ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

The Constitution doesn't say "firearms" bro.

Now you're interpreting.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

Matter of fact...the experts say that the framers likely meant "arms" in the same way we mean "weapons".

Just sayin.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Do you see your mistake, here?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to be the devil's advocate...but the military didn't have any compunction about relieving gun owners of their guns in Louisiana back in 2005.

And my money says most people would give up their junk just as meekly as those people did.

Gimme Yer Guns

Oh, so you're saying this disaster scenario would be exactly like a revolution scenario?

Let's be real, if these people were being forced to give up their arms indefinitely for the rest of their lives, how many do you think then would have freely given up their firearms?

How long before those soldiers who are being asked to fire upon people from their own state before they switch sides?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, so you're saying this disaster scenario would be exactly like a revolution scenario?

Let's be real, if these people were being forced to give up their arms indefinitely for the rest of their lives, how many do you think then would have freely given up their firearms?

How long before those soldiers who are being asked to fire upon people from their own state before they switch sides?

I don't know. I'm just raising the question.

Do you see a "revolution" scenario as something clean cut? And how did those people know that their arms weren't being permanently confiscated? The troops weren't carrying around any documents with them when they went house-to-house. You can clearly see what they were carrying...and what instructions they had...AND what they did.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Constitution doesn't say "firearms" bro.

Now you're interpreting.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"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."

"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"

arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament

armaments plural of ar·ma·ment (Noun)
Noun
Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments".
The process of equipping military forces for war.

Now, let's apply the term military weapons to what existed primarily back in those times. Cannons and Firearms.

Both are perfectly legal to own.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know. I'm just raising the question.

Do you see a "revolution" scenario as something clean cut? And how did those people know that their arms weren't being permanently confiscated? The troops weren't carrying around any documents with them when they went house-to-house. You can clearly see what they were carrying...and what instructions they had...AND what they did.

Lmao, are you being serious with this? I can't tell.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"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."

"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"





Now, let's apply the term military weapons to what existed primarily back in those times. Cannons and Firearms.

Both are perfectly legal to own.

But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says we have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't limit what arms we can keep...and the courts have surmised what they might have meant, but no one has clarified what they did mean.

Any argument either way is really opinion. Just as much as it's my opinion people shouldn't carry semi-automatic or other "assault" style weapons. I've never said otherwise.

Until we clarify it all...what we do have the right to carry is pure conjecture.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lmao, are you being serious with this? I can't tell.

So one day someone is going to say "let's revolt!" and everyone is gonna grab their AK-47's and such and go defend freedom.

Is that what you're telling me? Even the founding fathers knew better.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says we have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't limit what arms we can keep...and the courts have surmised what they might have meant, but no one has clarified what they did mean.

Any argument either way is really opinion. Just as much as it's my opinion people shouldn't carry semi-automatic or other "assault" style weapons. I've never said otherwise.

Until we clarify it all...what we do have the right to carry is pure conjecture.

There is no way they could have wrote a term for a type of weapon that didn't exist.

Saying that the government intended its citizens to own nuclear weapons when there is no way they would have known what those are is silly.

Saying that the government didn't intend its citizens to own newer model firearms that function similar to the firearms they had is just as silly.

You can ban all the semi-auto "assault" firearms you want, I'll just buy a pre 1986 fully automatic M16 for 10grand or so, as it's perfectly legal.