Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

a reply to: introvert

This is how the MILITARY use 'assault weapons'.

a reply to: neo96

You are avoiding the question.

If the differences between the two are meaningless, why do they use higher RPM firearms?

Edit to add: Your video does show the huge differences between the two firearms. A musket could never be that effective.

a reply to: introvert

Watch the video.

Because I know you didn't.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Watch the video.

Because I know you didn't.

I watched the first few minutes and saw all I needed to see.

Your assertion is ridiculous and you refuse to address that because you know it's absurd.

The video you posted proves the major difference.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists

As the absolute majority of gun owners in the U.S.


The Second Amendment is part of The Constituion.

Gun owners have rights under The Constitution.



Now tell me who is misdirecting with dishonesty...

you are the one misdirecting with dishonesty...democrats are not anti-gun, nor anti-second amendment. that's like saying someone is anti-car, if they keep you from driving a top-fuel dragster on the highway

a reply to: introvert

Military weapons have a HIGHER rate of fire than the AR.

Military weapons have a select fire, burst fire modes.

Rate of fire is meaningless to civilians models.

They don't have burst in fact they have LOWER rates of fire.

The ABSURDITY is trying to compare an AR to the M4.

Apples to Oranges.

a reply to: neo96

So there is a difference between the AR and an M4, but there is no difference between the AR and a musket?

Rate of fire is absolutely worthy of consideration.

Again, you are proving with your own words how absurd your assertion is.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Apples to Oranges.

Or maybe Pintos to Ferraris.

What I find interesting is that in the past week, at least 30,000 AR platform (not all are true AR-15s) have been legally purchased by American citizens.

Reminds me of a line from a movie: "The more you tighten your grip..."

But it's okay I doubt even one of them will be used in a mass shooting.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

So there is a difference between the AR and an M4, but there is no difference between the AR and a musket?

Rate of fire is absolutely worthy of consideration.

Again, you are proving with your own words how absurd your assertion is.

Again, folks are making irrelevant comparisons to further their own agenda. Comparing the Rate of Fire between a flintlock musket and a modern semi-auto rifle is a non-sequitur (note "AR" is also irrelevant since all semi-auto rifles have similar if not the same Rate of Fire). What you should be comparing is the civilian weapon and the miltary weapon of the SAME era.

18th Century:
Military state-of-the-art weapon is a high caliber smooth bore flintlock musket (.75cal or .69cal were both common). For the sake of argument, we will not list rifles here since at the time they were specialized weapons requiring expensive training and costly to produce. They also had a lower Rate of Fire than the smooth bore musket. The musket was by far more numerous and the weapon of choice for all military armies. The American militia wielded the SAME level of weapon as their enemy on the battle field. It was an equivalent match-up of hardware.

21st Century:
Military state-of-the-art weapon is a low caliber rifled bore select fire light weapon (.223cal or .50cal are both common). For the sake of argument, we will not list sniper rifles here since they are specialized weapons requiring expensive training and more costly to produce. They also have a lower Rate of Fire than the rifled bore select fire light weapon. The rifled bore select fire light weapon is by far more numerous and the weapon of choice for all military armies. The American civilian is allowed to wield a less effective level of weapon as their enemy on the battle field. It is NOT an equivalent match-up of hardware. Civilian weaponry is semi-auto only, no burst fire or automatic fire.

So, in this comparison, the modern civilian would be wildly out gunned on the battlefield against a military enemy. If the 2nd Amendment required well-regulated civilians, armed to fight a military enemy, then they should be allowed to keep and bear the SAME level of hardware as their potential enemy, as did their forefathers when the document was drafted.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was responding to a member that made some ridiculous statements that would fall in to that category of a non-sequitur.

Also, the 2nd amendment does not say "well-regulated citizens". It says a well-regulated militia, and the right of people to bear arms.

That is important.

a reply to: introvert

And, who do you think are members of the militia? Pets? Please, do not try to play word games, it makes everyone's IQ lower.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

And, who do you think are members of the militia? Pets? Please, do not try to play word games, it makes everyone's IQ lower.

It is important to note the difference. There are specific requirements that must be met in order to be a part of a "militia", according to the militia acts. In fact, the militia act of 1903 created the National Guard and created the criteria in which one could join it. Not everyone that is able to bear arms is able to join the militia.

The 2nd amendment specifically differentiates between the well-regulated militia and the right of the people.

