- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 2,926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Just a smidge vague, dear.
Just trying to lighten the mood dear (jesus c I can't frickn type)
Just a smidge vague, dear.
I think you'll find that in the gun forum such wording will have the opposit effect.Just lighten the mood dear
I think you'll find that in the gun forum such wording will have the opposit effect.
Right, and most who visit the gun forum will take it as propiganda, not humor, because word games are the bread & butter of anti-gun.depends on who you're talking to I guess
The discussion on "social contracts" is even dumber than "people-punching guns".
A infantry squad can have anything from m16A4s to heavy machines and mortars depending on the type of infantry squad it is. What is standard infantry issue arms depends on the type of infantry unit it is.A militia. The weapons not to be infringed upon are those used by a militia. A militia is infantry, not an armada, air force, nukes, etc, but standard infantry issue arms. Not ordnance, arms. There's not really a temporal consideration.
Infantry units do not just carry 'pea' shooters.That tank coming to kill you doesn't give a **** about your pee shooter nor does that bomb care that you're on the ground running around with guns. You're still very much dead.
You're not very well read on political philosophy I take it right?
No, the "Social Contract" has never been suggested or implied to be a literal, tangible, actual "contract". That's ridiculous.
Did you know Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan" wasn't actually talking about a giant sea monster either, right?
And the "State of Nature" is not an actual "State" nor is it necessarily LITERALLY meaning someone that's just out in "nature"
A infantry squad can have anything from m16A4s to heavy machines and mortars depending on the type of infantry squad it is. What is standard infantry issue arms depends on the type of infantry unit it is.
Mortars are ordnance, not arms. I'm fine with crew served arms being included, though am willing to compromise there. Having served in the 82nd, I'm well aware of the weapons made available to infantry units.
As for this alleged concern over full auto weapons.... they're already heavily restricted. Mostly you can't own one without a Class III license, which has some pretty stringent requirements, and the weapons themselves are mostly far too expensive for the average person to own.
To my understanding, there have only been two incidents in the past half century where a Class III weapon was used in a crime, and one of those was a police officer using a duty weapon.
It's much ado about nothing.
I understand the question but you clearly have no idea what a military grade firearm is. The military uses all kinds of weapons including basic pistols.
sometimes several people need to be terminated extremely quickly. Like a bunch of home invasion robbers.
you appear to be terrified guns unless only the government owns them
The question is too vague to be answered in any meaningful way. It's like asking if fast cars should be banned. How fast is fast? What type of fast? top speed? acceleration? cornering?Your attempt to ignore the question doesn't negate its existence.
A lot of people on this thread would call this an obvious violation of the 2A. Do you agree?
Your attempt to ignore the question doesn't negate its existence.