-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Wanna stop a future AWB? Then get your butt in here now!
- Thread starter dougwg
- Start date
dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
2 choices, sit around and do nothing or act, I acted!
Maybe a new forum sponsored by all gun message forums
I have purchased all of these web domain names today and will [size=DONATE FREE][/size] OF CHARGE to the cause.
The USGRC (United States Gun Rights Coalition)
[size=[url=http://www.usgrc.info/]http://www.USGRC.INFO[/url]
http://www.USGRC.NET
http://www.USGRC.ORG
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.COM
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.INFO
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.NET
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.ORG][/size]
I have already set forwarding of these domains tothe threadon arfcom.
2 choices, sit around and do nothing or act, I acted!
Maybe a new forum sponsored by all gun message forums
I have purchased all of these web domain names today and will [size=DONATE FREE][/size] OF CHARGE to the cause.
The USGRC (United States Gun Rights Coalition)
[size=[url=http://www.usgrc.info/]http://www.USGRC.INFO[/url]
http://www.USGRC.NET
http://www.USGRC.ORG
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.COM
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.INFO
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.NET
http://www.USGUNRIGHTSCOALITION.ORG][/size]
I have already set forwarding of these domains tothe threadon arfcom.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
This is exactly what I have been thinking. We need a rapid means to react as a group. A system that could give every gun forum on the web an alert within 15 minutes of it being released is exactly what we need.
This is exactly what I have been thinking. We need a rapid means to react as a group. A system that could give every gun forum on the web an alert within 15 minutes of it being released is exactly what we need.
docwatson
Regular Member
imported post
Interesting that the Prez-elect has taken his AWB agenda off of the website now; It seems that the whole thing seriously pissed off the folks who live inland and 'cling to their guns and religion'.
I don't think these idiots understand the potential fight on thier hands about this topic since it was made very clear in Heller that a ban - de facto or otherwise - was illegal.
Interesting that the Prez-elect has taken his AWB agenda off of the website now; It seems that the whole thing seriously pissed off the folks who live inland and 'cling to their guns and religion'.
I don't think these idiots understand the potential fight on thier hands about this topic since it was made very clear in Heller that a ban - de facto or otherwise - was illegal.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Great idea. This is just the thing to coalesce and mobilize the great masses of "bitter clingers."
Great idea. This is just the thing to coalesce and mobilize the great masses of "bitter clingers."
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
docwatson wrote:
Considering the sweeping changes in senate and house members caused by the first Klinton ban, I would say they do understand. They just don't care.
docwatson wrote:
Considering the sweeping changes in senate and house members caused by the first Klinton ban, I would say they do understand. They just don't care.
Audioautomatica
Regular Member
imported post
Why does everyone think their guns are going to be taken away?
There are almost putrid amounts of gun owners in this country, and almost as many people who don't own guns, that support the constitution.
At most you will have 8 years where you can't legally buy an AK with a 20 round clip. And even that poses the possibility that fools will act out in violence over a type of gun they do not and will never actually need.
I'm just stunned that so many people are blindly caught up in politics. Obama isn't a raging socialist and McCain isn't a war monger, they are both tools of their parties, which are tools of the government.
Hating Obama because you're a republican and he was chosen by the democrats as their temporary representative is like hating Colonel Sandars because he represented KFC and you're a vegetarian.
Yet everyone who owns a gun seems to think Obama is out to get them. But if any of them stopped to think, the government is going to have a hard time taking guns away from anyone, period. They're GUNS, they're meant to KILL things, and there are millions of them in this country owned by civilians supported by our constitutional rights.
Even in some African countries where they government literally overpowered the people and took their guns, blacksmiths literally made more guns out of nothing.
You will not ever be without a gun unless you want to, especially if you're American.
Why does everyone think their guns are going to be taken away?
There are almost putrid amounts of gun owners in this country, and almost as many people who don't own guns, that support the constitution.
