Sick of isp and waiting

[JTHunter]

Here's the headline from Kingcreek's link:

 

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings

Gun Deaths: It's become commonplace to hear after a U.S. shooting tragedy that, when it comes to guns, America is just more violent than other countries, especially those in Europe, where many countries have stiff gun-control laws. It's a progressive shibboleth, but even some conservatives agree. The only problem is, it's not true.

 

Having read all the posts one thing is apparent; Cordell isn't that interested in defending people's rights as strongly as most of the rest of us. Part of that reason may be the onerous living conditions in Chicago and "Crook" county where he alludes to be his home.

So be it.

He may not be a LWW but he is definitely to the left of our collective positions. Until he is directly impacted by his decisions and learns the "hard way", he may never change his mind. So don't waste the time and effort on him.

[Cordell34]

Here's the headline from Kingcreek's link:

 

 

 

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings

Gun Deaths: It's become commonplace to hear after a U.S. shooting tragedy that, when it comes to guns, America is just more violent than other countries, especially those in Europe, where many countries have stiff gun-control laws. It's a progressive shibboleth, but even some conservatives agree. The only problem is, it's not true.

 

. Your Entire Position is False, we certainly lead the World in Mass Shootings. Do your research.

 

Having read all the posts one thing is apparent; Cordell isn't that interested in defending people's rights as strongly as most of the rest of us. Part of that reason may be the onerous living conditions in Chicago and "Crook" county where he alludes to be his home.

So be it.

He may not be a LWW but he is definitely to the left of our collective positions. Until he is directly impacted by his decisions and learns the "hard way", he may never change his mind. So don't waste the time and effort on him.

Well Sir in Crook County we couldn't even Own A HandGun under Mayor Richard Daley until 2010 and in no way shape or form would I ever agree with Any form of Government infringing on our inalienable right to bear arms for self defense. However Sir I do not nor shall I ever believe that I NEED my AR-15 Rifle to defend Myself in my Specific County. You may live in Rural America where you may need to hit a target in say a Cornfield. I don't know. When I step out of My door there's no target that I couldn't hit with my AR-15 Pistol. So the Ban on what the Left calls Assault Weapons doesn't affects me In any Manner. I Go to the Range I Shoot My Rifle And I leave it in storage there. I have the Ability to defend myself at Home or when I travel Across Country as I am licensed to Carry in over 40 states with the 3 conceal carry permits that I have. My Grandfather and Uncle are both Police officers and the point that they make is they would rather be in a Gunfight with a person holding a 9mm then a person like say The D.C. Sniper who hid in a trunk and Gunned people down from blocks away. That could not have been done with a .38 Revolver. In No way will I ever be against the Second Amendment. But the Argument that a Law Abiding Citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon he so chooses in the name of SELF DEFENSE....(you know the reason we're allowed to have Guns in the first place) is quite Laughable.

[jake8267]

 

Here's the headline from Kingcreek's link:

 

 

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings

Gun Deaths: It's become commonplace to hear after a U.S. shooting tragedy that, when it comes to guns, America is just more violent than other countries, especially those in Europe, where many countries have stiff gun-control laws. It's a progressive shibboleth, but even some conservatives agree. The only problem is, it's not true.

. Your Entire Position is False, we certainly lead the World in Mass Shootings. Do your research.

 

Having read all the posts one thing is apparent; Cordell isn't that interested in defending people's rights as strongly as most of the rest of us. Part of that reason may be the onerous living conditions in Chicago and "Crook" county where he alludes to be his home.

So be it.

He may not be a LWW but he is definitely to the left of our collective positions. Until he is directly impacted by his decisions and learns the "hard way", he may never change his mind. So don't waste the time and effort on him.

Well Sir in Crook County we couldn't even Own A HandGun under Mayor Richard Daley until 2010 and in no way shape or form would I ever agree with Any form of Government infringing on our inalienable right to bear arms for self defense. However Sir I do not nor shall I ever believe that I NEED my AR-15 Rifle to defend Myself in my Specific County. You may live in Rural America where you may need to hit a target in say a Cornfield. I don't know. When I step out of My door there's no target that I couldn't hit with my AR-15 Pistol. So the Ban on what the Left calls Assault Weapons doesn't affects me In any Manner. I Go to the Range I Shoot My Rifle And I leave it in storage there. I have the Ability to defend myself at Home or when I travel Across Country as I am licensed to Carry in over 40 states with the 3 conceal carry permits that I have. My Grandfather and Uncle are both Police officers and the point that they make is they would rather be in a Gunfight with a person holding a 9mm then a person like say The D.C. Sniper who hid in a trunk and Gunned people down from blocks away. That could not have been done with a .38 Revolver. In No way will I ever be against the Second Amendment. But the Argument that a Law Abiding Citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon he so chooses in the name of SELF DEFENSE....(you know the reason we're allowed to have Guns in the first place) is quite Laughable.

