Most important reason to oppose a new AWB? - Page 5

Most important reason to oppose a new AWB?

This is a discussion on Most important reason to oppose a new AWB? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; And I am asking you for your definition of "infringe". I am also asking you to explain to me how the government can currently restrict ...

View Poll Results: #1 reason you need an assault weapon?

Voters
141. You may not vote on this poll
  • Target Shooting

    14 9.93%
  • Varmint Hunting

    4 2.84%
  • Collecting

    2 1.42%
  • Home/Personal Defense

    59 41.84%
  • Countervailing force against foreign enemies

    2 1.42%
  • Countervailing force against tyranny

    60 42.55%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 93
Like Tree67Likes

Thread: Most important reason to oppose a new AWB?

  1. #61
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    And I am asking you for your definition of "infringe". I am also asking you to explain to me how the government can currently restrict private ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons. I am asking you to explain the legality of CA's magazine capacity restrictions and Clinton's expired "assault weapons" ban. Please explain what makes you think the Second Amendment cannot be repealed?


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    I believe the term would be "justifiable homicide" as opposed to "murder". If the government outlaws firearms, you refuse to relinquish them, and you use your firearms to defend against the execution of signed search warrants, then you would most certainly be killed...and, in they eyes of the government, it would be justifiable.

    And it is insulting because, using my inferencing and contextual skills, you are insinuating that I am uneducated. But kudos on your cute attempt at sarcasm.
    If the government were to enact laws that by their very nature are unconstitutional, such as doing away with the 2nd amendment, and then issue search warrants based on the new unconstitutional laws and then use force to disarm the populace the people who support these actions would be enemies of the constitution. It is at this point that We the People will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Killing the "citizens" under these circumstances is Murder not "justifiable homicide".

    Again, I do not mean to offend you in any way.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    And for the fourth or fifth time now, I never said firearms should be banned. You are creating straw men and putting words in my mouth. Let me repeate myself yet again in all caps for clarity: I DO NOT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL LAWS OR BANS. I AM FEARFUL OF GUN CONTROL. IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. I AM POINTING OUT THE DANGERS WE ARE FACING AND THE VERY REAL POSSIBILITY OF LOSING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about my stance.
    Please by all means, quote back to me were I was "creating straw men".

    I understand where you stand on gun control that is why I posted earlier that you and I are not having the same argument.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  4. #64
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    If the government were to enact laws that by their very nature are unconstitutional, such as doing away with the 2nd amendment, and then issue search warrants based on the new unconstitutional laws and then use force to disarm the populace the people who support these actions would be enemies of the constitution. It is at this point that We the People will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Killing the "citizens" under these circumstances is Murder not "justifiable homicide".

    Again, I do not mean to offend you in any way.
    If the Second Amendment is repealed and "We the People shall not keep or bear arms" is it's replacement, then the warrants would not be unconstitutional. The homicides would only be murder if a government exists to prosecute...if the killings are in response to the government's bidding then they would be justifiable in the only eyes that matter.

  5. #65
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    Please by all means, quote back to me were I was "creating straw men".

    I understand where you stand on gun control that is why I posted earlier that you and I are not having the same argument.
    "By the way, you can not be "100% pro gun" if you believe that the government is allowed to disarm the populace simply because the government wants to. There is nothing pro gun about that."

    I never said I believed that. "Because the government wants to" is not the same as "because new laws were create and voted on by representatives of the people".

    "So now you are saying that the government is all-powerful and has the authority to murder the populace at will if the populace disagrees with the government. WOW!"

    I never said that. I said if the government creates new laws, and you fight enforcement with deadly force, then the the government would be justified in killing you. The government is only as powerful as we allow them to be. If "we" continue to push gun control and allow them to vote in new firearm legislation then "we" are giving them that power.

    "Do you know about the big buildings where they keep all the books? It's call a library. Please go to one and start reading."

    "If you or anyone else you know paid for any part of your education, then you should demand a refund."

    Condescending, attempted insult, and argumentative.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    You forgot to list a very "key" reason. An "AR" is no different really from "any" other semi-automatic gun, in that it takes a magazine and fires with each pull of the trigger. It automatically loads the next round into the chamber. So..... other than looks and it's easier to put add on's onto it .... how is it really different than most other semi-auto rifles. In terms of caliber, a .223 isn't even allowed for hunting in many states.... so it is NOT more powerful than hunting rifles, etc.

    So....... once you open that door, as some Dem's have suggested...... why not ban "all" semi-auto rifles ? Afterall, why not ? There are those that want to ban all of them. There are those that do NOT want you to own any semi-automatic rifles , and / or handguns.
    What next ?

    The other, it is not anymore "dangerous" and even "less" dangerous than many other semi's , etc. COULD be...... so, where does it stop.

    Then... there is that pesky "2nd Amendment" , that says we do have a RIGHT to own them, despite what the Govt may think.

    The "ONLY " reason they were able to sell automatics as not being sold to civilians were, they were made specifically for the military for warfare.... and there wasn't a good arguable reason to have one in civilian life as far as they were concerned.

