Actually, that's a good one."People don't NEED to vote, either. So go cancel your registration."
Depends on what you consider sporting? Would you consider a football to be "sporting goods?" They aren't used for hunting.I hate that term "modern sporting rifle". Who do we think we are fooling with that nonsense?
All I can say is you/we better better protect the schools or you can kiss RKBA goodbye. Period.Discussing the difference between an assault weapon and rifle is useless in today's world. It is a choir argument. Sorry - get over it.
If you denigrate fully auto weapons by saying the AR is nice because it isn't full auto, well - let's confiscate all the legal NFA weapons out there and forget every opening up that registry.
Hunting has nothing to do with the RKBA, the slight chance you need 30 rounds for pigs won't convince anybody of anything outside of the choir. Same with competition. Have people not learned that the sports argument is a loser and irrelevant to the Constitutional issues?
Weapons of war - one might argue that defense against tyranny covers the ability to have a reasonable weapon of 'war' if it ever came to that. Patton described the M-1 Garand as the greatest battle rifle with 8 shots - so how is a 30 round gun, not that lethal. Also, police departments carry semi auto for their high intensity situations and militarizes sometimes limit their rifles to 3 round bursts and rarely use the full auto.
The best arguments are that you can need it for self-defense in extreme situations and its 'war' potential are necessary for defense against tyranny. Discussing hunting and competition is a trap for you to fall into. Please don't take away my toys - that's what you are saying.
The Modern Sporting Rifle mantra was extremely stupid if you knew anything about the Constitutional issues or psychology of persuasion.
The AR15 is a "weapon of war" and that in itself is exactly the reason that we should have it. What needs to happen is gun owners need to get it through their seemingly thick heads that the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or competition. Even self defense from civilian criminals is a side benefit, not the primary purpose. The 2A exists to protect the right of the people to own and train with weapons of war, so that the people remain capable of conducting war competently. I know a lot of gun owners try to do the whole "no militaries use it" bit, but when it comes down to it, that's only accurate in the most minor, unimportant details. Yes, our 2A right to own the exact same small arms as the military has been infringed, but the AR is a very good close second that shares almost every part in common with the M4. So close in fact that if a person had both in hand it takes just a few seconds to swap the AR upper onto the M4 lower and it'll run just fine.
There's no denying that the tactic of coming up with excuses has bought us time, and for that I am grateful. Eventually though, it's going to come back to bite us. I think we've gotten to the point where gun owners and organizations can no longer fool the general public with nonsense about needing 30 rd mags for hunting or competition or even defense from civilians. Seriously, can you cite an example of a civilian in the USA needing to fire 30 rds from a rifle in self defense? We should have these rifles because they're weapons of war, not in spite of it.
I didn't say that it "gives us the right". I said it exists to protect that right, which as you say, was assumed by the founders to be inherent to us as human beings.I agree with all you say except one disagreement. When you say it gives us the right to weapons used by military. The second amendment does not give the right, that right, to keep and bear arms is assumed, already there. The second amendment guarantees that right, which is preexisting, will not be infringed. The point of the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting uses. The point is if again the need to put tyranical government back in its place arises, the citizenry is able to do so. They had just finished doing so! Minor disparity, but an important one.
Russellc
The honest truth is, none of your arguments matter to the people you are debating. They have made up their minds that banning firearms is the only solution and there is no rationalizing with them. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about ending mass shootings. They don't care that the AR-15 is the most versatile rifle in the world. They don't care what size magazines fit in the AR-15's magwell.
They don't care about any of that, and I am done arguing with them. I don't participate in debates with anti-gun folk anymore. I'm not wasting my breath or my keystrokes.
Sheesh, even on a gun forum, we cannot agree about what to call the AR-15 ...
And then ...
If we don't speak up to counter the arguments, than we have already lost.
That's becasue the antis keep calling it all sorts of spurious things, and we try to keep up with their rhetoric to the point where words almost have no meaning (which is a socialist ideal, as they will then use their centralized authority to tell us what words mean in doublegood rightthink).Sheesh, even on a gun forum, we cannot agree about what to call the AR-15
Uh, yeah, so we just give up? Lighten up, Francis ...We lost a long time ago.
I'm thinking that you kinda missed my point ...That's becasue the antis keep calling it all sorts of spurious things, and we try to keep up with their rhetoric to the point where words almost have no meaning (which is a socialist ideal, as they will then use their centralized authority to tell us what words mean in doublegood rightthink).
They could not sort out automatic versus semi-automatic, so they trotted out "assault weapon."
They could not keep "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" weapon straight, so they have trotted out "weapon of war."
We recognize this enough to, within our own community, refer to EBR (Evil Black Rifle), despite a trend towards FDE
But, EBR is exactly what the antis mean, and they are willing to change the talking points to obfuscate that as much as they can. because, they do not care what language is used, as long as they win the argument. And they count anything less than a 100% win as a loss. Which means they have to come back harder the next time.
Uh, yeah, so we just give up? Lighten up, Francis ...
. . .NEWSFLASH. None of these facts matter or affect the outcome of the current anti gun push in the slightest.
Not even a little
This is gonna come down to who has the dominant positivity viewed PR imagine.
And as I see it right now we are losing big time. Because at the end of the day the
people we have to convince to join our side are NOT big thinkers.
But if you DON'T argue, those on the fence hear only the anti argument -- because they'll never shut up.I didn't say "give up". You can give up arguing with antis though. It accomplishes nothing.