I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

a reply to: Willtell

There is no wisdom in disarming a whole nation and destroying a right that no government and no politician bestowed upon Americans. The right to self defense is a natural right. All these calls for disarming Americans is nothing but the attempts of the authoritarians in the left to deprive Americans of this natural right. All that "gun control" has done in the past is open countries to be ruled by dictators and oppress the people.

As for that military man's claims? Obviously he is as delusional and irrational as the rest of the left. The second amendment is not just about "militias"... For a reason the second part of the second amendment states: "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In that second part it is obvious that the founding fathers were talking about THE PEOPLE and not the militia. How hard is that to understand?

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: Willtell
There is no such thing as an assault rifle...

"Assault rifle" is very much a real thing. The AR15, however, is not one of them.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: aethertek

heres a test whats the definition of assault rifle?

It's a selective-fire (ie capable of full auto) rifle firing an intermediate round. These two functions are inseparable in the definition, as it was the intermediate round that makes the full auto manageable.

The name quite specifically comes from the German WWII "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally "storm rifle", but "storm" in the sense of "to storm a bunker", or "assault") which was the grandfather of all "assault rifles" and gave its name to the category.

The high rates of fire were inherent to its purpose. The ability to fire an AR15 "quite fast" does not mean it is an assault rifle, any more than the ability to put nearly 40 rounds per minute through a Lee Enfield bolt action (and to have all bullets hit a 12" target at 300 yards) made the Lee Enfield an "assault rifle".

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Willtell
...
As for that military man's claims? Obviously he is as delusional and irrational as the rest of the left. The second amendment is not just about "militias"... For a reason the second part of the second amendment states: "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In that second part it is obvious that the founding fathers were talking about THE PEOPLE and not the militia. How hard is that to understand?

To further clarify:

In addition, the first part, "...a well regulated militia..." the word "regulated" means "orderly" or well trained (definition from an 18th Century dictionary - pub 1781). If it were to be written today, it would say it as "...a well trained and organized militia..".

The modern definition of regulated meaning to restrict was NOT what was originally meant in the context of that line at that period of time. And the militia was made of of the people, citizens. So to be well regulated, they needed the people to be able to own and carry personal firearms, so when called, they would be available and trained (monthly mandatory drilling was the law in most states). Keeping the firearms in a central location was proven a bad idea after the skirmish at Lexington and Concord. That is when the British regulars (well regulated army soldiers) marched toward Concord to seize the cache of weapons and powder stored centrally there. After that, the firearms and powder were meant to be stored in each home to distribute them among the people to avoid that possibility in the future.

This is basic American History, which is all but forgotten and has been removed from the American school system.

I wonder why they do not want kids learning this aspect of our founding?

Hmmm.... Could it be they want them to grow up believing that we should have not right to protect ourselves?

There is almost too much stupid in that article to address.

But I'll show some of it with just these few little bits.

"These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. "

They are in fact used for hunting and a 223 round fired from an AR-15 will do less damage to an animal than any actual hunting rifle will. FACT. Lousy for target shooting? Totally ignorant statement divorced from fact. For casual target shooting where you don't need great accuracy, any rifle would do just fine. But it doesn't end there, AR-15's can be some of the most accurate rifles in the world and will often shoot less than 1-inch groups at 100 yards with a good barrel (Larue, Noveske, etc) and good ammo.

The only thing too stupid are those who thinks we need more guns.

MOAR GUNS TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM RIGHT HERE!!!

Given the Maryland shooting today, I'm surprised someone hasn't recommended arming new boyfriends with complimentary guns (since a good boyfriend with a gun is the only thing that can stop an ex-boyfriend with a gun).

It would be telling to ask how many gun activists still believe in it after their children are murdered in class....

So, you cannot refute a single point that I made, got it.