    But .... I would argue... an AR, is nothing but another "semi-automatic" ..... no major difference than other semi-automatics. .... and only the "looks" is what gets them excited. So, are we going to ban guns based upon how they look ?

    In many of these shootings.... they could have gone in and done just as much damage with semi-auto shotguns.... should they go after them too ? Or , just plain old shotguns for that matter.

    If you don't stand up now, at what point will you ?

    Plus.... this AWB .... they have a clause in it, that the USA Atty Gen at their discretion can ADD ANY GUN they deem appropriate to the ban. PERIOD ... no review by Congress or any other part of Govt what-so-ever. Do you want to give the carte blanche to do that ?
    bombthrower77 and noway2 like this.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    And I am asking you for your definition of "infringe". I am also asking you to explain to me how the government can currently restrict private ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons. I am asking you to explain the legality of CA's magazine capacity restrictions and Clinton's expired "assault weapons" ban. Please explain what makes you think the Second Amendment cannot be repealed?
    Infringe - to commit a breach or infraction of

    Everything you mentioned is an infringement upon a Right which shall not be infringed. The government has overstepped the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the people let it happen.

    I never ever said or thought that the government cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment. They most certainly can. When they do, they will no longer be the government. They will at that point be individual people who are enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    If the Second Amendment is repealed and "We the People shall not keep or bear arms" is it's replacement, then the warrants would not be unconstitutional. The homicides would only be murder if a government exists to prosecute...if the killings are in response to the government's bidding then they would be justifiable in the only eyes that matter.
    See post #68
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  9. #69
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    "By the way, you can not be "100% pro gun" if you believe that the government is allowed to disarm the populace simply because the government wants to. There is nothing pro gun about that."

    I never said I believed that. "Because the government wants to" is not the same as "because new laws were create and voted on by representatives of the people".

    "So now you are saying that the government is all-powerful and has the authority to murder the populace at will if the populace disagrees with the government. WOW!"

    I never said that. I said if the government creates new laws, and you fight enforcement with deadly force, then the the government would be justified in killing you. The government is only as powerful as we allow them to be. If "we" continue to push gun control and allow them to vote in new firearm legislation then "we" are giving them that power.

    "Do you know about the big buildings where they keep all the books? It's call a library. Please go to one and start reading."

    "If you or anyone else you know paid for any part of your education, then you should demand a refund."

    Condescending, attempted insult, and argumentative.
    You are ill-informed about what a "straw man" is. This one you will have to look up on your own. Good night or rather good morning...Im going to bed.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  10. #70
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Infringe - to commit a breach or infraction of

    Everything you mentioned is an infringement upon a Right which shall not be infringed. The government has overstepped the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the people let it happen.
    That was my point exactly. They are already doing it and they aren't going to stop. Simply stomping our feet and yelling about our rights isn't going to stop the train. We need to offer healthy, intelligent rebuttals to the anti-gun political faction in order to gain any foothold. Unfortunately, discussing overthrowing the government and taking guns from cold, dead hands is even worse to them.

    I never ever said or thought that the government cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment. They most certainly can. When they do, they will no longer be the government. They will at that point be individual people who are enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
    I would argue that they will, in fact, be the government. The people elected them and the people allow them to continue doing what they're doing. The U.S. was founded for the people and by the people; if the people want the Second Amendment repealed! and the proper steps are taken, then it is, by definition, constitutional.

  11. #71
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    You are ill-informed about what a "straw man" is. This one you will have to look up on your own. Good night or rather good morning...Im going to bed.
    Description of Straw Man

    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

    Person A has position X.
    Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    Person B attacks position Y.
    Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,262
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
    And yet, an attack on a poor understanding of what constitutes a threat is what's hurting us all, with this liberty-hating, anti-gun, anti-feature-X hatred going on. Which brings us back (hopefully) to good reasons to oppose the AWB push. Pretty please ... both of you??

    We're not the enemy. The enemy is out there.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #73
    Distinguished Member Array sonnycrocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Miami Fla and TN
    Posts
    1,274
    the assault rifle looks evil but is not the most used killer out in america
    the number one killing machine gun on the streets of america is
    the

    22 pistol...... the cheap little junky 22 is a killing machine
    yet not a person on MSNBC or CNN even mentions it
    noway2 likes this.

  14. #74
    Member Array Steve666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    47
    My number one answer wasn't given as a choice... BECAUSE THEY ARE FUN!!!
    Steve
    An armed society is a polite society

  15. #75
    Member Array NYMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I have rifles that suit my current needs, none of which fall into the "assault" catagory. I'd like to have an AR but don't feel like spending the money to feed it, which negates the purpose of my owning guns--to shoot them. When TEOTWAWKI come, I may wish I had one, but not right now.
    Better hurry up, it's tomorrow ain't it?

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

charlton heston bear arms
,

charlton heston from my cold dead hands

,
charlton heston ill give you my gun
,
charlton heston nra cold dead hands
,
charlton heston nra quote
,
charlton heston's gun vault
,

is what we're up against

,
list states that oppose awb
,
reasons to oppose the 2nd amendment
,

the awb violates the 2nd amendment

,
what does this mean -do you agree that the second amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infrin
,
why is it so important to appose gun control
Click on a term to search for related topics.