 

You sir, seem to have a far different understanding of WHY we have the 2nd than most on this forum. Self defense has nothing to do with it and never has. Providing a defense against tyranny is the reason for the 2nd, as supported by many of the writings of the Founders from around the time the Constitution was written. With this basis, many believe that any "small arm" should be available for the law-abiding to bear. If your opinion is that the 2nd was created to allow for self-defense, please present your arguments to support that belief.

 

Additionally, I'm not sure why you seem to think the lack of a stock significantly changes the performance characteristics of the AR platform. An AR-15 pistol is chambered in the same round as an AR-15 rifle. Same round = mostly the same ballistics (barrel length and some other factors come into play for minor variation). The lack of a stock simply makes aiming more difficult, so, if you are willing to own and use an AR-15 pistol there is no LOGICAL reason for you to be against an AR-15 rifle in it's place. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear the logic on which you base your opinion.

[Euler]

... If your opinion is that the 2nd was created to allow for self-defense, please present your arguments to support that belief.

District of Columbia v. Heller

McDonald v. Chicago

 

Additionally, I'm not sure why you seem to think the lack of a stock significantly changes the performance characteristics of the AR platform....

Illinois law considers a pistol a pistol, independent of what round it uses. Places that have bans on AR-15 rifles must allow, by state law, AR-15 pistols for people with CC licenses.

 

430 ILCS 66/90. Preemption.

The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

[Cordell34]

Here's the headline from Kingcreek's link:

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass ShootingsGun Deaths: It's become commonplace to hear after a U.S. shooting tragedy that, when it comes to guns, America is just more violent than other countries, especially those in Europe, where many countries have stiff gun-control laws. It's a progressive shibboleth, but even some conservatives agree. The only problem is, it's not true.

. Your Entire Position is False, we certainly lead the World in Mass Shootings. Do your research.

Having read all the posts one thing is apparent; Cordell isn't that interested in defending people's rights as strongly as most of the rest of us. Part of that reason may be the onerous living conditions in Chicago and "Crook" county where he alludes to be his home.So be it.He may not be a LWW but he is definitely to the left of our collective positions. Until he is directly impacted by his decisions and learns the "hard way", he may never change his mind. So don't waste the time and effort on him.

 

Well Sir in Crook County we couldn't even Own A HandGun under Mayor Richard Daley until 2010 and in no way shape or form would I ever agree with Any form of Government infringing on our inalienable right to bear arms for self defense. However Sir I do not nor shall I ever believe that I NEED my AR-15 Rifle to defend Myself in my Specific County. You may live in Rural America where you may need to hit a target in say a Cornfield. I don't know. When I step out of My door there's no target that I couldn't hit with my AR-15 Pistol. So the Ban on what the Left calls Assault Weapons doesn't affects me In any Manner. I Go to the Range I Shoot My Rifle And I leave it in storage there. I have the Ability to defend myself at Home or when I travel Across Country as I am licensed to Carry in over 40 states with the 3 conceal carry permits that I have. My Grandfather and Uncle are both Police officers and the point that they make is they would rather be in a Gunfight with a person holding a 9mm then a person like say The D.C. Sniper who hid in a trunk and Gunned people down from blocks away. That could not have been done with a .38 Revolver. In No way will I ever be against the Second Amendment. But the Argument that a Law Abiding Citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon he so chooses in the name of SELF DEFENSE....(you know the reason we're allowed to have Guns in the first place) is quite Laughable.

You sir, seem to have a far different understanding of WHY we have the 2nd than most on this forum. Self defense has nothing to do with it and never has. Providing a defense against tyranny is the reason for the 2nd, as supported by many of the writings of the Founders from around the time the Constitution was written. With this basis, many believe that any "small arm" should be available for the law-abiding to bear. If your opinion is that the 2nd was created to allow for self-defense, please present your arguments to support that belief.