At most you will have 8 years where you can't legally buy an AK with a 20 round clip. And even that poses the possibility that fools will act out in violence over a type of gun they do not and will never actually need.
I'm just stunned that so many people are blindly caught up in politics. Obama isn't a raging socialist and McCain isn't a war monger, they are both tools of their parties, which are tools of the government.
Hating Obama because you're a republican and he was chosen by the democrats as their temporary representative is like hating Colonel Sandars because he represented KFC and you're a vegetarian.
Yet everyone who owns a gun seems to think Obama is out to get them. But if any of them stopped to think, the government is going to have a hard time taking guns away from anyone, period. They're GUNS, they're meant to KILL things, and there are millions of them in this country owned by civilians supported by our constitutional rights.
Even in some African countries where they government literally overpowered the people and took their guns, blacksmiths literally made more guns out of nothing.
You will not ever be without a gun unless you want to, especially if you're American.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
Audioautomatica wrote:
Audioautomatica wrote:
Because the President elect has a voting record that includes the banning of handguns in Illinois, the VP elect was the author of the AWB during the Clinton administration and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader, Harry Reid are outspoken gun control advocates. As are they all. Not to mention the extreme far left tendencies of our future Commander in Chief. Furthermore Barack Obama has been less than forthcoming with the American people, engendering widespread distrust.
Audioautomatica wrote:
Most republicans do not hate Obama at all. However a great many Americans loathe, despiseand fear him for his beliefs. Both beliefs that he espouses openly and those that he denies with incredibility and the help of the media. He has stated that he wants "to fundamentally change government."And I think you are fooling yourself if you do not recognise that he is a socialist despite calling himself a democrat.
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
"Need" is not a consideration. I could probably make a long list of things you have but don't need that might be used to hurt someone. But that has nothing to do with your right to have one if you want it and are willing to spend the money you worked to earn for it. It's really just that simple.
Audioautomatica wrote:
"Need" is not a consideration. I could probably make a long list of things you have but don't need that might be used to hurt someone. But that has nothing to do with your right to have one if you want it and are willing to spend the money you worked to earn for it. It's really just that simple.
Audioautomatica
Regular Member
imported post
You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle with the potential to mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall in one clip. The same way you have no actual right to own a nuclear weapon.
You have the right to bear arms, the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have.
You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle with the potential to mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall in one clip. The same way you have no actual right to own a nuclear weapon.
You have the right to bear arms, the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have.
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
2. Yes, I do have a right to own an "assault rifle" if I so chose and want to spend my money on one.
3. The Clinton era AWB, which is being proposed for reimplementationby the incoming administration did not ban a single "assault rifle". It banned some cosmetic features on some semi-automatic rifles that look evil but are in fact no more dangerous than other rifles of similar caliber.
4. If you're going to continue this topic, it would be a good idea for you to get much more educated on the topic in order to avoid making emotionally-based statements which have no basis in reality.
Typo edit.
Audioautomatica wrote:
1. It's properly referred to as a magazine. Not a "clip".
2. Yes, I do have a right to own an "assault rifle" if I so chose and want to spend my money on one.
3. The Clinton era AWB, which is being proposed for reimplementationby the incoming administration did not ban a single "assault rifle". It banned some cosmetic features on some semi-automatic rifles that look evil but are in fact no more dangerous than other rifles of similar caliber.
4. If you're going to continue this topic, it would be a good idea for you to get much more educated on the topic in order to avoid making emotionally-based statements which have no basis in reality.
Typo edit.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
As pointed out elsewhere in these forums, maybe his education on assault weapons can start with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
(If he overlooks the incorrect statements that a civlian can not own or posess a full auto).
As pointed out elsewhere in these forums, maybe his education on assault weapons can start with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
(If he overlooks the incorrect statements that a civlian can not own or posess a full auto).
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
In all sincerity, itsounds like you got your information from the Violence Policy Center or the Bradyweb site. You are of course, completely incorrect in your line of thinking.
