Semi-Auto Sponsorship Program?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: howtonhawky

the reason i say this is because it seems obvious that the supreme court agrees with me that as long as a path of ownership remains then the level of infringement has not reached criminal or unlawful levels.

In DC v Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the requirement by DC that gun owners keep their weapons secured with a trigger lock was unconstitutional.

So, no. The litmus test is not simply "can you own a gun or not."

i agree with that
the point i am also making is responsibility and while a law requiring trigger locks is wrong a law that requires one to keep others safe is justified. ie you are at a friends house and the young people there are holding loaded guns then perhaps that is not responsible and should be addressed by you. if you fail to help the situation and the next day one of those young ones has an accident firearm related then you are responsible.

a reply to: aethertek

I am a member of The NRA. You are clueless in regards our membership.

The OP has an interesting perspective, seeing as how the NRA is behind the best training programs available, wrote most all state ccw courses and supports entirely sensible gun ownership.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xtrozero

no i do not believe that my air gun was considered when forming the 2nd
i do not think they even gave thought to the style of weaponery at the time other that what the majority was armed with.
so the semi auto or what ever they were at the time were not widespread but they did have one or two guns at the time that could spit many rounds. they had cannons too

imo the police do not need semi autos either and they should not be getting surplus military weapons nor should you have a state of the art missile launcher

"well armed" for their time meant any long arm at least equal to any long arm that might be used against them. Cannon, bombs, missiles, rockets etc were not used in the 2nd, and are not "arms" so why do you keep repeating them as some point?

a reply to: howtonhawky

I'm already held responsible for any action I may take with my firearms. I kill someone, I'll be, most likely, charged with some form of homicide. If I shoot someone, whether accidentally or not, I'll be held accountable.

I am already trained, and practice quite often. So, you and others, would further infringe upon my rights because of what I "might" do? "Might"?

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Second amendment says no. Fourth amendment says no. Fifth amendment says no. The tenth amendment doubles down.

Nearly half of the Bill of Rights says you're wrong.

a reply to: BlueJacket

You mean, no Russians??

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: howtonhawky

They didn't consider television or the internet when writing the first amendment either but it still applies.
I would say they put more thought into future weapons than future modes of communication.

you think your 1st is not infringed upon???
how about you go on tv today and say that? the majority of americans will never be on tv so does that mean they are infringed upon. no it does not because even it is likely for you to be on tv there is a path for you to be on tv and that path is full of infringments

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: howtonhawky

I'm already held responsible for any action I may take with my firearms. I kill someone, I'll be, most likely, charged with some form of homicide. If I shoot someone, whether accidentally or not, I'll be held accountable.

I am already trained, and practice quite often. So, you and others, would further infringe upon my rights because of what I "might" do? "Might"?

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Second amendment says no. Fourth amendment says no. Fifth amendment says no. The tenth amendment doubles down.

Nearly half of the Bill of Rights says you're wrong.

By getting you to prove what you just stated is not an infringement.

a reply to: howtonhawky

There are already laws that require weapons kept in a residence with minors to be secured.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xtrozero

so the semi auto or what ever they were at the time were not widespread but they did have one or two guns at the time that could spit many rounds. they had cannons too

So what meets your criteria as a "well Armed" gun in 2018?

a reply to: Xtrozero

there was a fully auto fire arm during the writing of the constitution btw...our fledgling government just couldnt afford it...

also the argument is contextual...its about meeting like force of tyranny with like force by the people.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xtrozero

so the semi auto or what ever they were at the time were not widespread but they did have one or two guns at the time that could spit many rounds. they had cannons too

So what meets your criteria as a "well Armed" gun in 2018?

Well armed imo.

Is full auto machine gun.

I would throw in some smoke grenades too but anti-gunners made them illegal.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xtrozero

so the semi auto or what ever they were at the time were not widespread but they did have one or two guns at the time that could spit many rounds. they had cannons too

So what meets your criteria as a "well Armed" gun in 2018?

guns dont have arms
personally i would like to defend myself against about 8 billion people so whatever it takes to get that done
i think any gun with wood on it is good
our best defense is sponsorship (countless numbers of Americans with decent weaponry)
none of us can defend anymore against anything other than intruders and such without help from like minded others

a reply to: howtonhawky

What do I need to prove? Look up the bill of rights, give it some honest thought.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

guns dont have arms

But arms are need to use a gun...get the connection...lol

a reply to: seagull

if this sponsorship was in place you would have to prove that you are qualified to own semi auto weapons

that is all

not an infringment

originally posted by: neo96
We need nothing with exception to people to read the Bill of Rights.

Where it begins and ends.

Well said!

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: seagull

if this sponsorship was in place you would have to prove that you are qualified to own semi auto weapons

that is all

not an infringment

Tell me, please, how do you "qualify" for an inalienable Civil Right?

I'll wait patiently here for the answer. Take your time.

i bet many of you think E.T. was an extra terrestrial.
he was not because the word extra denotes that he was terrestrial in the first place
he would be more like O.T.T. other than terrestrial

google

originally posted by: howtonhawky
i bet many of you think E.T. was an extra terrestrial.
he was not because the word extra denotes that he was terrestrial in the first place
he would be more like O.T.T. other than terrestrial

google

That attempt to deflect will not aid your sinking ship.

a reply to: VashTheStampede

the answer is in the post

point being that many examples of qualification were givin in the link


how can any one be required to display a certain level of firearm training without infringing on their rights.

your rights are and always have been alien to you