Feinstein’s proposed AWB.
keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons
Clearly stated, try again.
Keep them where? Out of civilian hands completely.
They aren’t “Weapons of war”. No army on the planet issues semi auto battle rifles.
The proposed bans would outlaw basically all semi auto rifles and shotguns which is at best lunacy and strikes right at the heart of the 2nd which was intended specifically to protect our rights to keep and bear the same kinds of firearms we might face on the battlefield.
Sounds like you are in favor of arming or allowing those that run afoul of the law to acquire weapons that could potentially allow them to run afoul of the law again potentially in an even worse way. Could have just said so to begin with.
I’m opposed to a permanent loss of rights for misdemeanor crimes period.
You face on the battlefield a nuclear warhead that would most certainly decimate all of semi auto rifles you care to stock. Is it legal for you to own a nuclear warhead as a private citizen?
You want to go there?
Every historical reference we have from the founders on that subject refers to the individual equipment and weapons carried by a common infantryman or cavalryman, not WMD’s and not crew served weapons like artillery.
It’s a dishonest argument to even venture there.
Are you sure? I don’t have the inclination this early in the morning the verify, but I’m doubting that.
You can spend the next century looking but you’ll never find me anywhere stating that anyone should suffer a permanent loss of rights over a misdemeanor.
And I’ll take you at your word for now. As I stated I don’t have the inclination at this time to say otherwise, but the limited history of this forum and the lack of history of the former will limit that.
What you would find is that I have proposed on many occasions that we have both outlawed and felonized far too much conduct period.
It isn’t dishonest at all. You are arguing that the populace should be allowed to arm itself in whatever way it sees fit relative to what it can be expected to be defended against.
I counter that if the other side was as oppressive as you make them out to be and served the goals you seem to think they wish to accomplish, then you insurrection so to speak would be futile.
I said no such thing so yes it’s most certainly dishonest to attribute such comments to me.
I was very specific.
As far as the futility of insurrection it shows us exactly the opposite. An armed populace has been able throughout history, including recent history to eventually defeat even the mightiest of armies using guerrilla tactics.
And by recent history, you aren’t including nuclear warefare, because to date no one has really survived that. Ask the japnasese people about that.
There have been survivors of every war including on the Japanese isles. Even at Nagasaki and Hiroshima we didn’t see 100% casualties.
Nobody is going to nuke the entire US, it would be utterly stupid to do so because they would then not have access to our resources for decades or centuries.
Like I said the right to life is meaningless.
Which won’t be true no matter how many times you repeat it. The right to life simply means no one has a right to take it from you unlawfully and the gov’t can’t take it from you without due process.
The value of your life is decided by yourself, it’s up to you to make it something of value.
Since they make briefcase sized nukes its not, plus your ignoring future technology.
Yes it is a dishonest argument to make and nobody but perhaps a few lunatics on the pro 2nd Amendment side of the argument is trying to make it for that very reason.
The smallest warhead ever produced was 80lbs and the system required to fire it weighed around 200. It was a crew served weapon, not an individual weapon and certainly not an infantryman’s weapon.
There will never come a time when nukes are commonly carried by the average soldier anywhere.
And you continue to ignore technological advancement.