I would suggest that you do some serious reading and researching on the 2nd Amendment, our Founders, The Continental Congress, the Constitutional Conventions, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist andAnti-FederalistPapers, Blackstone, andEnglish Common Law. May I also suggest you read the following books.. The Origin of the Second Amendment by David Young and That Every Man be Armed by Stephen Halbrook.
I would bet that if you studied this information with an open mind, you would likely find that we were intended to be a nation of rifleman. I wouldcontend that the jump that antis often make during debates to "carrying" or usingnuclear devices is absurd as that isnot within the boundaries or the scope of the 2nd amendment and is therefore irrelevant.
Audioautomatica wrote:
I see by your profile that you are 18 years old. There are many of your age that are fighting for our country and exercising and fighting for our rights, so I hope you are in the minority. Unfortunately, I haveseen these type of statements very often from our youths and I wonder where it may all derive from.. Media perhaps?
In all sincerity, itsounds like you got your information from the Violence Policy Center or the Bradyweb site. You are of course, completely incorrect in your line of thinking.
I would suggest that you do some serious reading and researching on the 2nd Amendment, our Founders, The Continental Congress, the Constitutional Conventions, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist andAnti-FederalistPapers, Blackstone, andEnglish Common Law. May I also suggest you read the following books.. The Origin of the Second Amendment by David Young and That Every Man be Armed by Stephen Halbrook.
I would bet that if you studied this information with an open mind, you would likely find that we were intended to be a nation of rifleman. I wouldcontend that the jump that antis often make during debates to "carrying" or usingnuclear devices is absurd as that isnot within the boundaries or the scope of the 2nd amendment and is therefore irrelevant.
david.ross
Regular Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
I'm sorry, but your argument is empty, contains no facts, and is not as likely to happen.
Your type of sheeple behavior/statements is nothing but fear mongering. Look at the facts and proper tactics. Nobody intelligent would take any type of weapon like that to a mall shooting. There are far easier ways to get more kills than using an assault rifle, especially when there isn't a silencer attached to the platform.
So what I'm trying to say is, stop making idiotic statements like, "You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle." It's nothing more than a hunting rifle with cosmetics. The point of the AWB is to strip your rights, little by little. Don't believe me? Then you're a ******* idiot. Do reseach on Australia and how their firearm rights were also chipped away, little by little.
Take care and I hope any of you which have no brain do grow a brain.
-Insane Kangaroo
Audioautomatica wrote:
An assault rifle can be used just fine for self defense. There is nothing stopping anyone from using a revolver or semiauto pistol and "mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall". Also I should mention, you'll go more damage if you use a 12 gauge shot gun or a IED if the person is wanting to do real damage.
I'm sorry, but your argument is empty, contains no facts, and is not as likely to happen.
Your type of sheeple behavior/statements is nothing but fear mongering. Look at the facts and proper tactics. Nobody intelligent would take any type of weapon like that to a mall shooting. There are far easier ways to get more kills than using an assault rifle, especially when there isn't a silencer attached to the platform.
So what I'm trying to say is, stop making idiotic statements like, "You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle." It's nothing more than a hunting rifle with cosmetics. The point of the AWB is to strip your rights, little by little. Don't believe me? Then you're a ******* idiot. Do reseach on Australia and how their firearm rights were also chipped away, little by little.
Take care and I hope any of you which have no brain do grow a brain.
-Insane Kangaroo
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
Audioautomatica wrote:
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Audioautomatica wrote:
Firearms are the only property rights specifically enumerated in the bill of rights. I do have a right to own assault rifles, and even machine guns. They are all bearable arms. Nuclear weapons are not bearable arms.
These rights are amongst the natural laws of man, and are not granted, but merely affirmed, by our federal constitution. That some jurisdictions violate our human rights and have not yet been found deficient does not take those rights away. As I now have my firearms, I will live by the motto, Live Free or Die. My answer to any attempt at confiscation of my firearms is: From my cold dead hands. Sure am glad I wasn't trapped in New Orleans when Katrina hit.
