This is a major victory.

I thought there would be nothing funny about this thread.

but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


I have the tools to do it - and you don't.

as some have opined, wouldn't it therefore be about "weapons of war." If a militia is not armed for war what good is it?

That the military doesn't use short barreled shotguns? Now they want to ban "military type" weapons. Talk about a twisted logic.

And no reason not to trust THEM, right?

Or words to that effect.

and what I typed has nothing to do with what I was trying to convey.

But then I am very strongly pro- civil liberties.

What about that whole "A well-regulated Militia.." clause we are constantly reminded of??

The purpose of the 2nd was SPECIFICALLY to protect the people's access to weapons of war.
What use would a Militia be without effective weapons?

Just because of it's securities was confirmed to include the individual right to arms for lawful purposes in Heller, that decision not do away with the original intent....securing to the people the right to arms applicable for their role in the Militias.

Ummmm, how about these weapons of war?





Or military infantry rifles like this?



Or this?



Or this military-style handgun?



Or this military-style shotgun?



Since most civilian guns are just as "military-style" as civilian AR-15's are, declaring that the Second Amendment doesn't protect "military-style" guns is a declaration that the Second Amendment protects pretty much nothing. Especially since "military-style" revolvers, pistols, and shotguns kill far more Americans annually than rifles do.

This court's opinion stemmed from ignorance and naivete on the part of some of the judges, and the willingness of the gun-control lobby to lie through their teeth about Title 1 civilian guns. And yes, this opinion hurts Dems nationwide.

And before anyone jumps on me, just remember. Be careful what you ask for. It may just become law, and apply to YOU as well.

when they employ the most ugly and salacious expletives to demonize me as a gay man but I can't stop believing in
that old concept of "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It really does seem to me that a lot of people on both sides of the left/right line don't much like it any more either.

that is verbally assaulting you, but I am a strong believer in the 1st as well, doesn't mean I have to LIKE what they say! Or be forced to sit and listen to them, either.

They are not "assault rifles/weapons".

They are Battle Rifles.

this is a battle rifle http://www.mosinnagant.net/ussr/russian-m44-carbine.asp

but in all seriousness, if i had the money i would own an m1 garand paired with a nice 1911.

the Germans

the Japanese

the North Koreans

the Chinese

Then get back to me.

my reply to you was a little joke, i was referencing crocodile dundee "that's not a knife". i wanted to buy an m1 but could only afford the mosin.

mosins are fine rifles, but nothing beats an m1.

you have to admit those comm-bloc weapons are good considering their price. great for young guys like me on a budget.

Now things have changed.........................I got old.



And am still on a budget.

then they have no cred on anything else they say.

why you believe this is good?

what is your definition of an assault weapon?

this is a Ca/NY legal ar15

And don't send people with guns to force the rest of us to live by your beliefs. Or are you just opposed to guns that aren't in the hands of corporations and security forces?

You have one very odd concept of good vs. bad.

> Guns BAD.

A common misconception. Objects do not possess the ability to be good or bad. That attribute is completely owned by the user.

Try starting with the police and military. Let me know how you do.

needledriver: .. "The Democrats aren't coming for your guns" as part of a long list debunking right wing paranoid claims? If you live in California, or Maryland, or New York the Democrats ARE coming for your guns.

Specious strained reasoning from needledriver. The democrat party is not coming for the predominance of american firearms, only a small proportion of the national gunstock to be banned in conforming states - firearms which in good part morphed from rifles with automatic capabilities many of which can be backfitted to full automatic with common tools or conversion kits.
Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled, so your emboldened premise above is invalid convoluted reasoning.
The democrat party wants to preserve gun control sanity to participating blue states with more urban populations, by proscribing semi-automatic rifles commonly termed 'assault rifles',

needledriver: California. Maryland. New York. Nice reliable blue voting states. Even if you are "deplorable or "stupid" it is clear to see that if you vote Democratic you are voting for a party that has an active policy of eroding your right to keep and bear arms.

