" that gun should be restricted to only military" shhhhh

[BHG1978]

We all have the right to own whatever handguns and rifles that our military and law enforcement uses. ar-15 /m-16 hi cap mag .

The reason is simple, the 2nd amendment was giving the "people", the "regular citizens " the right to bear arms so that the people could train using their own weapons to defend their freedom from foreign invaders or their own government/military / rogue law enforcement whoever, and since those types in modern day would be carrying ar 15/m-16 & hi cap mags or whatever "assault rifles" then john q citizen has a right to own those same weapons to be able to defend against em.

Think about it, the way they are headed now with all these restrictions is like if back then had they restricted citizens to only carry bow & arrows while the military and law enforcement were allowed to have muzzle loaders and cannons.


Every time somebody says " that gun should be restricted to only law enforcement and military" I'm thinking there goes another idiot that thinks the 2nd amendment was about duck hunting or sport shooting in the backyard.


Nobody ever straight up says it but seriously , So called "assault rifles" are needed by the people in order to defend against the "assault rifles" that their own government would be attacking their citizens with if the gov heads down the road of tyranny.

A tyrant would love it if the people were forced to bring only knives or fists to an "assault rifle" fight

[SHMIV]

I've been saying the same thing for years. I believe that the 2nd amendment covers tanks, grenades, bazookas, etc., as well. Basically, if the military has it, the 2nd amendment covers it.

I have yet to reconcile this belief with the existence of nuclear technology, however.

[BHG1978]

I've been saying the same thing for years. I believe that the 2nd amendment covers tanks, grenades, bazookas, etc., as well. Basically, if the military has it, the 2nd amendment covers it.

I have yet to reconcile this belief with the existence of nuclear technology, however.

As weird as it sounds, I think people out here in henrico would be less freaked out by a tank driving down west broad street, than by a non uniformed guy with an ar 15 slung on his shoulder

nuclear technology that is just too scary to even think about

[zerodown1]

This administration has no regard for the Constitution. To Osama and Holder it was written by rich white guys for rich white guys and has been unfair and discriminatory from the start. He has gone around it every chance he has had and will continue to do it because there is no one on either side of the isle with enough backbone to say anything about it. A few more of his appointments of his liberal boot lickers to the supreme court and it will disappear, at least the parts like the 2A. This man is out to destroy this Nation as founded and recreate it in the image of all the good commies he has worshiped over the years. Sad thing is there were enough stupid people to put him in the White House to start with. Maybe voting won't change everything but it will sure as heck get rid of him.

[gunderwood]

I've been saying the same thing for years. I believe that the 2nd amendment covers tanks, grenades, bazookas, etc., as well. Basically, if the military has it, the 2nd amendment covers it.

Exactly. The colonials had artillery capable of shelling the British from about 20 miles out (IIRC) and enough powder/shot to make it work. That's why they marched on Lexington and Concord...it wasn't to capture hunting rifles. In fact, they spiked a few of the larger ones they captured because they were to large to move given the road conditions.

I have yet to reconcile this belief with the existence of nuclear technology, however.

Target discrimination. WMDs don't, traditional military arms do. It's a much deeper discussion, but it's what makes WMDs impractical and immoral offensive weapons, whereas traditional military arms work offensively and defensively. Had the colonials had nukes it would have been unthinkable to wipeout a major city just because the British were there. However, it was just fine to aim cannons at the British sections/fortifications and bombard them. Precision isn't required (although admired when feasible).

[SHMIV]

I have yet to reconcile this belief with the existence of nuclear technology, however.

Target discrimination. WMDs don't, traditional military arms do. It's a much deeper discussion, but it's what makes WMDs impractical and immoral offensive weapons, whereas traditional military arms work offensively and defensively. Had the colonials had nukes it would have been unthinkable to wipeout a major city just because the British were there. However, it was just fine to aim cannons at the British sections/fortifications and bombard them. Precision isn't required (although admired when feasible).

No deeper discussion necessary. I understand your point.

[gmwilkes]

I agree. I wish I could buy an m4 straight off the shelf but unless you're a law enforcement agency you can't... Why not? I like the idea of select fire. Yes people use automatics to carry out illegal acts but they also use knives and semi autos to do the same. Me, I just love to shoot and would love to have an m4 but I can't afford a $20,000 auromatic...

Sent from my BlackBerry 9550 using Tapatalk