Soon, I pray, there will be incorporation of the Second Amendment as a civil right. When that happens there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the zombie gun grabbers as they hear the church bells ring with the sound of liberty and freedom once more in our land. BATFE will loose most of its enforcement mechanisms and I will open carry in the Nations Capital.
Audioautomatica wrote:
Firearms are the only property rights specifically enumerated in the bill of rights. I do have a right to own assault rifles, and even machine guns. They are all bearable arms. Nuclear weapons are not bearable arms.
These rights are amongst the natural laws of man, and are not granted, but merely affirmed, by our federal constitution. That some jurisdictions violate our human rights and have not yet been found deficient does not take those rights away. As I now have my firearms, I will live by the motto, Live Free or Die. My answer to any attempt at confiscation of my firearms is: From my cold dead hands. Sure am glad I wasn't trapped in New Orleans when Katrina hit.
Soon, I pray, there will be incorporation of the Second Amendment as a civil right. When that happens there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the zombie gun grabbers as they hear the church bells ring with the sound of liberty and freedom once more in our land. BATFE will loose most of its enforcement mechanisms and I will open carry in the Nations Capital.
AZkopper
Regular Member
imported post
SAudioautomatica wrote:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Rights of the People to keep and bear arms, shall notbe infringed"
Definitions:
1.The People: The same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, and all other amendments
2.Militia: Every abled bodied male 17-45. Source: English common law, codified and expanded in 10USC311 [modern, currant, United States law].
2. Keep: To own, to have.
3. Bear: To carry
4. Arms: firearms that are usable by a single person. Includes pistols, revolvers, rifles. Does not include bazookas, land mines, or nuclear weapons, to name a few (those are ordinance).
5. Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
Case Law on the 2nd Amendment:
1. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that because "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…".
2. United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear ordinary military weapons that could contribute to the common defense.
3. District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 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,"
A Constitutional view of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government has no right to restrict in any fashion the possession or carrying of any type of revolver, pistol, or rifle (including "military type" rifles). The 14th Amendment (incoroporation) holds the states cannot have a higher restriction than the Federal Constitution.
As others have already said, read the Federalist Papers and papers written by those who actually wrote the Constitution if you want to understand it.
SAudioautomatica wrote:
Yes I do:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Rights of the People to keep and bear arms, shall notbe infringed"
Definitions:
1.The People: The same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, and all other amendments
2.Militia: Every abled bodied male 17-45. Source: English common law, codified and expanded in 10USC311 [modern, currant, United States law].
2. Keep: To own, to have.
3. Bear: To carry
4. Arms: firearms that are usable by a single person. Includes pistols, revolvers, rifles. Does not include bazookas, land mines, or nuclear weapons, to name a few (those are ordinance).
5. Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
Case Law on the 2nd Amendment:
1. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that because "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…".
2. United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear ordinary military weapons that could contribute to the common defense.
3. District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 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,"
A Constitutional view of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government has no right to restrict in any fashion the possession or carrying of any type of revolver, pistol, or rifle (including "military type" rifles). The 14th Amendment (incoroporation) holds the states cannot have a higher restriction than the Federal Constitution.
As others have already said, read the Federalist Papers and papers written by those who actually wrote the Constitution if you want to understand it.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
God damn it people, don't buy into BLATANT TROLLING OF A GOOD THREAD THAT HAS A SINGLE PURPOSE.
God damn it people, don't buy into BLATANT TROLLING OF A GOOD THREAD THAT HAS A SINGLE PURPOSE.
Audioautomatica
Regular Member
imported post
"1. It's properly referred to as a magazine. Not a "clip"."
In New York they say "Pop"
In Seattle we say "Soda"
But it's the same thing.
"2. Yes, I do have a right to own an "assault rifle" if I so chose and want to spend my money on one. "
I clearly stated "the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have."