Additionally, I'm not sure why you seem to think the lack of a stock significantly changes the performance characteristics of the AR platform. An AR-15 pistol is chambered in the same round as an AR-15 rifle. Same round = mostly the same ballistics (barrel length and some other factors come into play for minor variation). The lack of a stock simply makes aiming more difficult, so, if you are willing to own and use an AR-15 pistol there is no LOGICAL reason for you to be against an AR-15 rifle in it's place. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear the logic on which you base your opinion.

 

Well first thing I'll Address is the Second Amendment issue. You are correct in 1776 second amendment was more about tyranny. In 2018 The Second Amendment battles upon the Courts across America are Exclusively Self Defense outside of the Home. I've never once Said that I was Against AR15 Rifles. I actually have repeated the fact that I Own one. My Stance is for Me Myself and where I live there's is no situation that I can foresee where I would Need to substitute My AR pistol for an AR rifle. A person in Rural Iowa for example may have different needs for self defense. I don't support but I understand why in a city such as mine. Chicago. Why it may not be in the best interest of Law Enforcement or the Citizens here to for Rifles to be legal. We have never had a Mass Shooting and I couldn't even imagine these Gang bangers running around Like Militia. It's sickening what they are doing with only Handguns. Criminals are always going to find a way to get illegal Guns. But again here in Chicago I doubt you make it down 1 full city block carrying a Rifle without Police being called.

[Cordell34]

... If your opinion is that the 2nd was created to allow for self-defense, please present your arguments to support that belief.

District of Columbia v. HellerMcDonald v. Chicago

 

Additionally, I'm not sure why you seem to think the lack of a stock significantly changes the performance characteristics of the AR platform....

Illinois law considers a pistol a pistol, independent of what round it uses. Places that have bans on AR-15 rifles must allow, by state law, AR-15 pistols for people with CC licenses.

 

430 ILCS 66/90. Preemption.The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

 

Thank you for adding those Sources and the Statute.

[Molly B.]

Well first thing I'll Address is the Second Amendment issue. You are correct in 1776 second amendment was more about tyranny. In 2018 The Second Amendment battles upon the Courts across America are Exclusively Self Defense outside of the Home. I've never once Said that I was Against AR15 Rifles. I actually have repeated the fact that I Own one. My Stance is for Me Myself and where I live there's is no situation that I can foresee where I would Need to substitute My AR pistol for an AR rifle. A person in Rural Iowa for example may have different needs for self defense. I don't support but I understand why in a city such as mine. Chicago. Why it may not be in the best interest of Law Enforcement or the Citizens here to for Rifles to be legal. We have never had a Mass Shooting and I couldn't even imagine these Gang bangers running around Like Militia. It's sickening what they are doing with only Handguns. Criminals are always going to find a way to get illegal Guns. But again here in Chicago I doubt you make it down 1 full city block carrying a Rifle without Police being called.

 

While most of the court cases have been about the right to possess a handgun in our homes and now to carry outside the home, this is only one small part of the Second Amendment. The original and main purpose is to defend against tyranny. Any government that wishes to disarm its populace is up to no good. It has never worked out well for the populace to be disarmed. Never. If there happens to be a breakdown of society due to natural or man-made cause, a handgun would not be useless but rifles and shotguns would be far superior for protecting neighborhoods, homes, businesses, and streets. That's why police officers have rifles and shotguns. If it's preferred by them, it's preferred by me.

[Cordell34]

 

Well first thing I'll Address is the Second Amendment issue. You are correct in 1776 second amendment was more about tyranny. In 2018 The Second Amendment battles upon the Courts across America are Exclusively Self Defense outside of the Home. I've never once Said that I was Against AR15 Rifles. I actually have repeated the fact that I Own one. My Stance is for Me Myself and where I live there's is no situation that I can foresee where I would Need to substitute My AR pistol for an AR rifle. A person in Rural Iowa for example may have different needs for self defense. I don't support but I understand why in a city such as mine. Chicago. Why it may not be in the best interest of Law Enforcement or the Citizens here to for Rifles to be legal. We have never had a Mass Shooting and I couldn't even imagine these Gang bangers running around Like Militia. It's sickening what they are doing with only Handguns. Criminals are always going to find a way to get illegal Guns. But again here in Chicago I doubt you make it down 1 full city block carrying a Rifle without Police being called.

