Yes Biden. The second amendment does include AR-15s

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

Not at all. I’m just not overly-concerned about the semantics.

The government does not exist to “allow”.

Semantics. If something is against the law we are essentially not allowed to do that thing without punishment (assuming caught).

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

Sure. Why should it be illegal to possess something?

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

Not at all. I’m just not overly-concerned about the semantics.

The government does not exist to “allow”.

Semantics. If something is against the law we are essentially not allowed to do that thing without punishment (assuming caught).

Not the purview.

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

Sure. Why should it be illegal to possess something?

Possession has the potential of use and its my opinion that certain weapons and ammo should be reserved for trained professionals and the battlefield.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

Sure. Why should it be illegal to possess something?

Possession has the potential of use and its my opinion that certain weapons and ammo should be reserved for trained professionals and the battlefield.

So prior restraint based on your fee fees.

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

Sure. Why should it be illegal to possess something?

Possession has the potential of use and its my opinion that certain weapons and ammo should be reserved for trained professionals and the battlefield.

So prior restraint based on your fee fees.

We’re both US citizens, why should your fee fees trump mine?

[Striker840]

Then lead the charge to make it relevant.

[Striker840]

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue, so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

[fallenturtle]

@Striker840

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

I’m fine with what I’m standing on, thanks for asking.

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue…

Do you think it should be available for purchase by civilians?

@Striker840

…so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

Someone’s feeling sassy.

[TheRedComet]

Thompsons were basically standard issue for officers and NCOs in some units during World War II. Germans did the same thing. MP40s became almost the standard for squad leaders and platoon commanders.

[TheRedComet]

And most BAR operators gave other squad members basic instructions on how to operate it in case they were wounded.

Hell, most German soldiers had at least some familiarity with the MG34 and MG42 thanks to the NCOs that operated them. They could be replacement gunners in a pinch. Same thing with BARs. Most soldiers were familiar enough with them to use them if necessary.

[Striker840]

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

I’m fine with what I’m standing on, thanks for asking.

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue…

Do you think it should be available for purchase by civilians?

@Striker840

…so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

Someone’s feeling sassy.

So did you not say the following??

@fallenturtle

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military.

The handguns I mentioned as well as shotguns ARE used by our contemporary military.
Also, again, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting

[fallenturtle]

@Striker840

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

I’m fine with what I’m standing on, thanks for asking.

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue…

Do you think it should be available for purchase by civilians?

@Striker840

…so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

Someone’s feeling sassy.

So did you not say the following??

@fallenturtle

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military.

The handguns I mentioned as well as shotguns ARE used by our contemporary military.

Why are you going out of your way to read that statement in the most illogical way possible? I’ll clarify for you what should have been clear in the first place:

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military excluding those arms that they support for self-defense and hunting.

Better?

@Striker840

Also, again, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting

Fine then, don’t hunt.

[Striker840]

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

I’m fine with what I’m standing on, thanks for asking.

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue…

Do you think it should be available for purchase by civilians?

@Striker840

…so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

Someone’s feeling sassy.

So did you not say the following??

@fallenturtle

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military.

The handguns I mentioned as well as shotguns ARE used by our contemporary military.

Why are you going out of your way to read that statement in the most illogical way possible? I’ll clarify for you what should have been clear in the first place:

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military excluding those arms that they support for self-defense and hunting.

Better?

@Striker840

Also, again, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting

Fine then, don’t hunt.

I see what you meant now, my apologies. I was on my phone at the time and trying to listen to a boring lecture.

And I don’t hunt.

[fallenturtle]

@Striker840

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

@fallenturtle

@Striker840

So that includes shotguns, 9mm and .45 cal handguns. Those are used by contemporary military members. You SURE you want to stand on that??

I’m fine with what I’m standing on, thanks for asking.

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

One CANNOT purchase a modern M4 rifle that is standard issue…

Do you think it should be available for purchase by civilians?

@Striker840

…so essentially you have no clue what you are talking about here.

Someone’s feeling sassy.

So did you not say the following??

@fallenturtle

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military.

The handguns I mentioned as well as shotguns ARE used by our contemporary military.

Why are you going out of your way to read that statement in the most illogical way possible? I’ll clarify for you what should have been clear in the first place:

Has nothing to do with wokeness and/or racism. It’s because there’s a segment of the population that supports the right to own arms for self defense and hunting but don’t believe that right should extend to arms commonly used by the contemporary military excluding those arms that they support for self-defense and hunting.

Better?

@Striker840

Also, again, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with hunting

Fine then, don’t hunt.

I see what you meant now, my apologies. I was on my phone at the time and trying to listen to a boring lecture.

And I don’t hunt.

No worries.

[wiley8425]

Several drug laws are based on possession. So is copyright law. So is child pornography.

Possession with the intent to distribute. Legal garbage. How do you define intent without action?

[NJBob]

My point was that it wasn’t standard issue for ordinary soldiers and thus not an ordinary weapon.

But I can also see the logic of the counter argument.

A squad would usually have a single BAR and the squad leader would possibly have a Thompson. The other ten or so soldiers would have Springfield or Garand depending on the year.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

@fallenturtle

The 2nd doesn’t mention ammo.

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson

That’s not in the 2nd though… and what about when there are multiple types of ammo available? In the above mentioned RPG example, if there are both mini-nuke and conventional warheads available for the RPG, is there a blanket right to all kinds or can the government limit it to a single ammo type?

Sure. Why should it be illegal to possess something?

Possession has the potential of use and its my opinion that certain weapons and ammo should be reserved for trained professionals and the battlefield.

So prior restraint based on your fee fees.

We’re both US citizens, why should your fee fees trump mine?

The 2nd Amendment does. What crime have I committed that you should prohibit me?

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

A reasonable reading of what I wrote would be that if the gun is for self defense or hunting its fine even if the military also uses it.

There’s nothing “reasonable” about that.