You have the opportunity to own an assault rifle. If they banned all firearms period, you would still have the right to bear arms. You would simply be wielding blades and impact weapons.
(I made this part big, so people skimming along foolishly might stop to actually read.)
The law states a vague generalization. If you had the right to bear an assault rifle, none of you would be afraid of them being taken away.
The fact you recognize your firearms can be taken away shows you understand you simply have the right to bear arms, and not a right to bear anything specifically.
A basic understanding of human behavior and the English language should have you comprehending this much.
"4. If you're going to continue this topic, it would be a good idea for you to get much more educated on the topic in order to avoid making emotionally-based statements which have no basis in reality. "
Coming from one person out of many that read my post but failed laughably at comprehending it?
"I see by your profile that you are 18 years old. There are many of your age that are fighting for our country and exercising and fighting for our rights, so I hope you are in the minority. Unfortunately, I haveseen these type of statements very of....yadayada I'm a Republican.."
This guy made me smile.
"It is amazing how many young folks I have met lately with this attitude. Baaaa... a nation of sheep are being bred.. I am disgusted.."
It's also amazing how many Republicans and God fearing men there are on a firearm forum, yet on community based forums such as... Local blogs, health, construction, teen help, creative writing etc It seems these groups of people are the minority.
Sheep? Here? Yessir.
"An assault rifle can be used just fine for self defense. There is nothing stopping anyone from using a revolver or semiauto pistol and "mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall". Also I should mention, you'll go more damage if you use a 12 gauge shot gun or a IED if the person is wanting to do real damage.
I'm sorry, but your argument is empty, contains no facts, and is not as likely to happen.
Your type of sheeple behavior/statements is nothing but fear mongering. Look at the facts and proper tactics. Nobody intelligent would take any type of weapon like that to a mall shooting. There are far easier ways to get more kills than using an assault rifle, especially when there isn't a silencer attached to the platform.
So what I'm trying to say is, stop making idiotic statements like, "You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle." It's nothing more than a hunting rifle with cosmetics. The point of the AWB is to strip your rights, little by little. Don't believe me? Then you're a @#$%ing idiot. Do reseach on Australia and how their firearm rights were also chipped away, little by little.
Take care and I hope any of you which have no brain do grow a brain.
-Insane Kangaroo"
Well goodness, from all these posts claiming superior intelligence not many of you know much about people or psychology.
The point in shooting up a mall for example, would be to terrorize and strike fear in the hearts of a community. Assault rifles are directly linked to war and death, while shotguns and pistols can be linked to hunting, fun and self defense quicker than war.
But you knew that already I'm sure.
"Firearms are the only property rights specifically enumerated in the bill of rights"
Wrong. Weapons. Not firearms specifically.
This reply also applies to AZkopper.
"God damn it people, don't buy into BLATANT TROLLING OF A GOOD THREAD THAT HAS A SINGLE PURPOSE."
You can read it as a troll if you wish. Would not be surprised if most of you react to all comments that aren't on par with your own beliefs like this.
---
P.S.
You have the opportunity to own an assault rifle. If they banned all firearms period, you would still have the right to bear arms. You would simply be wielding blades and impact weapons.
I'm sure that isn't what you all want to hear, given this is a gun forum but it's true none the less.
Perhaps if you all were to read these "rights" and "laws" with an open mind (as it has been suggested to me, ironically) you would understand and perhaps not be so pointlessly aggressive towards someone who simply has views different from yours.
Point is, you do not, never had and never will have the right to specifically own an assault rifle.
The right to bear arms applies to assault rifles, until someone passes a law that says otherwise, and when said law is passed you will STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
It's interesting so many of you perceive "arms" as simply guns.
Baaa
Edits: Silly grammar errors and even forgot a word or two, ha!
"1. It's properly referred to as a magazine. Not a "clip"."
In New York they say "Pop"
In Seattle we say "Soda"
But it's the same thing.