 

While most of the court cases have been about the right to possess a handgun in our homes and now to carry outside the home, this is only one small part of the Second Amendment. The original and main purpose is to defend against tyranny. Any government that wishes to disarm its populace is up to no good. It has never worked out well for the populace to be disarmed. Never. If there happens to be a breakdown of society due to natural or man-made cause, a handgun would not be useless but rifles and shotguns would be far superior for protecting neighborhoods, homes, businesses, and streets. That's why police officers have rifles and shotguns. If it's preferred by them, it's preferred by me.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping handgun ban and recognized a right to carry firearms in a key 2008 decision, it also left open the possibility that lawmakers could ban certain types of weapons. Monday’s majority opinion agreed.If a ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the 12-page majority opinion says.......I completely agree with the high Court on this issue. The residents of specific Counties and Districts voices and concerns should never be drowned out. They are the ones living there and if they are fine with only having Handguns and Shotguns I believe we should respect that. I own an Ar-15 Rifle I just cannot store it in my Own home or County and I'm okay with that. If ever the day of tyranny approaches my rifle is not very far away.

[once0217]

In 2015 alone Chicago had 15 mass shootings. So to say there's never been a mass shooting in Chicago, is incorrect. Just because we don't hear about it in the MSM doesn't mean there hasn't been any.

[MysteryMoogle]

So funny when people who think they know gun laws start to argue that self defense is not in the 2nd amendment. Literally had a court ruling that it was. C'mon guys, if you're going to debate gun enthusiasts about the 2nd at least keep up to date on major rulings.

[MysteryMoogle]

It is perfectly reasonable to take up the position that the scope of the 2nd amendment should be limited via an amendment. It is not psrfectly reasonable to just ignore the existing scope and argue for unconstitutional laws.

 

People who advocate gun control should actually just start saying they want to amend the 2nd at least then we can discuss the scope of that new amendment.

[Cordell34]

In 2015 alone Chicago had 15 mass shootings. So to say there's never been a mass shooting in Chicago, is incorrect. Just because we don't hear about it in the MSM doesn't mean there hasn't been any.

Yes I read that article in the Washington Post Myself. Myself being from Chicago I can assure you that we view those types of shooting as Gang Violence. But if your going by FBI mass shooting definition that more than 4 people shot in a single occurrence is considered a mass shooting then you are correct. We had about 16 in 2015.

[Bitter Clinger]

Molly pretty much nailed it in her definition of the 2nd amendment.

This is what the founders intended it to be and you can find their detailed explanations of it in the Federalist Papers. They make it very clear as to what the 2nd amendment means. When you hear an anti-gun person make idiotic claims that "it's only meant for hunting" or "it only applies to the national guard" or some other nonsense, it's obvious that they are totally clueless of its true meaning and history.

 

Also, the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was created in September of 1789 and ratified in December of 1791, NOT 1776.

[Cordell34]

Molly pretty much nailed it in her definition of the 2nd amendment.This is what the founders intended it to be and you can find their detailed explanations of it in the Federalist Papers. They make it very clear as to what the 2nd amendment means. When you hear an anti-gun person make idiotic claims that "it's only meant for hunting" or "it only applies to the national guard" or some other nonsense, it's obvious that they are totally clueless of its true meaning and history.Also, the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was created in September of 1789 and ratified in December of 1791, NOT 1776.

 

 

Wow You BitterClinger. Lol. Cmon everyone other than you could understand me saying 1776 was just a point I was making. But pardon me and thank you for the correct Dates.

[Cordell34]

This is all I meant by saying 1776.

[Cordell34]

In 2018 we feel like we want this to make us safer but there's always the threat of a Ban in some places.

Edited April 4, 2018 at 06:49 PM by Cordell34

[Cordell34]

This AK-47 Draco is perfectly Legal for home or Carry without the worry of a Ban because it is considered a Pistol.

Edited April 4, 2018 at 06:48 PM by Cordell34

[mauserme]

Well Sir in Crook County we couldn't even Own A HandGun under Mayor Richard Daley until 2010 and in no way shape or form would I ever agree with Any form of Government infringing on our inalienable right to bear arms for self defense. However Sir I do not nor shall I ever believe that I NEED my AR-15 Rifle to defend Myself in my Specific County. You may live in Rural America where you may need to hit a target in say a Cornfield. I don't know. When I step out of My door there's no target that I couldn't hit with my AR-15 Pistol. So the Ban on what the Left calls Assault Weapons doesn't affects me In any Manner. I Go to the Range I Shoot My Rifle And I leave it in storage there. I have the Ability to defend myself at Home or when I travel Across Country as I am licensed to Carry in over 40 states with the 3 conceal carry permits that I have. My Grandfather and Uncle are both Police officers and the point that they make is they would rather be in a Gunfight with a person holding a 9mm then a person like say The D.C. Sniper who hid in a trunk and Gunned people down from blocks away. That could not have been done with a .38 Revolver. In No way will I ever be against the Second Amendment. But the Argument that a Law Abiding Citizen should be able to buy ANY weapon he so chooses in the name of SELF DEFENSE....(you know the reason we're allowed to have Guns in the first place) is quite Laughable.

I'd ask you to think of the Second Amendment more in the way we think of the First Amendment.

 

You don't need a Bible/Talmud/Koran to practice your religion. You don't need to attend church/synagogue/temple. You can pray independently, in the privacy of your home with no opportunity to share your beliefs with a community of similarly minded believers.

 

Yet, each of those is as protected as the other. The right to read a religious text does not satisfy the First Amendment in any way remotely suggesting that attending a congregational meeting can be properly prohibited. Nor can attending church once in your life satisfy the right sufficiently to prohibit you from exercising it more than once.

 

Similarly, the Second Amendment is multifaceted with each piece enjoying it's own protection. Self defense is certainly one of those facets but by no means is it the only one.

 

And, like the First Amendment, you may choose to exercise it in ways that suit you best or not at all, without affecting others' ability to exercise it in their own manner.

 

 

For the sake of accuracy I'll also point out that Cook County never banned possession of handguns. Mr.Daley was Mayor of Chicago.

[blck10th]

 

 

 

Why does this discussion seem focused on "need"?

Need has nothing to do with it. Freedom to keep and bear is an inalienable right. We don't have to demonstrate need.

 

 

If the Government allowed average citizens to own a rocket launcher would that still be considered an inalienable right????

The right to bear arms for self defense is a right that everyone on this site will fight for. There has to be a point where even Gun enthusiast such as ourselves come to realize that there are some weapons that there is no Need to have. I love my AR-15 but I'll gladly give it up if Fir a second I thought that it would prevent these Children from being gunned down in Schools. Why is that specific weapon the gun of Choice for most of these mass shootings??? I don't have that answer!!! You ask a Law Enforcement Officer would be rather be in a firefight with a person holding that rifle or a person with a 9mm. I'm willing to bet the deed to my home that the founders had no intention on Providing the inalienable right for all citizens to arm themselves with Gatling Guns. COMMON SENSE would have to Supersede our WANTS you would think. heck even Law Enforcement can't carry just any weapon they choose too.

 

 

 

 

As long as a person is not committing illegal acts and not harming anyone else , what difference does it matter what they own? There are many people in other states and a few in this state that own full auto weapons. What harm are they doing to others by having these items? The same with .50 cal BMG rifles. If you have the place to shoot them , why not own them? Even if you don't have a place to shoot one if you want one and have the money to pay for it then why not.

 

This to a T. It’s like the switchblades. I can own it. I want one. Do I carry it. No. Do I like really interesting things and see how they work. Yes. If it’s legal and I can afford it I se no issue owning it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JTHunter]

Molly and Mauserme - well put !!

 

IIRC, the Second Amendment is/was about tyranny of the fledgling states by the central (federal) government and protecting their own borders. Subsequent wars (1812 in particular) had the states providing manpower to the central government to repel invaders, both in the form of organized militia but also private citizens, some of whom were "drafted" for the duration.

To be able to provide that manpower on such short notice (remember the "Minute Men"?), the People had to keep their weapons close at hand. Because of the physical limitations of firearms in those days, rifles were the preferred weapons because of their greater range and power, something that handguns couldn't provide until after the Civil War.

Now, with all the problems occurring on our streets and cities, the ability to defend our individual selves as opposed to "groups" or "militia", has taken precedence. It has always been that way. It has just taken a long while for the people and courts to realize that too many of our "citizens" are NOT as "civilized" as we would like to believe.

[EsadG]

Waited 26 months, it'll come eventually.

[soundguy]

Well Sir in Crook County we couldn't even Own A HandGun under Mayor Richard Daley until 2010

 

As Mauserme pointed out, it was Chicago, not Cook County which instituted not a ban but rather the inability to register a new handgun within the city, a measure instituted by Mayor Jane Byrne. It played like a ban. Obviously, Mayor Daley maintained status quo.

 

Plenty of Chicagoan's kept their continuously registered handguns in the city from 1982 thru the end of registration. Some (Alderman Richard Mell) forgot to renew the registration and moved their guns out of state to comply with the ordinance. Many, many others, myself included, risked being discovered violating a city ordinance and carried on as normal folks, sometimes wondering if CPD really had unmarked squads parked near Gun World, running plates to find Chicago shooters.

 

It was a (potentially very expensive) violation of a city ordinance... and to my knowledge, no one was ever jammed up by it unless they were actually committing a crime of any sort.

 

During this period in The City:

 

If you shot someone in self defense, the gun you used was confiscated

If your kid found your gun in the sock drawer and accidentally killed his best friend, it was deemed you'd suffered hardship enough

If a cop found you lost in the wrong neighborhood he might suggest you carry a gun next time

If you had an FOID you were perfectly free to own as many handguns as you wished

Edited April 8, 2018 at 01:37 AM by soundguy

[tkroenlein]

It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

 

Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.

 

Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.

 

What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?

 

Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.

 

I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.

[Cordell34]

It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.

Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.

What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?

Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.

I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.

So please enlighten me! If there was ever an attempt of tyrannical takeover in this Country. What use will you have for any of your small arms if there's an Abrams tank outside your door Sir? Go ask the Palestinians how their firearms have held up against Israel. That argument stinks.

[papa]

 

It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.

Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.

What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?

Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.

I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.

So please enlighten me! If there was ever an attempt of tyrannical takeover in this Country. What use will you have for any of your small arms if there's an Abrams tank outside your door Sir? Go ask the Palestinians how their firearms have held up against Israel. That argument stinks.

 

 

$ You apparently have never heard of the sock bomb. It'll take the tracks right off those tanks and then they are sitting ducks. $

[Cordell34]

Papa!!! That does

 

It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.

Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.

What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?

Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.

I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.

 

So please enlighten me! If there was ever an attempt of tyrannical takeover in this Country. What use will you have for any of your small arms if there's an Abrams tank outside your door Sir? Go ask the Palestinians how their firearms have held up against Israel. That argument stinks.

 

$ You apparently have never heard of the sock bomb. It'll take the tracks right off those tanks and then they are sitting ducks. $

 

Papa!! Were you aware that Abrams can hit a target over a Mile away??? You understand my point, your a very smart fellow. When the Constitution was written a rifle could basically enable a civilian to have the same fire capability as the soldier. In this day and age the civilian population would have no chance against the US Military and hellfire missiles and Smartbombs. Again the argument is nonsensical in 2018.

[mauserme]

Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.

The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.

In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.

 

 

Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.

[Cordell34]

Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.

The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.

In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.

 

 

Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.

Listen it should be quite clear that I won't be moved on my beliefs the same as you won't be moved that the "Founders had it all right" I've shown you that the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agrees with my position not yours. You claim to be freedom loving but when that very freedom is exhibited through the form a vote within the highest Court in our land. A decision was reached and concluded that LAWMAKERS can ban not all but CERTAIN WEAPONS but you are still arguing that you should be able to Own whatever weapon your money can buy you. It just doesn't fly.

[Bitter Clinger]

Cordell, like it's already been stated, go read the Federalist Papers and other resources to learn what the founders truly intended.

 

Also, some leftists in black robes sitting on some high court redefining what the 2nd amendment is doesn't miraculously change its true meaning. Again, read what the founders intended.

 

The people should have whatever weapons they need to defend against a tyrannical government.

[Molly B.]

This is an excellent idea. Cordell, please read the Federalist Papers and another great resource is "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792. by David Young. I believe it is the most exhaustive compilation of historical facts concerning the Second Amendment.

 

So, please read the Federalist Papers- if you haven't already - before commenting further.

 

p.s. The folks here are not trying to change your opinion, they are merely challenging your opinion and asking you to back it up with historical fact.