You keep stating this like it is a fact when it isn't.

If these guns aren't that capable then why are we worried about them?

Of course a militia would ultimately lose, but so would every country on Earth to our military.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole

JORR, I'm not proposing any.

I'm not a policy expert on gun violence or the ways to curtail and curb gun violence. I'm could not be more opposed to a ban on all firearms.

The problem is there can't be a logical and analytical conversation on what restrictions are acceptable, workable, constitutional and effective because a certain segment of the population thinks if you make them pass a back ground check at a gun show, we will inevitably confiscate every gun in the country.

That said, the thrust of the argument made by many around here is that reasonable and well thought out restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are de facto violations of the Constitution, or will lead to a banning of all guns just isn't fucking so. The First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, all tremendous protections of our liberty and safeguards against tyranny all have reasonable and well thought out restrictions. The 2nd Amendment should be no different, but a segment of the population (usually the segment that has some strange fantasy of getting into an armed conflict with someone of their own government) can't understand that reasonable and well thought out regulations of the Bill of Rights has been part and parcel of the Amendments for a long time.

I feel your frustration with the discussion. Try having the same one with opponents to voter ID laws. They seem to be pretty staunch in their constitutional defenses as well.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

Why is it that the so called tyranny that people are protecting themselves from has to be some sort of all out war with the US Military? It can also be many different types of smaller skirmishes or confrontations with the present day police forces for example.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Except the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Taliban, and the Somalis.

JORR, I'm not proposing any.

I'm not a policy expert on gun violence or the ways to curtail and curb gun violence. I'm could not be more opposed to a ban on all firearms.

The problem is there can't be a logical and analytical conversation on what restrictions are acceptable, workable, constitutional and effective because a certain segment of the population thinks if you make them pass a back ground check at a gun show, we will inevitably confiscate every gun in the country.

That said, the thrust of the argument made by many around here is that reasonable and well thought out restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are de facto violations of the Constitution, or will lead to a banning of all guns just isn't fucking so. The First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, all tremendous protections of our liberty and safeguards against tyranny all have reasonable and well thought out restrictions. The 2nd Amendment should be no different, but a segment of the population (usually the segment that has some strange fantasy of getting into an armed conflict with someone of their own government) can't understand that reasonable and well thought out regulations of the Bill of Rights has been part and parcel of the Amendments for a long time.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Oh yeah, extended mags and any clips over 12 shots should also be illegal.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

We can keep going on the path of how the war might have turned out for the North Vietnamese army if we didn't have the First Amendment here, but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where the hypothetical proposed by Curtis LeMay doesn't become reality.

As I already told you, none of those constitutes an apples-to-apples comparison to any hypothetical US uprising and they're either completely irrelevant to US gun laws in the present or actually count in favor of far laxer standards under the resistance to tyranny justification.

Mike, would your voter ID be issued free of charge when someone registers to vote, or would they have to go to the DMV to get it free of charge, or would it not be free of charge at all?

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

I apologize to The Hawk

Clips?
Banning magazine size is kind of stupid in the sense that it really does nothing to solve any problems.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole

The first say two months of every year people should be able to get free state ID cards from the DMV. They are good for a couple (maybe 4?) years, and people can show those to vote if they do not have another Gov't issued ID.

I apologize to The Hawk

The first say two months of every year people should be able to get free state ID cards from the DMV. They are good for a couple (maybe 4?) years, and people can show those to vote if they do not have another Gov't issued ID.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

But it just seems that the end game is complete restriction of all firearms by private citizens and I wonder whose interest that is really in. The guy used an illegal weapon to shoot hundreds of people. What law do you want to change to prevent that from happening? And I'm not talking about you personally here because it seems you're willing to have a reasonable conversation, but it seems to me MANY people want to use events like this to promote their political agenda and to vilify lawful gun owners. Finally, sooner or later there will be a major armed conflict with the U.S. government. I'm not talking about hillbilly Bundys either. We probably won't see it in our lifetimes, but it will happen at some point. It's far from a fantasy.

Okay, so a cop wrongfully pulls you over, then pulls a gun on you, but you draw first, shoot him, and kill him. Where does this small skirmish go from here? Somehow I don't think the matter is settled.

Are we paying for the transport of people who lack cars and live in towns without DMVs or without DMVs convenient to public transportation to go get them? Or is it just tough luck for them?

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Effective rounds per minute is reduced with reloads. If you are using these guns for sport or defense, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't need to be able to fire more than 30 rounds per minute.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Well, all those people who you are credited with helping the Vietnamese army to victory by exercising their First Amendment rights, what side do you think they'd be on in a battle with the government? I'm sure Darkside will hand out some of his guns since many of them don't have any.

I don't really think so imu.
It sounds like it maybe to someone who really doesnt have any experience in such matters, but in reality the effect is negligible.

Do you NEED to drive faster than 55 (or whatever local speed limit exists on whatever highway)? Do you NEED to have more than 120 hp to get to work and the grocery store? Do you NEED to have your own bedroom? Do you NEED fashionable clothes?
Which things shall we alot based upon needs, Karl?

Mike, would your voter ID be issued free of charge when someone registers to vote, or would they have to go to the DMV to get it free of charge, or would it not be free of charge at all?

How many people do you really think this affects?

Given the same weapon, if one person has 10 30-round magazines and the other person has 30 10-round magazines, who fires more shots in one minute?



Do any of these enable me to kill 60 people in 15 minutes?

Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.

Bump stocks should not be legal....to argue they should is just being ignorant/obtuse.

Maybe because it takes significantly less force to kill unarmed private citizens than it would to defeat an army? And if we're claiming to be concerned about the loss of said civilian lives, we might want to rethink our gun laws?

Glad you agree then that the notion that the 2nd Amendment is actually protecting us from tyranny is rubbish.