Uh, energy is a function of mass and velocity. I ignored no such thing. While the mass of the Hawken is greater, the velocity of the .223 is greater. They have similar muzzle energy, but the .223 will maintain energy much more efficiently as it travels. I’d rather get hit by the .50 from 100 yards than the .223 because the former will have about half the energy. Because math.
That I can easily outrun you old man.
.50 Hawken at 100 yards will put a hole in you big enough to dribble a basketball in.
You’re wrong. Because arithmetic.
I don’t see the word you or your name in my post, so no.
I’m just trying to rational. This is not an area I am an expert about, when it comes to all the legal methods on how the Constitution could be changed. But most rational people would agree that the term “arms” and “militia” in the second amendment should be defined so as to accommodate the evolution of “arms” and our military situation today. Clearly there is a distinction between an musket and a stealth bomber with nuclear capability.
Regarding the 14th Amendment that issue should have been dealt with decades ago when it was evident how foreigners were abusing that law. Surely we don’t want half of the worlds children to go onto to welfare system.
I like this post. Thanks for mentioning muskets.
also other posters will call you an idiot if you dare disagree with them. All i know is there’s no reason for a large capacity clip or any caliber greater than .25. Semi-automatic assault style weapons of war do not belong in a peaceful society.
1 Like
Agree. The United States isn’t engaged in a civil war. Civilians have no need for weapons of war or those mow-down-a-movie-theater-crowd clips. These are not weapons for hunting or home defense–unless you don’t mind sawing your house in half.
Is it any wonder why Bushmaster modeled their AR15 off of the military’s M16?
1 Like
It’s a called a magazine.
The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting. And you don’t get to decide what I defend my home with.
I don’t even own an AR but you people are ridiculous.
1 Like
You shouldn’t assume.
I recognize the validity of your side of the argument. I don’t need to label your position ridiculous.
But guns with the cartoon clips? They’ve gotta go.
This is not a peaceful society. Such a thing doesn’t exist.
Cartoon magazines?
A semi competent person can swap an AR mag in a few seconds. It’s easy.
Once again, who made you the arbiter of what is necessary?
1 Like
I’d bet a beer on it.
Why do you think you have a right to tell me what I need or don’t?
Because it’s a good platform for most people?
It’s lightweight, fires a competent round for varmints or self defense, and is easy to use and maintain.
For the average person who wants a rifle the AR family is a good choice.
Also most civilian firearms are simply federalized versions of military firearms. This dates back more than a century. It’s immaterial what it’s origin is.
Not when there are guns
The First Amendment, Article 5 of the Constitution, and a government that regulates behavior under rule of law.
I can’t fully express my gender without wearing a gun. They make me feel pretty.
Honduras added gun control in 2007, and look at them…
