We want your AR

sailfish

Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
So banning these really wouldn’t infringe upon gun rights at all. It would limit style options, something that isn’t constitutionally protected.
So you're advocating more useless, restrictive legislature. Ok then.
 

sailfish

Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
Because they seem to be the choice of mass murderers.
I already answered why.

Because politicians and the media play up the AR-15 to be some kind of ultimate mass shooter badass machine. So edgelords and copycat killers from all across the country get this idea in their head that if they want to be the ultimate mass shooter badass and get as much infamy as possible, they gotta use an AR-15 or something that looks similar too.
The easiest place to start would be cutting it out with this :censored2:.
 

Tightupser

Well-Known Member
So ban the AR is gonna stop mass murders? Just like heroin is banned but people still OD everyday, makes no sense people. A person that is raised around guns and is educated knows that someone could take a bolt action rifle (fires run round then has to be bolted) and be just as deadly. Banning will do no good because evil people will still do. But I also believe the government has a little to do with all these mass shootings.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
If a democrat who promised to come and take guns with an executive action wins, Ill start my first ever petition for them to follow through on that promise. I’ll beg them to come to Texas and start taking guns.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
So ban the AR is gonna stop mass murders? Just like heroin is banned but people still OD everyday, makes no sense people. A person that is raised around guns and is educated knows that someone could take a bolt action rifle (fires run round then has to be bolted) and be just as deadly. Banning will do no good because evil people will still do. But I also believe the government has a little to do with all these mass shootings.
See now, I always thought that the argument was that banning an AR-15 would be that it was unconstitutional. But we now come to the point where people have to admit that isn’t the case. So now you’re left with just making things up. Because you know what?

612B9F8E-9750-4AA7-A3C2-92DF547171A6.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 174CFEF1-5E6D-4056-98BD-AE697FB5C39E.jpeg
    174CFEF1-5E6D-4056-98BD-AE697FB5C39E.jpeg
    103.4 KB · Views: 90

El Correcto

god is dead
See now, I always thought that the argument was that banning an AR-15 would be that it was unconstitutional. But we now come to the point where people have to admit that isn’t the case. So now you’re left with just making things up. Because you know what?

View attachment 263358
All gun bans on a federal level are unconstitutional. The bump stock ban trump did is unconstitutional. You idiots need to amend the constitution for it to be constitutional. Rifles are just the line a lot of citizens have drawn that would cause violence and resistance.

You should be worried the government is unmoored from its contract with us. That our courts are fully politicized.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.



The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "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."



The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.



Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.



What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
 
Last edited:

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
@Wrong

What do you not understand abou the two words “we’ll regulated”?

Do those words not say clearly that laws will be in place and gun ownership isn’t without it’s limits
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Giving potential invading forces a reason to think twice is enough justification for me to protect gun ownership rights. All the libs who compare Trump to Hitler, yet they don't believe they will ever have a need to defend themselves against the US military. Maintaining conflicting beliefs as being equally true is a warning sign for mental illness.
61282C14-629E-4BB3-8601-F6011BAE69D5.jpeg
 
Top