So what are "military grade" firearms made for the battlefield that antis want to ban/confiscate?

[LiveLife]

In the "Beto" thread, what Tommygunn posted cinched what I have been pondering recently.

This assertion that the 5.56mm./.223 round is some kind of "magic" death bomb from hell is wearing me ... that the 223 was capable of doing horrendous damage to body organs compared to 9mm.

I could have shown her photos of Civil War soldiers who miraculously survived horrendous wounds from blackpowder muzzle loaders .... bet she'd want to ban those, right quick!!!

Just like the term "assault rifle", antis' latest use of "military grade" firearms made me snicker and will make voters chuckle to shake their heads when they realize just about every type of firearms have been used in the battlefield from muzzle loading muskets, revolvers, bolt action/lever action rifles, pump shotguns to auto loading rifles.

So while sounding "reasonable" calling for ban/confiscation of "military grade" firearms made and used for the battlefield because they are "better at killing people", the antis are in effect calling for ban/confiscation of all firearms because over the centuries, they were all made and used for the battlefield to kill people. Yes, guns were made to kill, just like knives were made to cut.

"Reasonable" gun control/reform = Gun ban/confiscation.

In many ways, I am glad their true intent and truth about "reasonable" gun control/reform is now clear and out in the open as the antis and anti gun rights/2A law makers want to ban/confiscate ALL GUNS.

 

[LiveLife]

From the Beto thread.

This assertion that the 5.56mm./.223 round is some kind of "magic" death bomb from hell is wearing me

That's right. The .223 is far less powerful than the .30-06, which nobody seems to have a problem with (since it's commonly used for hunting).

Well, then the antis will want to ban the rifles that fire the "more powerful" round because it is more "dangerous".

Wait, and antis will next say the hunting rounds made for larger animals are even more powerful than .30-06 and even more dangerous so they must be banned too.

The slippery slope just became a vertical drop.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I am somewhat heartened when I read the responses to the antigun articles posted on Yahoo (hardly a 2A friendly site). They are overwhelmingly opposed to Beto and his confiscation decree.

 

[LiveLife]

I noticed that too. I believe this latest fervor push by the antis to ban/confiscate guns will ignite a renewed core fundamental basis understanding for the Second Amendment the founders found necessary as accurately stated by federal judge Benitez when he overturned/overruled with judgement that CA's ban was unconstitutional.

From Beto thread.

Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was precisely written to protect "weapons of war" in citizens' hands.

+1. And as judge Benitez already applied the "common use" argument to overturn/overrule CA's large capacity magazine ban with judgement earlier this year, I believe the "Originalist" Supreme Court will also rule to protect the firearms in "common use" so citizens can protect their lives and rights from criminals and overreaching law makers - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

"In 2008, Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes that highly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit ... 'Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense ... This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.'"

I cannot wait to hear the arguments/rulings made in favor of "common use" arms (which includes ammunition storage devices like lead balls and powder for muskets) for self defense in the courts. And believe me, "auto loading" rifles are pretty common.

 

[LiveLife]

And despite the gun ban/confiscation fervor, here's the true political reality for law makers on "military style" firearms that many voters will come to realize - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban-Democrats.html

• House Democrats ... are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens

• ... a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups - making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts.

• In the Senate, it draws less support

• Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure, "Let’s be honest ... Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”

• It also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them re-election.

• Some Democrats in surprising corners of the country have also embraced a ban, even though the political reality is that Mr. Trump would never sign such a measure.

• But for centrists like Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma ... supporting an assault weapons ban could be politically toxic.
  
  
• Representative Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, who enjoys the backing of the National Rifle Association and is facing a primary challenge from the left, does not support a ban ... "I’m not going to take guns away from people like they want to do.”

 

[FlSwampRat]

I was discussing 2A with a friend who, while not anti, considers himself reasonable. He said all of the Bill of Rights amendments have limits, using the old saw of not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and then I pointed out that 9 of the ten don't have the phrase "Shall not be infringed" in them, 2A does.

 

[LiveLife]

I was discussing 2A with a friend who, while not anti, considers himself reasonable. He said all of the Bill of Rights amendments have limits, using the old saw of not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and then I pointed out that 9 of the ten don't have the phrase "Shall not be infringed" in them, 2A does.

With recent "Originalist" justices like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court, I believe we'll see more clear enforcement of the Second Amendment in the near future as they see constitutional amendments as changes made to the US Constitution to reflect modern times. Gorsuch's recent interview is refreshing as he stated "Bill of Rights is excellent" and "Judges re the backstop to ensure rights and liberties" and considers that the "job" of the Supreme Court to ensure "your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced." - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent.

... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"

... when asked about president Trump commenting in 2017 that "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch repolied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"

... when asked about the US Constitution needing to change to better reflect current times, Gorsuch replied, "The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that"

 

[huntsman]

The question isn’t what is, its what isn’t?

In their opinion.

In my opinion once they begin not much would be left.

 

[FlSwampRat]

The question isn’t what is, its what isn’t?

