Federal judge tosses Kansas machine gun possession case on Second Amendment grounds

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Do you not consider tyranny being a war on the people....?

Yes, so what is the problem with them fighting back?

All I'm saying is that even if they don't have a 2A, they can still get weapons and fight back. No 2A needed. I can't make it any simpler.

My point here is the purpose of the 2a is to not have infringements by the government and that if the military has it, so should it be available to the people.

See, I told you, you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

My point had nothing to do with "if the military has it, so should it be available to the people". All I said was that the idea of "now we can protect our country" is hyperbole, because you have the biggest military in the world. They don't need Fred down the street to have a full auto rifle to come and save the day.

a reply to: daskakik

Yet they aren't hampered either by Fred having one....

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Yet they aren't hampered either by Fred having one....

I never said they would be. I said it was a good decision. How you arrived at the conclusion that I was against Fred having a full auto rifle is beyond me.

a reply to: daskakik

Then I apologize if that is your position.

Mea culpa.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Justoneman
And my point was that the scenario you just described isn't you staving off an invading army.

Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Apples and Apples. If I need it, I need it.

If it is bearable arm by the army it was valid and that term makes it so the citizen can keep up with the gov.

a reply to: Justoneman
No, you mentioned law enforcement, which means home defense.

Keeping up with the gov. Full auto doesn't even put you in the same ballpark of what they have.

You are not going to be stopping an invading army.

So actually, apples, oranges and pears.

I'm sure it'll be fun at the range though.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp
It happens.

NOPE Apples and Apples, IF i need it for ANY reason, period.


No conditions.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Justoneman
No, you mentioned law enforcement, which means home defense.

Keeping up with the gov. Full auto doesn't even put you in the same ballpark of what they have.

You are not going to be stopping an invading army.

So actually, apples, oranges and pears.

I'm sure it'll be fun at the range though.

a reply to: Justoneman
Oh my! How did you ever survive without one?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Justoneman
Oh my! How did you ever survive without one?

You assume that he didn’t have one.

a reply to: butcherguy
Being so giddy about the ruling makes it seem that way.

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't the 1986 National Firearms Act prohibit private ownership of full auto machine guns made after that date?

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


shoot,.... now every guy i know got a pickup truck
gonna have at least 1 minigun sticking out of the hood

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Justoneman
No, you mentioned law enforcement, which means home defense.

what? law enforcement is not home defense. home defense is when is when a individual defends his home and family.

Keeping up with the gov. Full auto doesn't even put you in the same ballpark of what they have.

if you had a fully automatic weapon chambered in 5.56 or 7.62, it would be exactly in the same ball park. hell even .223 would be close enough.

granted many countries are now trying new caliber sizes for better performance, maybe lighter load outs. but a full auto m14 can rock and put lots of lead on target in semi, and in full auto with short bursts.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
what? law enforcement is not home defense. home defense is when is when a individual defends his home and family.

Maybe you should have read what I was replying to:

When seconds count the Law Enforcement is minutes away is how life works.

Which means they would have to defend their home and family.

ETA: I was just pointing out that this has nothing to do with bringing down a tyrannical government or repelling an attack from a foreign country.

if you had a fully automatic weapon chambered in 5.56 or 7.62, it would be exactly in the same ball park. hell even .223 would be close enough.

Still doesn't mean you have grenades, mortars, bazookas, tanks, drones, choppers or fighter jets.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Maybe you should have read what I was replying to:

the post you replied to and quoted doesn't say the first thing about law enforcement or home defense. that was from another post of his.

ETA: I was just pointing out that this has nothing to do with bringing down a tyrannical government or repelling an attack from a foreign country.

Still doesn't mean you have grenades, mortars, bazookas, tanks, drones, choppers or fighter jets.

i got news for ya US law enforcement doesn't have grenades, mortars, bazookas, tanks, or fighter jets.

what they do have are flash bangs which is a less than lethal weapon in most instances, and gas grenades which is also less than lethal even though they can cause injury and possibly kill if right beside one when they go off.

helicopters which are unarmed and as far as i know have only been used once to kill a suspect in LA in 2017 by a swat member onboard.

the closest they have to tanks are military surplus APC's of various types, and they don't have fixed or mounted weapon.
they also have drones which are nothing but surveillance and aren't armed.

then if you look at history hell as far back as you want there have been many resistance groups or even hostile take over groups that have held governments at bay for years starting out with nothing, and taking some of the the things you mentioned from the invaders or the government they were fighting. the two most recent were the taliband and isis.

so you can't say it can't be done.




i should have added, that even in federal law enforcement they may have access to more military hardware that their swat teams can use , but when real weapons of war are needed they call in the guard like waco.


and i thought the bazooka part was funny, nobody has used bazookas for about 50 60 years, they use antitank weapons of some sort be them missiles or rockets.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
the post you replied to and quoted doesn't say the first thing about law enforcement or home defense. that was from another post of his.

Fair enough, but that was what we were discussing.

i got news for ya US law enforcement doesn't have grenades, mortars, bazookas, tanks, or fighter jets.

That was in regards to people saying the 2A is there to remove a tyrannical federal government. The federal government does have those things.

and i thought the bazooka part was funny, nobody has used bazookas for about 50 60 years, they use antitank weapons of some sort be them missiles or rockets.

Yeah they use Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifles, but they are the same thing. A rose by any other name and all that jazz...