"2. Yes, I do have a right to own an "assault rifle" if I so chose and want to spend my money on one. "
I clearly stated "the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have."
You have the opportunity to own an assault rifle. If they banned all firearms period, you would still have the right to bear arms. You would simply be wielding blades and impact weapons.
(I made this part big, so people skimming along foolishly might stop to actually read.)
The law states a vague generalization. If you had the right to bear an assault rifle, none of you would be afraid of them being taken away.
The fact you recognize your firearms can be taken away shows you understand you simply have the right to bear arms, and not a right to bear anything specifically.
A basic understanding of human behavior and the English language should have you comprehending this much.
"4. If you're going to continue this topic, it would be a good idea for you to get much more educated on the topic in order to avoid making emotionally-based statements which have no basis in reality. "
Coming from one person out of many that read my post but failed laughably at comprehending it?
"I see by your profile that you are 18 years old. There are many of your age that are fighting for our country and exercising and fighting for our rights, so I hope you are in the minority. Unfortunately, I haveseen these type of statements very of....yadayada I'm a Republican.."
This guy made me smile.
"It is amazing how many young folks I have met lately with this attitude. Baaaa... a nation of sheep are being bred.. I am disgusted.."
It's also amazing how many Republicans and God fearing men there are on a firearm forum, yet on community based forums such as... Local blogs, health, construction, teen help, creative writing etc It seems these groups of people are the minority.
Sheep? Here? Yessir.
"An assault rifle can be used just fine for self defense. There is nothing stopping anyone from using a revolver or semiauto pistol and "mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall". Also I should mention, you'll go more damage if you use a 12 gauge shot gun or a IED if the person is wanting to do real damage.
I'm sorry, but your argument is empty, contains no facts, and is not as likely to happen.
Your type of sheeple behavior/statements is nothing but fear mongering. Look at the facts and proper tactics. Nobody intelligent would take any type of weapon like that to a mall shooting. There are far easier ways to get more kills than using an assault rifle, especially when there isn't a silencer attached to the platform.
So what I'm trying to say is, stop making idiotic statements like, "You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle." It's nothing more than a hunting rifle with cosmetics. The point of the AWB is to strip your rights, little by little. Don't believe me? Then you're a @#$%ing idiot. Do reseach on Australia and how their firearm rights were also chipped away, little by little.
Take care and I hope any of you which have no brain do grow a brain.
-Insane Kangaroo"
Well goodness, from all these posts claiming superior intelligence not many of you know much about people or psychology.
The point in shooting up a mall for example, would be to terrorize and strike fear in the hearts of a community. Assault rifles are directly linked to war and death, while shotguns and pistols can be linked to hunting, fun and self defense quicker than war.
But you knew that already I'm sure.
"Firearms are the only property rights specifically enumerated in the bill of rights"
Wrong. Weapons. Not firearms specifically.
This reply also applies to AZkopper.
"God damn it people, don't buy into BLATANT TROLLING OF A GOOD THREAD THAT HAS A SINGLE PURPOSE."
You can read it as a troll if you wish. Would not be surprised if most of you react to all comments that aren't on par with your own beliefs like this.
---
P.S.
You have the opportunity to own an assault rifle. If they banned all firearms period, you would still have the right to bear arms. You would simply be wielding blades and impact weapons.
I'm sure that isn't what you all want to hear, given this is a gun forum but it's true none the less.
Perhaps if you all were to read these "rights" and "laws" with an open mind (as it has been suggested to me, ironically) you would understand and perhaps not be so pointlessly aggressive towards someone who simply has views different from yours.
Point is, you do not, never had and never will have the right to specifically own an assault rifle.
The right to bear arms applies to assault rifles, until someone passes a law that says otherwise, and when said law is passed you will STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
It's interesting so many of you perceive "arms" as simply guns.
Baaa
Edits: Silly grammar errors and even forgot a word or two, ha!