Well It's The Offseason And It's Slow

[YankeeRebel]

If you are talking about an M-16 on auto agreed.
an AR-15 semi you have to pull the trigger each shot - just like a handgun

Exactly what I am talking about and it's easy to modify the AR-15. The term Assault Rifle IMO does not trigger visions of single round trigger pulling. Do not understand why you are trying to push it this way?

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Being able to keep and bear arms is not the same as keeping and bearing any armament you feel like.

Stopping me from bearing any armament except for the ones you feel like is infringing me.

"...shall not be infringed."
The 2nd does not specify "Keep and bear arms as we know them today", or "arms that are loaded powder first, projectile second" Or "muskets".
This is from an era where soldiers still used bayonets, swords, axes and tomahawks. yet bladed weapons are neither spelled out as preferred or rejected.
It specifies "arms".
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Or
1
a
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

With that in mind, The great (HAA!) state of New York has outlawed the wearing of body armor for ANYONE that is not law enforcement or paid security.
First, that's just another in the long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that New York has enacted and second, why do they want it's residents to be unprotected from criminals? Not only do the laws there seriously hinder civilians from owning firearms they cannot protect themselves from the only people they want to have firearms.

From 1775;
It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.


The often quoted Thomas Jefferson said "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Exactly what I am talking about and it's easy to modify the AR-15. The term Assault Rifle IMO does not trigger visions of single round trigger pulling. Do not understand why you are trying to push it this way?

Which is already illegal.

Assault Rifle is a made up term that has had a definition assigned to it to fit the anti gun fear monger agenda.

AR-15. Modern Sporting Rifle is what I own.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Which is already illegal.

Assault Rifle is a made up term that has had a definition assigned to it to fit the anti gun fear monger agenda.

AR-15. Modern Sporting Rifle is what I own.

Dude every word is made up, new words are created that is how language works. It's not like it's a false term and there is a very discernable difference between a rifle and an assault rifle.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Stopping me from bearing any armament except for the ones you feel like is infringing me.

"...shall not be infringed."
The 2nd does not specify "Keep and bear arms as we know them today", or "arms that are loaded powder first, projectile second" Or "muskets".
This is from an era where soldiers still used bayonets, swords, axes and tomahawks. yet bladed weapons are neither spelled out as preferred or rejected.
It specifies "arms".
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Or
1
a
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

With that in mind, The great (HAA!) state of New York has outlawed the wearing of body armor for ANYONE that is not law enforcement or paid security.
First, that's just another in the long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that New York has enacted and second, why do they want it's residents to be unprotected from criminals? Not only do the laws there seriously hinder civilians from owning firearms they cannot protect themselves from the only people they want to have firearms.

From 1775;
It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.


The often quoted Thomas Jefferson said "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

Not really. In the defense of a free state the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. What state are defending?>

 

[Yankee Traveler]

there is a very discernable difference between a rifle and an assault rifle.

Ok, I'll bite.

What's the difference?

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Not really. In the defense of a free state the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. What state are defending?>

Not really what?

 

[nefansince75]

Stopping me from bearing any armament except for the ones you feel like is infringing me.

"...shall not be infringed."
The 2nd does not specify "Keep and bear arms as we know them today", or "arms that are loaded powder first, projectile second" Or "muskets".
This is from an era where soldiers still used bayonets, swords, axes and tomahawks. yet bladed weapons are neither spelled out as preferred or rejected.
It specifies "arms".
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Or
1
a
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

With that in mind, The great (HAA!) state of New York has outlawed the wearing of body armor for ANYONE that is not law enforcement or paid security.
First, that's just another in the long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that New York has enacted and second, why do they want it's residents to be unprotected from criminals? Not only do the laws there seriously hinder civilians from owning firearms they cannot protect themselves from the only people they want to have firearms.

From 1775;
It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.


The often quoted Thomas Jefferson said "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

That's not true. You can be allowed only certain armament and your right to bear arms is not infringed.

Clearly we read it differently.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

You cannot pull the trigger faster than an assualt rifle can send rounds down range. And it's a lot easier to engage a target reloading

Anyone who knows anything about weapons will call them what they are. They're full automatic weapons.

Like @Southieinnc mentioned, I also can do quite a bit of damage with a hand gun in close quarters. I can drop, load and charge a new magazine in a blink of an eye. Without taking my eyes off my next target. I can also do a lot of damage with a shot gun in a confined space.

If people want to kill people they'll find a way. There are plenty of over the counter chemicals that can be combined to make HME (Homemade explosived).


The weapons are not the issue. It's much deeper then that.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Anyone who knows anything about weapons will call them what they are. They're full automatic weapons.

Like @Southieinnc mentioned, I also can do quite a bit of damage with a hand gun in close quarters. I can drop, load and charge a new magazine in a blink of an eye. Without taking my eyes off my next target. I can also do a lot of damage with a shot gun in a confined space.

If people want to kill people they'll find a way. There are plenty of over the counter chemicals that can be combined to make HME (Homemade explosived).


The weapons are not the issue. It's much deeper then that.

Makes my point, when you are trained with a side arm you can engage a lot easier and faster. If some kid enters a school or a mall with the intent to kill everyone do you suppose he would do more damage with a hand gun or assault rifle? And do you suppose he would be easier to take out if he had a hand gun or an assault rifle

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Makes my point, when you are trained with a side arm you can engage a lot easier and faster. If some kid enters a school or a mall with the intent to kill everyone do you suppose he would do more damage with a hand gun or assault rifle? And do you suppose he would be easier to take out if he had a hand gun or an assault rifle

I'm not sure what an assault rifle is.