As I said in the Beto thread, pretty much every firearm design started life as a weapon of war design. But, then again, sharpened sticks did, too.

In their opinion.

I hope we never find out because we'll only do that when we're at their end game and the truth is revealed, as of now, we're guessing what their real objective is.

In my opinion once they begin not much would be left.

So, what kinda sharpened stick ya got there, bub?

 

[SilentStalker]

Um, they want all of them. Don’t kid yourself by thinking otherwise.

 

[AlexanderA]

With recent "Originalist" justices like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court, I believe we'll see more clear enforcement of the Second Amendment in the near future

There is one aspect of the Heller case that needs to be re-examined. That's Scalia's negation of the Militia Clause. The Militia Clause needs to be given due weight, with the understanding that, as in 1791, all citizens are members of the militia. The way I see it, that's the only way that the ownership of "assault weapons," as well as all military and military-like weapons, can be protected. "Common use" is a thin reed to rely on.

 

[AlexanderA]

Um, they want all of them. Don’t kid yourself by thinking otherwise.

Yes, it's visceral. The antis believe deep down that guns are icky. Not only that, but they believe that gun owners are icky. This sort of elitism is what was behind Hillary's comment about "deplorables" and Obama's comment about certain people "clinging to guns and religion."

 

[LiveLife]

There is one aspect of the Heller case that needs to be re-examined. That's Scalia's negation of the Militia Clause.

IMHO, no need because the Supreme Court ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And now we get to address the "Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15, AK47, Mini14, etc. along with large capacity magazines originally and currently "commonly used" with auto loading firearms instead of states "arbitrarily" limiting capacity in violation of the Second Amendment as already eloquently expressed by judge Benitez.

Yes, it's visceral. The antis believe deep down that guns are icky. Not only that, but they believe that gun owners are icky. This sort of elitism is what was behind Hillary's comment about "deplorables" and Obama's comment about certain people "clinging to guns and religion."

Then I guess us "deplorables" and "stupid" minorities need to prevail again in 2020 so we can "cling" to our guns.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Yes, it's visceral. The antis believe deep down that guns are icky. Not only that, but they believe that gun owners are icky.

I am glad, sir, that you specified it was antis saying that. Had you been calling me icky my seconds would be calling on you and it would be Super Soakers at 15'.

 

[SilentStalker]

IMHO, no need because the Supreme Court ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And now we get to address the "Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15, AK47, Mini14, etc. along with large capacity magazines originally and currently "commonly used" with auto loading firearms instead of states "arbitrarily" limiting capacity in violation of the Second Amendment as already eloquently expressed by judge Benitez.


Then I guess us "deplorables" and "stupid" minorities need to prevail again in 2020 so we can "cling" to our guns.

So, if they have already ruled that ARs are protected and we have a right to them, then how are these people spouting off laws and confiscation ideas. If they are already protected and approved then why do we even care what Beto’s spouting off? Which is it, are they protected or not? Frankly, I’m growing tired of having to spend time educating people, fighting for an inalienable right, spending time away from my family, not living worrying about this crap all the time, wasting money buying stuff and fighting things and so on. Enough is enough. I have neglected family, friends and training and just life in general fighting for our rights.

 

[LiveLife]

Various gun rights/2A cases have been set aside as the Supreme Court has declined to hear them in the past (Thank goodness!).

Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear increasing number of gun rights/2A cases.

Stay tuned and get ready to celebrate.

 

[FL-NC]

I'm sure the firearms in this pic are already banned.

All of this- definitely banned.
Otherwise, I have no idea what this beato guy is talking about. I was always loaned much better things to use on deployment than what civilians get.

 

[Texas10mm]

Yes, it's visceral. The antis believe deep down that guns are icky. Not only that, but they believe that gun owners are icky. This sort of elitism is what was behind Hillary's comment about "deplorables" and Obama's comment about certain people "clinging to guns and religion."

It goes further than that. The antis think that if they had a gun they would do stupid things with it, so their thinking is because they can't control themselves that you can't control yourself. So that means you shouldn't have -flavor of the month- gun.

 

[SilentStalker]

Various gun rights/2A cases have been set aside as the Supreme Court has declined to hear them in the past (Thank goodness!).

Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear increasing number of gun rights/2A cases.

Stay tuned and get ready to celebrate.

When did they say this? I haven’t heard of them willing to take any cases.

 

[AlexanderA]

IMHO, no need because the Supreme Court ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Yes, there is a need to reinstate the Militia Clause, because without it the Supreme Court can easily uphold bans on military weapons and, by extension, "assault weapons." Fundamentally, all the Heller case does is protect a loaded revolver in the home, for self-defense. This interpretation emasculates the entire 2nd Amendment. "Common use" doesn't get us off the hook on this.

 

[Robert]

They want them all. Gun control, at it's roots isn't about guns.

 

[Walkalong]

They will talk about "weapons of war", "high capacity" mags, AR & AKs specifically, then write the bill to outlaw almost all, if not all, semi auto rifles.