You make think that lowers one's IQ to know such things, but it is important if you are going to try to defend the 2nd.

a reply to: introvert

And yet, that little comma in there makes the separation. That difference is also VERY important. It delineates the REQUIREMENT of being in the militia with simply "the people". If the people are mot armed, then they cannot, logically, be in a militia, now can they? So, my comment stands. And we are not even on the topic of "shall not be infringed", which has been tossed aside since the 1930's.

a reply to: Krakatoa

And yet, that little comma in there makes the separation. That difference is also VERY important.

Indeed, it is. That is why I said it is incorrect to say well-organized citizen. Armed citizens that meet certain requirements can be part of the well-organized militia (National Guard/Naval militia). Otherwise, they can be part of the unorganized militia.

Two separate things.

If the people are mot armed, then they cannot, logically, be in a militia, now can they?

I do not disagree. I was only correcting, for the record, the specifics of organized vs. unorganized. There is no such thing as a well-organized citizen, when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: introvert

So, by your interpretation, you do not even need to be a citizen of this country to keep and bear arms. Since "people" (in your interpretation) is not inclusive of just citizens. Well, that broadens the amendment considerably, now doesn't it. In fact it allows anyone, as long as they are a "person".

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, by your interpretation, you do not even need to be a citizen of this country to keep and bear arms.

I did not say anything close to that. Are we smoking something today?

All I said is that there is nothing in the 2nd that discusses well-regulated citizens.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't necessarily disagree, but I was responding to a member that made some ridiculous statements that would fall in to that category of a non-sequitur.

Also, the 2nd amendment does not say "well-regulated citizens". It says a well-regulated militia, and the right of people to bear arms.

That is important.

That is a FAILURE of reading comprehension.

The second clearly talked about two separate but EQUAL things.

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.

A well regulated militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Meant the STATES have the right to have militias. The only 'regulation' implied there is them being combat effective.

The people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

A militia without arms,

A people without arms.

Is nothing more than target practice for any would be aggressor EITHER foreign or domestic.

Case in point 'mass shootings'.

And NO.

Because someone pushing 'rate of fire' clearly ignores RECOIL.

First of all, I have no problem at all with semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, etc.

I have not and never did support bans on those sorts of weapons.

I am in favor of universal background checks for the sales of all firearms.

I am in favor of making the process of the Terrorist Screening Database compliant with the Constitution, and then, to prevent anyone on that list from purchasing firearms without additional judicial review.

So, no, the comparisons I have made here in response to ridiculous non-sensical statements like someone with an AK and someone with a musket would have done the same amount of damage in Pulse are not directed an any agenda except reality.

However.

The history of the Second Amendment is not mysterious nor up to historical revision. Thanks to James Madison, we know exactly what the ACTUAL discussion was in terms of its drafting at the Convention.

1. Standing armies were considered to be dangerous to the liberty of the People.

2. The English Common Law had established that a person's fundamental rights included the right to defend themselves and their homes, community, (and by extension, state and nation) by force of their own arms.

3. In order to make it unnecessary to have a standing army in the United States, the Constitution created a compromise which depended on the militia made up of citizens set against the ability of Congress to raise a standing army of limited duration. The militia was made up of all able bodied male citizens to act as the first line of defense against foreign invasions, domestic uprisings and, indeed, any government that sought to ignore the laws of the land.

(Krakatoa, this gives strong credence to your arguments in my opinion, to which I have no disagreement.)

4. Some were also concerned that the right to bear arms for the purpose of killing game should be protected, as it was common in England for the local lord to claim ownership of all game animals (which was an integral componenet of the American diet at the time.)

Here's an example of one "expression of rights" (we didn't' call them Amendments at this point) proposed by some of the delegates from the State of Pennsylvania:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.

Here's the version submitted by the delegation from Virginia during the Convention:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence for a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

The Constitution was ratified by a majority of States WITH THE UNDERSTANDING that a "bill of rights" would be immediately drafted by the Congress and added to (Amended) the Constitution. (Or as they said at the time "Ratification must precede Amendment" because, of course, they didn't have any power to amend something that didn't exist.)

James Madison's first suggestion for the language submitted to the House of Representatives that would become the Second was as follows:

"that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person

The House sent seventeen Amendments to the Senate which streamlined and edited before sending to the States for ratification.

Twelve were sent, Ten were accepted, including, the Second:

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.

Source

a reply to: xuenchen

Seems many of them are actually gun owners themselves !!

Isn't that good news , better to have gun owners try to force debate on gun control than gun haters ... right ?