But if you are asking if someone with little to no arms training would be more effective at potentially producing more casualties with say a blow back action pistol like an Uzi or Mac 10 at a sustained rate of 650-1000 rounds a minute, or a shot gun? Tough question. Will the inexperinced shooter shit their pants when they squeeze the trigger of a Mac 10? You do realize these type of pistols would easily fit in a students backpack.
Smith and Wesson recently developed their FPC 9mm foldable carbine rifle. This side folding "rifle" can also fit in a backpack. Weighs just over 5lbs. Can hold a 17 or 23 round mag and has two storage wells in the stock for two additional mags.



Mass shootings are now being defined as shooting 4 or more individuals. An inexpirenced person could easily take a .22 revolver or 380 semi and shoot 6-15 people without reloading and little to no recoil on the gun.

Again, it's not the "assault" weapon killing people. There are many ways and means of doing so.

The problem goes much deeper then any weapon in the wrong persons hand.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

That's not true. You can be allowed only certain armament and your right to bear arms is not infringed.

Clearly we read it differently.

What's not true?

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Ok, I'll bite.

What's the difference?

No, seriously @YankeeRebel , instead of facepalming, define "Assault Rifle" for me and explain the differences.

I'm stumped.

 

[YankeeRebel]

No, seriously @YankeeRebel , instead of facepalming, define "Assault Rifle" for me and explain the differences.

I'm stumped.

In all honesty why? So you can argue semantics? Seems to me you are hedging on being intentionally obtuse so I feel it's a waste of time and effort, but we'll see where this goes.

Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Yankee Traveler]

Stopping me from bearing any armament except for the ones you feel like is infringing me.

"...shall not be infringed."
The 2nd does not specify "Keep and bear arms as we know them today", or "arms that are loaded powder first, projectile second" Or "muskets".
This is from an era where soldiers still used bayonets, swords, axes and tomahawks. yet bladed weapons are neither spelled out as preferred or rejected.
It specifies "arms".
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Or
1
a
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

With that in mind, The great (HAA!) state of New York has outlawed the wearing of body armor for ANYONE that is not law enforcement or paid security.
First, that's just another in the long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that New York has enacted and second, why do they want it's residents to be unprotected from criminals? Not only do the laws there seriously hinder civilians from owning firearms they cannot protect themselves from the only people they want to have firearms.

From 1775;
It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.


The often quoted Thomas Jefferson said "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."

Not really. In the defense of a free state the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. What state are defending?>

Not really...

Not really what?

It's not "In defense of a free state" It is "being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Which one? All of them and any one at any given time.

State
1 a: mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
b (1): condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
2 a: a condition or stage in the physical being of something
insects in the larval state
the gaseous state of water
b: any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3 a: social position
especially : high rank
b (1): elaborate or luxurious style of living
(2): formal dignity : POMP —usually used with in
4 a: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : ESTATE sense 3
b: states plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body
c: obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign
b: the political organization of such a body of people
c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character
a police state
the welfare state
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a: one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government
the fifty states
b: States plural : The United States of America
8: the territory of a state

 

[Yankee Traveler]

In all honesty why? So you can argue semantics? Seems to me you are hedging on being intentionally obtuse so I feel it's a waste of time and effort, but we'll see where this goes.

Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Semantics? My constitutional right and you say I'm arguing semantics? You threw out have winded questions and comments so don't crawdad back under a rock with "You're being obtuse and wasting my time."


Originally
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire

But as that doesn't nicely fit the agenda it has been updated to include
(also) : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

How the Term “Assault Weapon” Came to Be​

Gun control advocates adopted the term “assault weapon” from the military in an effort to deliberately confuse the public and advance the political cause of gun control. They now use it to mischaracterize a broad range of firearms used by law-abiding civilians.

The origin of “assault weapon” stems from the term “assault rifle,” which the U.S. Army defines explicitly as a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. The term “assault rifle” only applies to automatic firearms rather than the semi-automatic firearms that gun control advocates are focused on banning today.

The term rose in prominence after Josh Sugarmann, a gun control advocacy group’s communications director, stated in a Violence Policy Center paper [1]:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

 

[BigKen]

AS I stated previously, if you have taken a position on one side of the fence, you will NOT convince anyone on the other side to jump over that fence.

You can state all of your facts but they will be countered with opposing facts.

Just agree to disagree and move on. OR take the argument to the Politics Forum.

Only New England Patriots' disagreements are acceptable in this forum.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

AS I stated previously, if you have taken a position on one side of the fence, you will NOT convince anyone on the other side to jump over that fence.

You can state all of your facts but they will be countered with opposing facts.

Just agree to disagree and move on. OR take the argument to the Politics Forum.

Only New England Patriots' disagreements are acceptable in this forum.

 

[BigKen]

In my face.

 

[Southieinnc]

Exactly what I am talking about and it's easy to modify the AR-15. The term Assault Rifle IMO does not trigger visions of single round trigger pulling. Do not understand why you are trying to push it this way?

I was trying to trap you.
It is not easy to modify the AR-15 to make it automatic. There are already laws against that too.