Biggest bunch of bull**** I've read this month. About the only thing 'clear' in your ugly diatribe above is that you yourself, imo, fit in your personality trait descriptions. There is nothing 'clear' that you contend, only specious twisted reasoning.
Your transmogrified fear of democrats 'eroding' rkba is akin to washing your car and worrying about it being carried off in a flood.
States have a right to decide for themselves which gun control policies work best for their own state, and not have to prostrate themselves to specious sanctimonious gun lobby arguments like what you proffer above,
If you don't like the gun laws in california or new york or md or hawaii, move to a red state where you can shoot off your assault rifle as much as you like while scaring the **** out of the saner republicans living there.

needledriver: Why is it that Liberals will twist themselves into emotional knots defending the right of Nazis to exercise their freedom of speech by parading through a Jewish neighborhood,...

Huh? you can provide some source for this contention? This is not in any way a general trait of liberals, just warped disinformation.

.. but lose their shit if one of those same Nazis wants to own a black aluminum and plastic semi automatic rifle?

This sounds like trump rationale. Or rather bannon I should say. Let me get this BS straight, you are OK with an american nazi or neo nazi walking thru a jewish neighborhood with an AK47 or AR15? does it at least need be shouldered? or is it an rkba infringement if not allowed to carry on the hip?

What quality of "Right" does Freedom of Speech or Worship have that the "Right" to Keep and Bear Arms does not possess?

You did not need be part of a well regulated militia to exercise the first right(s).

I have long since applied no weight or value to jimmy the ones posts; I don't even bother reading them anymore.

icon: Just obtain one and present evidence of it... >> (citing me writing): Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled

How about Mississippi? Texas? Vermont even? Dakotas? OOOOOOklahoma where the wind comes.., uh, affects your windage setting?

Reread what I wrote sherlock, where I contended that, outside of conforming states with assault weapon bans, 'other states' were not in democrat plans to ban or confiscate. Only current democrat plans are to control assault rifles in generally red states:

The democrat party is not coming for the predominance of american firearms, only a small proportion of the national gunstock to be banned in conforming states - firearms which in good part morphed from rifles with automatic capabilities many of which can be backfitted to full automatic with common tools or conversion kits.
Even these are not to be banned in other states, nor confiscated, just controlled, so your emboldened premise above is invalid convoluted reasoning.

Added on edit: In light of this subthread, the disinterested reader is invited to consider points #3 and 6 of
the article linked to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028755744

Here's the *national* Democratic Party Platform for 2016. These were supposed to apply everywhere,
remember?:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Page 39, "Preventing Gun Violence"

Not banned, just "limiting" them from being outside the home. Ok. How do you purchase one, and bring it home? How do you practice with it, and learn how to properly handle/fire it, if you can't take it outside your home? Is there a certain number of times a year you can bring it out into the light? Who gets to proscribe this? It is basically a de-facto ban, as once it is in your home, it can never leave again, without a bunch of hoop-jumping. Or did they mean something else? If so, maybe they should have been a "little more clearer".

I've been here long enough to know what's probably coming.

that merely banned open carry of modern-looking rifles or post-1860 magazines, rather than banning their transfer and/or possession.

....over thirty thousand gun deaths a year, they say, mostly either suicides or murders with small-caliber handguns by already-prohibited criminals, and the fundamentalists are tied up in knots obsessing about the size/shape of rifle handgrips and magazines, and how to prevent the peaceable and nonviolent from owning them.

Rifle Homicides, 2005-2015
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

Massachusetts has averaged less than one rifle murder per year for the last decade or so, and yet the fundies *still* pushed through a middle-of-the-night ban on the most popular rifles. That is irrational, and absolutely counterproductive.

If you are willing to throw away election after election because you are obsessed with rifle and magazine bans, you have totally lost sight of your goals, unless your goal is simply to screw people who live their lives differently than you do.

..."we'll show them" that have done more harm in terms of lost elections and even recalls.