Oh look, a person who has zero experience and zero knowledge again talking out his butt.If you think you don't need at least machine guns and much more to protect yourself against a potentially tyrannical modern government, you are more uninformed about the modern military than I thought.
What you are thinking seems confused.
Your training to tell anyone about the usefulness of an AR on a battlefield is hilarious.I don't know about you specifically, but it's true that the AR15 has gained a purpose now far beyond just any utilitarian considerations (which are indeed few). It has become a symbol of pi$$ing off and "owning" the libs- much like the Confederate flag. It's just that they are really hurting themselves with this one.
How the AR-15 became the symbol of the U.S. right
As Republican representatives bid to get the AR-15 designated as America's "national gun," Newsweek explores how the firearm has become a conservative emblem.www.newsweek.com
No it could not have been a u-haul. No correlation? Firearms have been solely responsible for mass SHOOTINGS.yes
could have used a uhaul truck to plow into them.
Since we began tracking this data, which was in 1986, the US has added over 270 million firearms while the homicide rate dropped by 40%. There is simply no correlation between firearms are homicides or violent crime.
The left is always looking for an out on the gun issue. I wish they were half as concerned when it comes to crime.I used to think more about this phrase and it's application but one does not necessarily lead to the other. IOW, the right to arms does not mean only for a well regulated militia. It is a reason for creating the right, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really stands on it's own. SCOTUS has agreed, I think more than once.
There are other countries where citizens have gun rights, but the USA is unique in it's level of gun fetish.
Who is your militia regulated by?
Yea because guns and crime are separate things?The left is always looking for an out on the gun issue. I wish they were half as concerned when it comes to crime.
Yet you are protesting against what I posted, how rich is that?Methinks you doth protest your innocence too much...If it looks like...
You get the idea...
He is one man with one opinion. It seems like the militia clause has everyone stumped as to its meaning. If it has nothing to do with the rest of the second amendment, why is it even mentioned?Supreme Court's 2008 Heller
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, now deceased, said that 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."
Referring to the so-called militia clause, Scalia added that it "announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope" of individual ownership.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politicsballotpedia.org
Interesting how you quoted him talking using his use of the M4/16 to imply expertise. I have more use but yet you claim that doesn’t make me an expert. Wonder why you have the double standard.That doesn't make you any kind of expert. I can bet you nurses clean more bedpans than a surgeon. That doesn't mean I trust them with the big decisions more than the doctor.
So I am clueless about military weapons, and so is a 4 star general. Only you know. OK sure.
I can quote you other folks who work with weapons and their consequences for a living. But how much you wanna bet you will find a way to dismiss all these experts and tell me how you know more than all of them because you have "put more rounds down range", as if that means anything.
Nothing is completely useless on a battlefield I guess, even a knife. Heck I would take a mail opener if that's all that was available. But given the choice, I would take the M16 over an AR or a knife. So would McChrystal. But not you. Puzzling.
Not sure why you think the AR is better. Makes no sense. The only explanation is that you like the symbolism for which it stands. Utility-wise on an actual battlefield, the best I can say for it is that I guess it's better than nothing.
of course it could haveNo it could not have been a u-haul.
noNo correlation?
irrelevant. we are talking about the homicide rate.Firearms have been solely responsible for mass SHOOTINGS.
I am talking about gun deaths and access to guns. Welcome to the conversation, you are trying to ignore gins all together and it is just dumb for you you to do so.of course it could have
no
irrelevant. we are talking about the homicide rate.
I know. It's irrelevant.I am talking about gun deaths and access to guns.
No, I'm pointing out guns are irrelevant to homicide rates. Since we began tracking that data, which was 1986, firearms increased by over 270 million while the homicide rate was cut by 40%. There is simply no correlation between firearms and homicide rates.Welcome to the conversation, you are trying to ignore gins all together and it is just dumb for you you to do so.
So you’re cool with gun deaths because of stats? Head in the sand?I know. It's irrelevant.
No, I'm pointing out guns are irrelevant to homicide rates. Since we began tracking that data, which was 1986, firearms increased by over 270 million while the homicide rate was cut by 40%. There is simply no correlation between firearms and homicide rates.
we are an inherently violent society. if you could click your heels together and poof away every firearm in the US, our homicide and violent crime rates would still be higher than many other nations. Firearms are irrelevant.
Oh look more lying from you.
No, i'm refuting the repeatedly bleated premise of "more guns = more deaths". This is demonstrably false.So you’re cool with gun deaths because of stats? Head in the sand?
Never said that either, there are way too many guns already in the US. Make owner’s understand it is a true responsibility and have them continual training. Not much to ask.No, i'm refuting the repeatedly bleated premise of "more guns = more deaths". This is demonstrably false.
You can't require training to exercise a right. That is unconstitutional.Never said that either, there are way too many guns already in the US. Make owner’s understand it is a true responsibility and have them continual training. Not much to ask.
Yet we have people register to vote etc? Well regulated is ignored?You can't require training to exercise a right. That is unconstitutional.
but not required to train.Yet we have people register to vote etc?
what is it you think well regulated means, and why do you think it applies to individual gun owners?Well regulated is ignored?
The Heller decision was BS lead by the NRA. It needs to go.but not required to train.
what is it you think well regulated means, and why do you think it applies to individual gun owners?
Heller was decided the only way it could possibly be decided, based on the wording of the constitution.The Heller decision was BS lead by the NRA. It needs to go.
Not at all I disagree.Heller was decided the only way it could possibly be decided, based on the wording of the constitution.
de·mon·stra·blyNo, i'm refuting the repeatedly bleated premise of "more guns = more deaths". This is demonstrably false.
Then explain the dissenting opinions. If it was the only way it could be decided it would have been a unanimous decision, no?Heller was decided the only way it could possibly be decided, based on the wording of the constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?