and pretend that "assault weapons" (a made up term by the VPC and their toadies in the press) were the same as real assault rifles. Proof-when ABC did a story on the clinton gun ban sunsetting in 9/04, the story started with two bankrobbers hosing down the streets of LA with MACHINE GUNS

after clinton's magazine ban was passed. many gun makers realized that selling a pistol big enough to hold 17 shots was stupid if those guns were limited to 10 round magazines. so what happened-they started making more compact versions of their bigger handguns. Sugarmann had a fit whining that these makers were making MORE CONCEALABLE "Pocket rockets"

when gun makers avoided the clinton gun ban by getting rid of cosmetic features-such as folding stocks or flash hiders, Sugarmann whined that the makers were "evading the spirit" of the moronic law

face it-the VPC and its lead man are turds and their smell is ever increasing

Thank you. You just reminded me to use the "what is an assault weapon" question in my politics course on the ridiculous and uneducated liberal children lol. I did it a few semesters ago when we discussed the second amendment, but instead of going there I used the "Are assault weapons fully automatic?" version of the argument and then continued to scare them with my vast knowledge of firearms. When asked why I knew so much and what possibile means I could have for such knowledge? I asked them why they cared? Why did they know so much about their favorite TV show?

I of course later did a presentation on why it is important to know the facts about something BEFORE you discuss them. You cannot make a law about firearms unless you have an understanding of firearms knowledge. The same holds true for any other regulated piece of equipment. I then explained in that essentially a rule by the mob has become popular and that people do not listen to experts in these discussions.
 
As far as the 2nd Amendment being the general right of lawful citizens to own firearms for sporting/self-defense, yes, I support that right and oppose efforts to unduly restrict that right for, again, lawful citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom