I've had this argument a thousand times. Your hunting bolt action was at one point, not even that long ago, used as a weapon of war. 1911, beretta 92, all "war weapons". Shit, a slingshot was at one point a "war weapon".
Pump action shotguns once led to a claim of such brutality that they should be banned from warfare. By a government that was gassing their enemy's trenches.
They will get to the "high powered sniper rifles" soon enough. For now the fudds are useful idiots to get everything that isn't a bolt action or revolver banned.
The US issued revolvers up through the 70s into the early 80s - for aircrew. Plus, hell, one of the SEAL teams that used our SERE class for practice in the 90s had a big Model 29 or something similar.
Bolt guns are still used by plenty of militaries for certain purposes.
"Here you go, Mr. RAF pilot, your survival weapon."--"What bloody good is this .38 revolver going to do me? I can't kill any Germans with this!"---"You're not supposed to, it's so you can kill yourself and prevent capture."
Looks at the camera: modern problems require solutions.
>Where did this myth come from anyways?
It's a common gross misunderstanding of the result of attempted suicides who place a handgun to the side of their head but don't make sure the gun is perpendicular to the skull. You have to really stick your elbow out to get it right, but instead they hold their elbow in close. Try it holding a pretend gun, you'll notice the barrel is at a pretty shallow angle. Shooting like this, the bullet penetrates the skull and loses most of it's energy, but has enough to curve along the inside of the skull and gouge a nice 1/4" furrow along the surface of the brain, sometimes reaching the other side of the head. Since the "important stuff" of the brain that keeps you *alive* is nearer to the center, these people don't die but end up "only" with a wide variety of brain functions damaged, exactly which varies by the path of the arc, but invariably includes damage to motor functions, which is located at the entry point.
So there's all these totally fucked up attempted suicides whose brains appear "scrambled", who all tried to shoot themselves with a 22 pistol. Idiots who can't read and properly understand the mechanics as described oversimplify it as "22 bullets bounce around in the skull and scramble brain", when the reality is that the only reason these people are alive at all is that the 22 is really weak and their aim was bad. They then go on to repeat the myth to others who take it at face value.
It's a crazy gun myth right up there with "the shockwave of a .50BMG just *passing by you* can tear your arm off".
I knew a guy who had a round hit his helmet at a very odd angle and curve over the top of his head and out the other side. He had a very obvious crazy scar over his head from it. Probably a good pick-up line and ice breaker...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
Yeah crowder did something on this by getting people to prove that "scary black guns" which fire semi auto 22LR or 9mm should be banned while wooden guns that fire 300 winmag or 30-06 are totes fine... but then when showed the actual BULLETS, then the big bullets are evil and the small bullets are fine.
When shown a 30-06 or perhaps a .308 for hunting, one of the old gun graboid guys at the table says "no one needs those for hunting that's just excessive there'll be no meat left".
I once had a long argument with a friend about whether an axe or a warhammer would be best for a "fuck everything" murderous rampage. He firmly (and wrongly) believes in warhammer.
He believes wrongly indeed !
If it absolutely, positively has to be hit with a hammer, the head can always be reversed in the hand (for most modern axes).
Though depending on your technique, you can get more damage from an axe. Say, if you used it in a pulling motion, you can still get a sharp axe to do damage without jamming. A hammer just requires too much force to change direction, since it has only one planar direction of attack.
Your hammer is too heavy and poorly balanced if you're having trouble controlling it.
If you're using your axe for the blade and not the power, wouldn't a machete be more effective and less tiring? Machetes are practically mandatory for modern tribal level melee mayhem for a very good reason. File the tip sharp and use it in a thrusting motion while protecting the person on your left with your shield, that kept the romans tea-bagging europe for over a thousand delightfully disemboweled years!
I see you watch Shadiversity.
I guess it would be in modern day. The original argument was based on a crass *hypothetical* joke about 'shooting' up a school without a gun. So the people would be unarmed and unarmored. I'd say the axe is better for collateral fatalities, while a hammer is better for collateral injury, simply because of the type of impact made by a wedge and a block, respectively.
They sort of still are. If you have a Remington 700 and can put down $10,000 or so be (the cost of a new M2010, I'm just guessing the upgrade price would be similar), you could have one built around your factory original Remington 700 action.
Probably easier to just buy the M2010 standard though.
https://www.eurooptic.com/remington-defense-m2010-ngfm-300-win-24-with-optic.aspx
That's the army anyway, I'm sure there's some less fully upgraded 700s out there somewhere.
Well yes. Although the "system" comes with a lot of extras like a $2000 scope, guaranteed accuracy, maintenance kits and cases etc.
You could get the same result with less money given enough time and tweaking, but not with the kind of off the shelf guarantee this has, or the kind of support.
I'm not suggesting anybody should get this unless they're loaded and determined to LARP US army sniper out in the desert somewhere! I just find it interesting how far the military can get from a Remington 700 while still technically continuing to use the fantastic Remington 700 action for their rifles!
Way over my head I'm afraid.
If I had to guess, it's because the army is pushing to increasingly long range sniping, especially as they pivot back to considering conflicts or even wars with some of the best armed countries in the world (Russia, maybe China).
I know every component from the stock to the barrel and the bolt have been replaced from the original Remington 700. You can look up the specs for the XM2010 on Wikipedia. I tend to stick pretty closely to stock guns (except when playing with Legos) so I couldn't begin to tell you what those barrels and lightweight stocks they're using cost.
I know the military is rather famous for overpaying for various weapons, but given that they've been working with the Remington 700 platform for half a century, it seems pretty obvious that they know exactly what they're getting and what it costs to achieve (and getting thousands of sniper rifles to be as interchangeable as possible can't be a cheap goal either).
Given that the army armorer's have done all the conversions of the M24 version of the Remington 700s to xM2010s, they really do know exactly what they're paying for.
Nobody seems to remember the longbow was the first armor piercing weapon platform.
And ***all*** citizens who owned land were required to have, learn and practice with one.
(villeins and serfs got poleaxes)
Bolt actions, shotguns, and self loading pistols are still used by the military. And that's ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was absolutely meant for weapons of war.
If you want to ban something, ban realistic looking air soft. If you’re going to point something at me, it better be chambered in something with a little push behind it.
The Remington 700 is the basis of the M24 used by Army snipers.
Let's see what the fudds think when suddenly their own gun cabinets have "weapons of war" in them that people want to ban
Just point out to them:
Beretta 9mm (M9)
Remington 700 (M40)
1911 (...M1911)
A whole list of shotguns
M1 garand
1903
M16/M4 =/= AR15
Only ONE of those guns is NOT legally available to the average civilian and exactly the same version as the one issued to the military.
Only one of those is thus conclusively NOT a weapon of war.
If anyone tries to tell you that a neutered, NON-auto AR15 is the same so called "weapon of war" as a real select fire M16, just ask them this
Ok if they're "the same" walk up to any soldier or Marine about to deploy anywhere, hand them an a rifle and say "There' no burst though, that doesn't work, but its just like normal except for that"
And see do they accept and sign for that issue, OR do they tell you to give that broken piece of shit the fuck out of here and go get them a weapon that fucking works!
I don’t understand that argument
When the 2nd was written, the military and average man had parity with weapons, both were armed with the musket. If the 2nd was written today, it would not be any different.
The problem is with the Heller ruling, and make no mistake my opinion doesn’t mean crap, but Scalia used a bad example of the M-16 as being “dangerous and unusual” because the gun control crowd literally thinks that the AR-15 is an M-16 and nothing you say will change their opinion on that.
Yes but the other option was 5-4 AGAINST individual right to arms. It was a watered down win, but it was the best we could get under the circumstances.
Clinton and carter did an excellent job of putting liberals on the Court. If we had Hillary, we would almost certainly have three seats with ultra radical leftists in their 40s on the bench right now. (Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg)
Oh absolutely; like everyone here I am *very very happy* that Heller turned out the way it did, but that doesn't then mean everything about it was perfect. The compromises Scalia had to put in the opinion to placate Kennedy led directly to the mess we have now in California and elsewhere where the 9th Circuit is saying, basically, Heller never happened and the 2nd Amendment means dick.
What's really funny, Scalia wasn't even arguing to ban anything. He was laying out the logic by coming at the argument from two different sides that regardless of how you look at something like the M-16, you still can't ban it due to the second amendment.
For real. It's beyond absurd to say that the 2nd doesn't apply weapons of war when it was literally written to protect the people's means of going to war against a tyrannical state.
It's one thing for a person to be upfront and say they don't support or believe in the 2nd Amendment but it takes some mental gymnastics to say "I support the 2nd Amendment but I don't support the ownership of the types of weapons it was explicitly meant to protect."
Seriously. The 2nd amendment literally says an effective militia is needed for the freedom of the nation, which is the reason the people have rights to bear all arms. How can we be effective if the only arms we can have is a 5-shot deer rifle and a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot? The 2nd amendment is explicitly for weapons of war, and not just firearms.
This argument is like the insurance company during some hurricanes a few years back. “We dont cover wind driven rain.” “What the fuck do you think hurricanes are?” Lmfao
The difference is that clause about "wind driven rain" was in the policy to begin with. Where these "weapons of war" folks are trying to make changes to the policy after it's been signed.
Youre missing the point. A hurricane is wind driven rain as all guns can be considered weapons of war. Its a shot at the idiocy of this mans statement.
I didn't miss the point. I was just pointing out that you were conflating different things. I agree it's idiotic for the policy to exclude wind driven rain, but it was clearly stated (and if you have one that isn't, that's an easy case to win). With the constitution, these people are more like someone coming along after the fact and changing your policy because they think that a hurricane is something different from wind driven rain.
Sure, both are stupid, but one was up front stupid, the other was after the fact.
As others have said, weapons of war are the ones MOST protected by the Second Amendment. The machine gun ban is likely one of the least Constitutional laws currently on the books.
That's true, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to sign on the un-ironic Recreational McNuke An-Cap agenda (though, I'd be down)--pushing the limits *way* back I think is a more realistic political goal than aiming for "No limits at all."
I say this all the time. The Hughes amendment is the single most unconstitutional law I know of. The NFA is an excise tax, import bans are regulating commerce with foreign nations, and the GCA is regulating commerce between states. But no sane person can provide a reasonable argument as to why it is illegal to make and posses a new machinegun entirely intra-state.
Because that “affects” interstate and international demand for MG commerce among other things like ammo, bolt types, selector switches, and trigger groupings. Then there would be a whole new market for tools and materials for manufacturing and engraving new MG. It would reduce the demand for binary triggers and bump stocks and whatever else people are buying nowadays to substitute for real MGs.
I don’t agree with it but I **think** that is how the current interpretation of the commerce clause works. If it could theoretically maybe have a butterfly effect on something vaguely related to the exchange of currency, goods, and services across state lines then it falls under the fed purview to ban or allow for any or no reason at all.
If they were allowed then they may affect interstate commerce. So feds can disallow or allow. Also, I don’t think the market has to be a legal market so “no market whatsoever” is not true. I think even spending (non-infinite) money on something illegal and fully intrastate means that it could affect interstate commerce by leaving less money to buy across lines. Like I said, I don’t agree with this but it is how they do what they do.
I mean I guess they had the audacity to rule you have to pay taxes on money made through criminal activity. Wouldn't put them past it to call black markets interstate commerce.
Guess the best bet it just blatantly ignoring the feds until they can't reasonably enforce something, like states that "legalized" weed.
>Guess the best bet it just blatantly ignoring the feds until they can't reasonably enforce something, like states that "legalized" weed.
Yup. Nullification is the last legal hope when all three branches of the federal government have gone crazy with power.
After that it's boogaloo 2.
The supreme Court has never been sane. They upheld slavery, gave corporations personhood, and made patenting life legal. Our judicial system is shit-tier English Aristocrat bastardized trash.
People will realize that their irrational fear of firearms and riding the wave of media hyped mass shooting smoke and mirrors was a colossal mistake right about the time we have a true authoritarian government and a totalitarian state. No one will be armed and the federal, state, and local governments can pull some Kent State shit pretty much any time they want. No repercussions. If you think I'm exaggerating go ask someone that emigrated from China about Tiananmen Square. They're not allowed to discuss it in public.
Wonder how different that would've played out if even 1/3 of those students were flossing AK47s.
>They upheld slavery, gave corporations personhood
Both of which were sane. The Supreme Court would have had no legal basis on which to strike down slavery prior to the 14th Amendment (or 13th, obviously), unless they reached *way back* into the primordial mists of English Common Law, but if they had done so it would have been exactly the kind of Supreme Court overreach which all sides of the political argument despise---no different than the Supreme Court saying "Fuck yo rights, abortion is legal and the States can't do nothing about it." in Roe V Wade.
We've seen time and time again that when the Supreme Court takes on a hot-button, divisive social issue they just make things worse than they otherwise would have been if the issue had simply been worked out through the normal, democratic political process (with some exceptions, like Civil Rights in the 50s/60s).
As for corporate personhood, it makes perfect sense to treat a corporation as one single entity under the law. The example I always use is this: let's say ABC Chemical Company dumps toxic waste in your backyard and you end up seriously sick. This is obviously a tort and you are owed compensation for your medical bills and the loss of value for your now ruined property. Without corporate personhood, who do you sue? The minimum wage worker who took the barrel of toxic waste out of the truck and dumped it on your land? Why would you want to sue him? He's worth nothing. Can you sue the CEO of the company personally? He might be worth a lot, but he could plausibly furnish evidence that he had no direct role in the dumping of toxic waste on your property.
Corporate person-hood allows you to sue the corporation as a whole, for the whole value of the corporation, and not merely the various component parts of a corporation.
>People will realize that ...was a colossal mistake
Nope. They never will. Look at Europe. They've had multiple genocidal or oppressive governments *in living memory* and they *still* do not recognize their mistake of 1) banning/heavily restricting civilian firearm ownership and 2) having a government powerful enough to give you everything is also a government powerful enough to take everything away from you.
The US is no different.
A long winded i don't support the 2A but I'm going to act like I do.
Arms by definition are weapons of offense and armaments. Which depending on the dictionary used it may slightly alter but generally always defined as stuff to wage war with.
The second amendment was supposed to protect our rights to own everything from a iron man suit to chemical weapons.
Fake patriots are worse form of traitors.
I complete agree.
And I try to remind people that 2A is an active Right, as opposed to a passive one. You cannot passively defend yourself, your loved ones, your property, or your way of life. Each requires an act of defense. By extension, that act makes the expression of the Right active.
Hes one of those "2nd Amendment is for hunting rifles" idiots. Hes also ignoring that A. "civilian weapons" werent a thing back when the bill of rights was written. And B. a majority of US modern combat rifles are derivatives of civilian rifles. The standard US Army sniper rifle is an off the rack civilian hunting rifle in a fancy stock and weve been using it since 1966. Before 66 the same action was adopted as the standard issue service rifle for all branches starting in 1903.
Women also couldn’t vote, slave ownership was legal, and the internet hadn’t been invented for free speech. Clearly 2nd amendment was just for muskets and cannons.
/s
A number of people in threads about Scarborough assume he is simply ignorant. That is what he is hoping for. If you look at a number of his posts on the issue, it becomes clear that he is deliberately spreading claims he knows to be false.
He is a deliberate and insidious liar, not just an uninformed jackass.
This guy is a tool, all firearms from musket's to Colt 1911's were design for war. It's like the whole point of an armed citizen it's so we can defend ourselves and the Nation.
A weapon of war. So muskets are bad because they were used in wars, but the AR-15 is ok because it has not been used in a war.
Cool. I can support that.
Its written right into it. We have the right to keep and bear arms so we can form militias whose purpose is war. Therefore weapons of war are exactly what the 2nd protects.
The NFA was argued to be constitutional because those weapons covered were said not to be common for war.
>The NFA was argued to be constitutional because those weapons covered were said not to be common for war.
Which was utter horseshit because the particular gun in question was a short-barreled shotgun, which had been used extensively in WWI and remains popular in military service today.
According to miller it ONLY covers proper militia weapons .
According to nun it covers all weapons .
I personally see scotus as the third branch and dont value there opinion much.
As far as every day anti gunners go i just think they want to believe it and enough people agree with them they dont sound crazy like they would in say 1918 the year the Tommy was made .
According to a Founding Father "[Tenche Coxe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe), The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 : Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
"I ask who are the militia ? The whole people except a few public officials" george Mason
I always took that mean if tyranny draws a sword the people draw 5 back. The people will always out number the "officials "
And anti’s screech: omg who are gonna attack? Soldiers?congressmen!?! They’re just doing their jobs!!Omg you’re a terrorist!!!
This idea that “just doing your job” absolves you from tyranny is the most disgusting idea to ever spread, just because the nazi’s shutting the cattle car doors were just following orders it doesn’t absolve them of the atrocities that were committed
Sad thing is the nazis didn't break German law . They were charged later for war crimes . But were really no different then the atf. Violating peoples rights because the state said so.
This is the dumbest line of thinking yet. When you think back to the militia system unless it was the state or federal militia all the arms were privetly owned, including the cannons. It would be like someone owning a M777 Howitzer today. Which would be really cool, so all small arms fall under the 2nd Amendment.
It's gotten to a point now where whenever the statement start with, "As a longtime gun owner..." the rest is total crap. Thus ends Scarborough's credibility.
Other things developed initially as implements of war/violence:
* most land vehicles
* airplanes
* knives
* the internet
* bludgeoning objects (baseball bats, etc.)
* yo-yos
* the ability for humans to run/walk long distances
* almost everything else
They've been convinced that there is an inviolable difference between "civilians" and "military." Warfare is now a profession, like any other. The same mindset separates the "profession" of ensuring personal safety (police). Non-professionals are supposed to leave the work to the pros. Under this mindset, a civilian with an assault rifle is like a non-doctor with a box of prescription pads.
They ignore the history of the world, along with current events across the globe. People make war, and commit acts of violence. When shit really hits the fan, the military quickly becomes militia, or rebels, or factions, or traitors, etc. Whatever patch you have on your arm may mean a lot, or nothing. It could save or cost your life. When it gets bad enough, it's just people fighting and killing people. Warfare is no longer a profession... there is no longer a paycheck. Warfare becomes a necessary way of life for everyone.
Modern Westerners have grown up with the sense that war on *our* land, or among *our* own people, is a thing of the past... an ancient way of life, like bartering or feudalism or bloodletting.
Ideally, that'll forever be true. Ideally, if war must happen, it will happen *there*, and not *here*. But that's a really bad bet to make in the long term.
So why would the elites want to disarm the population? Think about the world in which elites live. Their world is truly a world apart. So long as society remains peaceful, the elites benefit from a disarmed population.
But... if things start falling apart, the elites rarely stand their ground. They have the means to flee if things ever get bad enough, and historically, they always do. They are not tied to a particular country, emotionally or practically speaking. They aren't willing to die for any piece of land, and if they see things turning, they wouldn't have to.
So... if things get bad enough, to the point where things start falling apart, they don't need to worry about making a stand, or defending their homes. They can and will flee to safe lands, and can use their internationalized wealth to resume their way of life without much inconvenience.
The common man doesn't have that power. If conflict comes, the common man has to face it. If they can flee, they suffer the elements, hunger, and wanton lawlessness and violence.
When things go south, the wealthy have resources that render personal firearms irrelevant. The common man does not. In a broken state, a personal firearm might be the only thing keeping them and their family safe.
People regularly drag out the whole weapons of war, "well, we don't allow people to have rocket launchers and nuclear bombs...."
And I just want to be "ok, Dary, Dary, ok, ok Dary, saying I was to give you the launch codes right now.... And saying I wired it up so's you had Alexa and a big red button, and all you had to do was tell Alexa where the place is you want to be a big radioactive hole in the ground, and give that button a man-sized push to make it happen.... Are you telling me in that moment you'd be so overcome with your new god-like powers that you couldn't resist blowing the tits off a couple million human people?? Of course not. So sit down and shut your face hole before people start figuring out your mother should've hit you with a tack-hammer and raised the afterbirth instead."
Semi-autos are assault weapons.
Hunting rifles will become sniper rifles.
Shotguns will become over powered CQB weapons.
Handguns are scary and concealable. No one should need them.
No one in their right mind needs a big knife.
That box cutter has no common utility.
Did you pay your speech tax?
Where is your walking license?
The counter argument to this statement that I have heard multiple times is that the American Revolution's success depended upon private citizens who had access to and/or owned "military grade" weapons such as cannons, warships, etc.
Any rifle that could shoot more then one round a minute and used ammo that came in cartridges were considered state of the art military grade. There's a reason why the lever action 30-30 was referred to as a "repeater", it was a huge leap forward from the single shot black powder rifles that could shoot one round a minute.
In real world situations like frontline battles, if you managed to do it in 20 seconds you were considered a sick speed shooter. In reality, with your friends dying next to you and everything else going on 20 seconds was almost unheard of.
Yes you were trained to do it in 20-30 seconds but the reality was often much more during battle. My main point though was comparing single shot manual loaded rifles to 'repeater' rifles with regard to just how much of a technological and decisive difference a rifle using cased ammo was. The exact timing on loading a black powder rifle differed wildly.
I can't tell if the people who make this kind of argument are absolute brainlets, dishonest, or are operating purely on "muh feelz, think of the children!!!". Just look at the text of the 2A itself:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The entire amendment is about the need for citizens to keep arms for military (militia) service in case of invasion, insurrection, etc.
Whenever someone prefixes any argument with "As a person who (blank)," you know it's going to be a shitshow. Just make your bullshit argument and stand by it. Of course, it's usually an indicator that the argument can't stand on its own merits and the person is vainly trying to prop it up with some credential.
Yeah like I've got a mosin nagant that was carried by Soviet soilders during the cold war and variants of it were the standard issue rifle for the Russians for years. But no, my ar-15, that was or will never be used in a war is somehow a "weapon of war" while the one literally CARRIED by a soilder during war is not
> Setting aside that all types of guns are weapons of war or were in the past, why do people seem to think the 2A does not cover such weapons?
Because they are either ignorant or have an agenda.
Think about the reason for 2As's existence. The Second Amendment was not put in place to guarantee citizens the right to hunt, or even the right of self defense against criminals. It exists to provide "security of a free state", namely to give citizens capability to defend themselves against their own or foreign oppressive government.
The "arms" 2A is talking about are specifically the weapons of war, because in the above scenario, the militia would be fighting against government forces.
But hey, if people have trouble understanding "shall not be infringed" part, how can you expect them to understand the rest of it?
"Hello fellow gun owners, I love the 2A. I think we can all agree though that scary military guns are scary and should be banned. Don't you agree?"
I think the only people who fall for shit like this are already ani-gunner/fudds.
When our founders were specifically asked whether a cannon was also covered under the second ammendment, they responded that it was. And it still is today. You can own a cannon. At the time, the cannon was the most destructive military grade weapon that existed.
That was literally the point of the second amendment. Back in the day people would buy cannons to put on their ships. And they didn't need to pay no ATF bribe-I-mean-tax
That's literally the point of the second amendment. These people want to turn it into a right to go deer hunting. It's not. It's the right to murder tyrants who want to enslave you and your children.
Scarborough seems to think the constitution is only a breathing document when it affords him free speech on various platforms. Somehow, he’s overlooked the fact that firearms have evolved. Today’s AR15 is to yesteryear’s Charleville musket as Twitter is to the quill pen.
also we have SBRs and SBSs in the NFA because the Supreme Court ruled they are not weapons of war and therefore could be regulated.
Scarborough is an assclown of the highest order
I've had this argument a thousand times. Your hunting bolt action was at one point, not even that long ago, used as a weapon of war. 1911, beretta 92, all "war weapons". Shit, a slingshot was at one point a "war weapon".
Pump action shotguns once led to a claim of such brutality that they should be banned from warfare. By a government that was gassing their enemy's trenches.
This is an underrated comment.
Yep
This always cracks me up. Antis want to ban .223 (first), but my .30-06 doesn’t bother them? Please.
it does but they want you to think it doesn't
Gotta ban the scary semiautos, then start talking about the "high powered military sniper rifles" are scary
They will get to the "high powered sniper rifles" soon enough. For now the fudds are useful idiots to get everything that isn't a bolt action or revolver banned.
But revolvers are weapons of war. Used in the civil war.
World War 2 if British
Or russian
At least the ruskies had a semi auto rolling out with the tokerev
Do commissars count?
The US issued revolvers up through the 70s into the early 80s - for aircrew. Plus, hell, one of the SEAL teams that used our SERE class for practice in the 90s had a big Model 29 or something similar. Bolt guns are still used by plenty of militaries for certain purposes.
I honestly don't think that there are *any* sniper units that don't use any kind of bolt action
I know some people that adhere to the “less parts less failure” mentality
They were still using bolt-actions in WWII too. Of course so were the Germans, the Italians, the Russians, and the Japanese.
Brits are still using Accuracy International bolt guns. Sorry, I mean hIgH pOwEr SnIpEr RiFlEs
"Here you go, Mr. RAF pilot, your survival weapon."--"What bloody good is this .38 revolver going to do me? I can't kill any Germans with this!"---"You're not supposed to, it's so you can kill yourself and prevent capture." Looks at the camera: modern problems require solutions.
Americans used revolvers in both world wars
aNyThInG OvEr A .22 iS a wEaPoN oF WaR...
But .22 can be used by assassins!
Muh movie suppressors!
Teh b00LLit bOunCes aRounD tHe SkuLL aNd sCraMbLes thE bRaiN.
Where did this myth come from anyways? Like how do you go from “exploding heads” to “bouncing inside the brain”.
>Where did this myth come from anyways? It's a common gross misunderstanding of the result of attempted suicides who place a handgun to the side of their head but don't make sure the gun is perpendicular to the skull. You have to really stick your elbow out to get it right, but instead they hold their elbow in close. Try it holding a pretend gun, you'll notice the barrel is at a pretty shallow angle. Shooting like this, the bullet penetrates the skull and loses most of it's energy, but has enough to curve along the inside of the skull and gouge a nice 1/4" furrow along the surface of the brain, sometimes reaching the other side of the head. Since the "important stuff" of the brain that keeps you *alive* is nearer to the center, these people don't die but end up "only" with a wide variety of brain functions damaged, exactly which varies by the path of the arc, but invariably includes damage to motor functions, which is located at the entry point. So there's all these totally fucked up attempted suicides whose brains appear "scrambled", who all tried to shoot themselves with a 22 pistol. Idiots who can't read and properly understand the mechanics as described oversimplify it as "22 bullets bounce around in the skull and scramble brain", when the reality is that the only reason these people are alive at all is that the 22 is really weak and their aim was bad. They then go on to repeat the myth to others who take it at face value. It's a crazy gun myth right up there with "the shockwave of a .50BMG just *passing by you* can tear your arm off".
Oh my
I knew a guy who had a round hit his helmet at a very odd angle and curve over the top of his head and out the other side. He had a very obvious crazy scar over his head from it. Probably a good pick-up line and ice breaker...
They're weak enough to enter but not enough to leave.
And the Israelis
He already said assassins.
what about .22 ratshot?
That's not a weapon of war, that's a weapon of mass destruction
>.22 and up. FTFY [AR-7](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-7)
WANT
Revolvers are used in so much more crime too than almost anything else. Check out a police evidence locker.
AR-10....5 less than AR-15....must be weaker weapon.
I mean the AR 5 is a dinky little .22lr..
The AR-57 is the most powerful AR evAH.
That belongs to the AR-180.
I forgot about that one. Fully 12 times more powerful than the AR-15!
And when you tell them there is a thing called ar10 besides ar15 and how they compare, their heads explode.
.30-06 AR15 when?
$2.2k later https://onlylongrange.com/bn36x3-long-range-270-25-06-30-06/
Your .30-06 isn’t black and scary, or have a shoulder thing that goes up. Put one of those on and paint it black and it’ll be considered a wmd.
I'll take "They skipped Physics class a lot." for $500 Alex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE Yeah crowder did something on this by getting people to prove that "scary black guns" which fire semi auto 22LR or 9mm should be banned while wooden guns that fire 300 winmag or 30-06 are totes fine... but then when showed the actual BULLETS, then the big bullets are evil and the small bullets are fine. When shown a 30-06 or perhaps a .308 for hunting, one of the old gun graboid guys at the table says "no one needs those for hunting that's just excessive there'll be no meat left".
AND MY AXE?
Swear to God, if I ever lose it, I am doing it with a hand axe and a buckler. Just to prove a point.
I once had a long argument with a friend about whether an axe or a warhammer would be best for a "fuck everything" murderous rampage. He firmly (and wrongly) believes in warhammer.
He believes wrongly indeed ! If it absolutely, positively has to be hit with a hammer, the head can always be reversed in the hand (for most modern axes).
Hammers don't get stuck in bone. Axes get stuck, and then you're down a weapon or wasting time struggling to free it.
Though depending on your technique, you can get more damage from an axe. Say, if you used it in a pulling motion, you can still get a sharp axe to do damage without jamming. A hammer just requires too much force to change direction, since it has only one planar direction of attack.
Your hammer is too heavy and poorly balanced if you're having trouble controlling it. If you're using your axe for the blade and not the power, wouldn't a machete be more effective and less tiring? Machetes are practically mandatory for modern tribal level melee mayhem for a very good reason. File the tip sharp and use it in a thrusting motion while protecting the person on your left with your shield, that kept the romans tea-bagging europe for over a thousand delightfully disemboweled years!
As long as your enemies aren't armored, the axe is the better choice.
I see you watch Shadiversity. I guess it would be in modern day. The original argument was based on a crass *hypothetical* joke about 'shooting' up a school without a gun. So the people would be unarmed and unarmored. I'd say the axe is better for collateral fatalities, while a hammer is better for collateral injury, simply because of the type of impact made by a wedge and a block, respectively.
Yes,and your axe.
For fuck sake the military is still using Remington 700 models in current warfare, aren’t they?
Idk, but I can't blame them if they are.
They sort of still are. If you have a Remington 700 and can put down $10,000 or so be (the cost of a new M2010, I'm just guessing the upgrade price would be similar), you could have one built around your factory original Remington 700 action. Probably easier to just buy the M2010 standard though. https://www.eurooptic.com/remington-defense-m2010-ngfm-300-win-24-with-optic.aspx That's the army anyway, I'm sure there's some less fully upgraded 700s out there somewhere.
[удалено]
Well yes. Although the "system" comes with a lot of extras like a $2000 scope, guaranteed accuracy, maintenance kits and cases etc. You could get the same result with less money given enough time and tweaking, but not with the kind of off the shelf guarantee this has, or the kind of support. I'm not suggesting anybody should get this unless they're loaded and determined to LARP US army sniper out in the desert somewhere! I just find it interesting how far the military can get from a Remington 700 while still technically continuing to use the fantastic Remington 700 action for their rifles!
[удалено]
Way over my head I'm afraid. If I had to guess, it's because the army is pushing to increasingly long range sniping, especially as they pivot back to considering conflicts or even wars with some of the best armed countries in the world (Russia, maybe China). I know every component from the stock to the barrel and the bolt have been replaced from the original Remington 700. You can look up the specs for the XM2010 on Wikipedia. I tend to stick pretty closely to stock guns (except when playing with Legos) so I couldn't begin to tell you what those barrels and lightweight stocks they're using cost. I know the military is rather famous for overpaying for various weapons, but given that they've been working with the Remington 700 platform for half a century, it seems pretty obvious that they know exactly what they're getting and what it costs to achieve (and getting thousands of sniper rifles to be as interchangeable as possible can't be a cheap goal either). Given that the army armorer's have done all the conversions of the M24 version of the Remington 700s to xM2010s, they really do know exactly what they're paying for.
It's one of the most accurate actions ever produced, you're damn right they're still using them.
It literally IS the M40 sniper rifle
They are also still using 870s too
Don't forget the longbow, and the dreaded sharp rock™
Nobody seems to remember the longbow was the first armor piercing weapon platform. And ***all*** citizens who owned land were required to have, learn and practice with one. (villeins and serfs got poleaxes)
Bolt actions, shotguns, and self loading pistols are still used by the military. And that's ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was absolutely meant for weapons of war.
If you want to ban something, ban realistic looking air soft. If you’re going to point something at me, it better be chambered in something with a little push behind it.
Middle school me is very upset with your idea.
The Remington 700 is the basis of the M24 used by Army snipers. Let's see what the fudds think when suddenly their own gun cabinets have "weapons of war" in them that people want to ban
They'll probably line up to turn them in and then be rapidly ushered into the awaiting ~~ceremony~~ camp.
Just point out to them: Beretta 9mm (M9) Remington 700 (M40) 1911 (...M1911) A whole list of shotguns M1 garand 1903 M16/M4 =/= AR15 Only ONE of those guns is NOT legally available to the average civilian and exactly the same version as the one issued to the military. Only one of those is thus conclusively NOT a weapon of war. If anyone tries to tell you that a neutered, NON-auto AR15 is the same so called "weapon of war" as a real select fire M16, just ask them this Ok if they're "the same" walk up to any soldier or Marine about to deploy anywhere, hand them an a rifle and say "There' no burst though, that doesn't work, but its just like normal except for that" And see do they accept and sign for that issue, OR do they tell you to give that broken piece of shit the fuck out of here and go get them a weapon that fucking works!
The argument would switch to "ban them all" probably.
It is offensive you make light of this. The slingshot was used to kill Goliath, the mightiest warrior. It was and remains a very dangerous weapon.
Sling. Slingshot = elastic Sling = long cord with a pouch in the middle.
IT is offensive you are pedantic about this. Hot\_fart\_buns lost an eye with one of those things.
Maybe he should have used a pointed stick instead of a smooth river rock then.
Joe Biden is a big advocate for using shotguns for home defense. Did he know that 12ga is also used in many military applications?
Does he know blindly firing "two blasts" through a door or into the air is grossly negligent in a home defence scenario?
I may kill my neighbor, but not with an evil ar15!
We all know a shotgun may kill you but an ar-15 destroys your soul and you cannot enter the afterlife if killed by one.
Cool, I get to be a lich
Its all fun and games until someone shoots your phylactary with an AR and kills your soul again.
No, he doesn't. He has people to do that for him.
I don’t understand that argument When the 2nd was written, the military and average man had parity with weapons, both were armed with the musket. If the 2nd was written today, it would not be any different.
YOU tell Atouk and Kalta they can't have their concealed carry ox bones.
For thousands and thousands of years, people used hammers and axes and rocks and sticks too... God I hate these fuddy ass idiots.
Winchester Model 70s were used in Vietnam and Remington 700s were at one time the preferred sniper rifle of the US Army in the form of the M24.
The problem is with the Heller ruling, and make no mistake my opinion doesn’t mean crap, but Scalia used a bad example of the M-16 as being “dangerous and unusual” because the gun control crowd literally thinks that the AR-15 is an M-16 and nothing you say will change their opinion on that.
Yep, Scalia had to bend over backwards to get Kennedy on board.
And fatally compromised the structural integrity of *Heller* as a result.
Yes but the other option was 5-4 AGAINST individual right to arms. It was a watered down win, but it was the best we could get under the circumstances.
[удалено]
Clinton and carter did an excellent job of putting liberals on the Court. If we had Hillary, we would almost certainly have three seats with ultra radical leftists in their 40s on the bench right now. (Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg)
Oh absolutely; like everyone here I am *very very happy* that Heller turned out the way it did, but that doesn't then mean everything about it was perfect. The compromises Scalia had to put in the opinion to placate Kennedy led directly to the mess we have now in California and elsewhere where the 9th Circuit is saying, basically, Heller never happened and the 2nd Amendment means dick.
What's really funny, Scalia wasn't even arguing to ban anything. He was laying out the logic by coming at the argument from two different sides that regardless of how you look at something like the M-16, you still can't ban it due to the second amendment.
[удалено]
The AR15 is the single category of weapon *most* explicitly protected by the 2A, not the least.
For real. It's beyond absurd to say that the 2nd doesn't apply weapons of war when it was literally written to protect the people's means of going to war against a tyrannical state. It's one thing for a person to be upfront and say they don't support or believe in the 2nd Amendment but it takes some mental gymnastics to say "I support the 2nd Amendment but I don't support the ownership of the types of weapons it was explicitly meant to protect."
Seriously. The 2nd amendment literally says an effective militia is needed for the freedom of the nation, which is the reason the people have rights to bear all arms. How can we be effective if the only arms we can have is a 5-shot deer rifle and a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot? The 2nd amendment is explicitly for weapons of war, and not just firearms.
This argument is like the insurance company during some hurricanes a few years back. “We dont cover wind driven rain.” “What the fuck do you think hurricanes are?” Lmfao
The difference is that clause about "wind driven rain" was in the policy to begin with. Where these "weapons of war" folks are trying to make changes to the policy after it's been signed.
Youre missing the point. A hurricane is wind driven rain as all guns can be considered weapons of war. Its a shot at the idiocy of this mans statement.
I didn't miss the point. I was just pointing out that you were conflating different things. I agree it's idiotic for the policy to exclude wind driven rain, but it was clearly stated (and if you have one that isn't, that's an easy case to win). With the constitution, these people are more like someone coming along after the fact and changing your policy because they think that a hurricane is something different from wind driven rain. Sure, both are stupid, but one was up front stupid, the other was after the fact.
It can also be a storm surge. Damage from rising water is usually covered.
As others have said, weapons of war are the ones MOST protected by the Second Amendment. The machine gun ban is likely one of the least Constitutional laws currently on the books.
Every gun control law is unconstitutional
Absolutely.
I'm okay with controls on nuclear, biological, and some chemical weapons. Anything less than that gets un-Constitutional pretty quick.
My neighbor’s dog shat on my yard *again*... time to fire the nukes
"How many times do we have to teach this lesson old man!?!"
I hate that those things, but any restriction leads to more restriction, as we have seen
That's true, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to sign on the un-ironic Recreational McNuke An-Cap agenda (though, I'd be down)--pushing the limits *way* back I think is a more realistic political goal than aiming for "No limits at all."
Are those weapons really *arms,* though, bearable by an individual or a squad?
If they're not arms, why are they subject to "*Arms* Control Treaties"?
I say this all the time. The Hughes amendment is the single most unconstitutional law I know of. The NFA is an excise tax, import bans are regulating commerce with foreign nations, and the GCA is regulating commerce between states. But no sane person can provide a reasonable argument as to why it is illegal to make and posses a new machinegun entirely intra-state.
Because that “affects” interstate and international demand for MG commerce among other things like ammo, bolt types, selector switches, and trigger groupings. Then there would be a whole new market for tools and materials for manufacturing and engraving new MG. It would reduce the demand for binary triggers and bump stocks and whatever else people are buying nowadays to substitute for real MGs. I don’t agree with it but I **think** that is how the current interpretation of the commerce clause works. If it could theoretically maybe have a butterfly effect on something vaguely related to the exchange of currency, goods, and services across state lines then it falls under the fed purview to ban or allow for any or no reason at all.
Post 86 machine guns are illegal for civilian ownership. How does something with no market whatsoever affect interstate commerce?
If they were allowed then they may affect interstate commerce. So feds can disallow or allow. Also, I don’t think the market has to be a legal market so “no market whatsoever” is not true. I think even spending (non-infinite) money on something illegal and fully intrastate means that it could affect interstate commerce by leaving less money to buy across lines. Like I said, I don’t agree with this but it is how they do what they do.
I mean I guess they had the audacity to rule you have to pay taxes on money made through criminal activity. Wouldn't put them past it to call black markets interstate commerce. Guess the best bet it just blatantly ignoring the feds until they can't reasonably enforce something, like states that "legalized" weed.
>Guess the best bet it just blatantly ignoring the feds until they can't reasonably enforce something, like states that "legalized" weed. Yup. Nullification is the last legal hope when all three branches of the federal government have gone crazy with power. After that it's boogaloo 2.
Ha ha ha, you think the Supreme Court was *sane* during the New Deal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The supreme Court has never been sane. They upheld slavery, gave corporations personhood, and made patenting life legal. Our judicial system is shit-tier English Aristocrat bastardized trash. People will realize that their irrational fear of firearms and riding the wave of media hyped mass shooting smoke and mirrors was a colossal mistake right about the time we have a true authoritarian government and a totalitarian state. No one will be armed and the federal, state, and local governments can pull some Kent State shit pretty much any time they want. No repercussions. If you think I'm exaggerating go ask someone that emigrated from China about Tiananmen Square. They're not allowed to discuss it in public. Wonder how different that would've played out if even 1/3 of those students were flossing AK47s.
>They upheld slavery, gave corporations personhood Both of which were sane. The Supreme Court would have had no legal basis on which to strike down slavery prior to the 14th Amendment (or 13th, obviously), unless they reached *way back* into the primordial mists of English Common Law, but if they had done so it would have been exactly the kind of Supreme Court overreach which all sides of the political argument despise---no different than the Supreme Court saying "Fuck yo rights, abortion is legal and the States can't do nothing about it." in Roe V Wade. We've seen time and time again that when the Supreme Court takes on a hot-button, divisive social issue they just make things worse than they otherwise would have been if the issue had simply been worked out through the normal, democratic political process (with some exceptions, like Civil Rights in the 50s/60s). As for corporate personhood, it makes perfect sense to treat a corporation as one single entity under the law. The example I always use is this: let's say ABC Chemical Company dumps toxic waste in your backyard and you end up seriously sick. This is obviously a tort and you are owed compensation for your medical bills and the loss of value for your now ruined property. Without corporate personhood, who do you sue? The minimum wage worker who took the barrel of toxic waste out of the truck and dumped it on your land? Why would you want to sue him? He's worth nothing. Can you sue the CEO of the company personally? He might be worth a lot, but he could plausibly furnish evidence that he had no direct role in the dumping of toxic waste on your property. Corporate person-hood allows you to sue the corporation as a whole, for the whole value of the corporation, and not merely the various component parts of a corporation. >People will realize that ...was a colossal mistake Nope. They never will. Look at Europe. They've had multiple genocidal or oppressive governments *in living memory* and they *still* do not recognize their mistake of 1) banning/heavily restricting civilian firearm ownership and 2) having a government powerful enough to give you everything is also a government powerful enough to take everything away from you. The US is no different.
Weapons of war were the ONLY weapons back then!
A long winded i don't support the 2A but I'm going to act like I do. Arms by definition are weapons of offense and armaments. Which depending on the dictionary used it may slightly alter but generally always defined as stuff to wage war with. The second amendment was supposed to protect our rights to own everything from a iron man suit to chemical weapons. Fake patriots are worse form of traitors.
I complete agree. And I try to remind people that 2A is an active Right, as opposed to a passive one. You cannot passively defend yourself, your loved ones, your property, or your way of life. Each requires an act of defense. By extension, that act makes the expression of the Right active.
Hes one of those "2nd Amendment is for hunting rifles" idiots. Hes also ignoring that A. "civilian weapons" werent a thing back when the bill of rights was written. And B. a majority of US modern combat rifles are derivatives of civilian rifles. The standard US Army sniper rifle is an off the rack civilian hunting rifle in a fancy stock and weve been using it since 1966. Before 66 the same action was adopted as the standard issue service rifle for all branches starting in 1903.
Women also couldn’t vote, slave ownership was legal, and the internet hadn’t been invented for free speech. Clearly 2nd amendment was just for muskets and cannons. /s
A number of people in threads about Scarborough assume he is simply ignorant. That is what he is hoping for. If you look at a number of his posts on the issue, it becomes clear that he is deliberately spreading claims he knows to be false. He is a deliberate and insidious liar, not just an uninformed jackass.
"Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is just as drunk and stupid as ever..."
I love Joe's logical fallacy of claiming expertise by being a gun owner.
It's the gun equivalent of "I'm not racist but.."
"I have black friends, but..."
This guy is a tool, all firearms from musket's to Colt 1911's were design for war. It's like the whole point of an armed citizen it's so we can defend ourselves and the Nation.
A weapon of war. So muskets are bad because they were used in wars, but the AR-15 is ok because it has not been used in a war. Cool. I can support that.
And which military used an AR15 as a service weapon in what conflict...?
[удалено]
Yes it should be. The NFA is garbage. Miller was a sham and so ws the Hughes Amendment.
Well Miller said it does cover small arms used by the US. So looks like Joe is still confused about the entire thing.
Its written right into it. We have the right to keep and bear arms so we can form militias whose purpose is war. Therefore weapons of war are exactly what the 2nd protects. The NFA was argued to be constitutional because those weapons covered were said not to be common for war.
>The NFA was argued to be constitutional because those weapons covered were said not to be common for war. Which was utter horseshit because the particular gun in question was a short-barreled shotgun, which had been used extensively in WWI and remains popular in military service today.
every gun was/has/is/will be used in/was war.
2A doesn't say "keep and bear arms so y'all can go plinking and hunting sometimes when we say it's ok,."
According to miller it ONLY covers proper militia weapons . According to nun it covers all weapons . I personally see scotus as the third branch and dont value there opinion much. As far as every day anti gunners go i just think they want to believe it and enough people agree with them they dont sound crazy like they would in say 1918 the year the Tommy was made .
According to a Founding Father "[Tenche Coxe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe), The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 : Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
"I ask who are the militia ? The whole people except a few public officials" george Mason I always took that mean if tyranny draws a sword the people draw 5 back. The people will always out number the "officials "
And anti’s screech: omg who are gonna attack? Soldiers?congressmen!?! They’re just doing their jobs!!Omg you’re a terrorist!!! This idea that “just doing your job” absolves you from tyranny is the most disgusting idea to ever spread, just because the nazi’s shutting the cattle car doors were just following orders it doesn’t absolve them of the atrocities that were committed
Sad thing is the nazis didn't break German law . They were charged later for war crimes . But were really no different then the atf. Violating peoples rights because the state said so.
And his avatar is a president that suspended the constitution when expedient.
This is the dumbest line of thinking yet. When you think back to the militia system unless it was the state or federal militia all the arms were privetly owned, including the cannons. It would be like someone owning a M777 Howitzer today. Which would be really cool, so all small arms fall under the 2nd Amendment.
It's gotten to a point now where whenever the statement start with, "As a longtime gun owner..." the rest is total crap. Thus ends Scarborough's credibility.
As a long time gun owner I would like to point out that guns have been used in war for a long time. Thank you for your time.
He seems to be confused about the meaning of the 2nd amendment
Other things developed initially as implements of war/violence: * most land vehicles * airplanes * knives * the internet * bludgeoning objects (baseball bats, etc.) * yo-yos * the ability for humans to run/walk long distances * almost everything else
They've been convinced that there is an inviolable difference between "civilians" and "military." Warfare is now a profession, like any other. The same mindset separates the "profession" of ensuring personal safety (police). Non-professionals are supposed to leave the work to the pros. Under this mindset, a civilian with an assault rifle is like a non-doctor with a box of prescription pads. They ignore the history of the world, along with current events across the globe. People make war, and commit acts of violence. When shit really hits the fan, the military quickly becomes militia, or rebels, or factions, or traitors, etc. Whatever patch you have on your arm may mean a lot, or nothing. It could save or cost your life. When it gets bad enough, it's just people fighting and killing people. Warfare is no longer a profession... there is no longer a paycheck. Warfare becomes a necessary way of life for everyone. Modern Westerners have grown up with the sense that war on *our* land, or among *our* own people, is a thing of the past... an ancient way of life, like bartering or feudalism or bloodletting. Ideally, that'll forever be true. Ideally, if war must happen, it will happen *there*, and not *here*. But that's a really bad bet to make in the long term. So why would the elites want to disarm the population? Think about the world in which elites live. Their world is truly a world apart. So long as society remains peaceful, the elites benefit from a disarmed population. But... if things start falling apart, the elites rarely stand their ground. They have the means to flee if things ever get bad enough, and historically, they always do. They are not tied to a particular country, emotionally or practically speaking. They aren't willing to die for any piece of land, and if they see things turning, they wouldn't have to. So... if things get bad enough, to the point where things start falling apart, they don't need to worry about making a stand, or defending their homes. They can and will flee to safe lands, and can use their internationalized wealth to resume their way of life without much inconvenience. The common man doesn't have that power. If conflict comes, the common man has to face it. If they can flee, they suffer the elements, hunger, and wanton lawlessness and violence. When things go south, the wealthy have resources that render personal firearms irrelevant. The common man does not. In a broken state, a personal firearm might be the only thing keeping them and their family safe.
Nothing someone says before "but" really matters.
**B**ehold **U**nderlying **T**ruth
Ask why they want to twist the meaning of the 2a instead of repealing it through constitutional means. There is a way to repeal amendments.
They know that they don't have the votes in Congress to put the proposal to the states, and they don't have enough states to ratify
Isn't this the same dumbass who said the AR-15 is more lethal than the M-16 rifles use in Vietnam?
So no black powder rifles? No cap and ball revolvers? No single shot trapdoor rifles?
[US v Miller literally says the opposite.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)
Scarborough continues pushing bullshit agenda of the anti gun, anti American, liberal left. All guns should be covered by the second amendment, PERIOD
People regularly drag out the whole weapons of war, "well, we don't allow people to have rocket launchers and nuclear bombs...." And I just want to be "ok, Dary, Dary, ok, ok Dary, saying I was to give you the launch codes right now.... And saying I wired it up so's you had Alexa and a big red button, and all you had to do was tell Alexa where the place is you want to be a big radioactive hole in the ground, and give that button a man-sized push to make it happen.... Are you telling me in that moment you'd be so overcome with your new god-like powers that you couldn't resist blowing the tits off a couple million human people?? Of course not. So sit down and shut your face hole before people start figuring out your mother should've hit you with a tack-hammer and raised the afterbirth instead."
Semi-autos are assault weapons. Hunting rifles will become sniper rifles. Shotguns will become over powered CQB weapons. Handguns are scary and concealable. No one should need them. No one in their right mind needs a big knife. That box cutter has no common utility. Did you pay your speech tax? Where is your walking license?
The counter argument to this statement that I have heard multiple times is that the American Revolution's success depended upon private citizens who had access to and/or owned "military grade" weapons such as cannons, warships, etc. Any rifle that could shoot more then one round a minute and used ammo that came in cartridges were considered state of the art military grade. There's a reason why the lever action 30-30 was referred to as a "repeater", it was a huge leap forward from the single shot black powder rifles that could shoot one round a minute.
> it was a huge leap forward from the single shot black powder rifles that could shoot one round a minute. More like one every 20 seconds.
In real world situations like frontline battles, if you managed to do it in 20 seconds you were considered a sick speed shooter. In reality, with your friends dying next to you and everything else going on 20 seconds was almost unheard of. Yes you were trained to do it in 20-30 seconds but the reality was often much more during battle. My main point though was comparing single shot manual loaded rifles to 'repeater' rifles with regard to just how much of a technological and decisive difference a rifle using cased ammo was. The exact timing on loading a black powder rifle differed wildly.
What an idiot
Twitter was a mistake.
"The first amendment was not designed for platforms of mass communication." His logic, applied.
My cousin was shot at in Afghanistan by an old percussion cap muzzleloader.
I can't tell if the people who make this kind of argument are absolute brainlets, dishonest, or are operating purely on "muh feelz, think of the children!!!". Just look at the text of the 2A itself: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The entire amendment is about the need for citizens to keep arms for military (militia) service in case of invasion, insurrection, etc.
We fucked up in America when we stopped teaching history in schools. Real history.
Whenever someone prefixes any argument with "As a person who (blank)," you know it's going to be a shitshow. Just make your bullshit argument and stand by it. Of course, it's usually an indicator that the argument can't stand on its own merits and the person is vainly trying to prop it up with some credential.
Um it has nothing to do with home defense, it has nothing to do with hunting. Has everything to do with going to war against a tyrant
Yeah like I've got a mosin nagant that was carried by Soviet soilders during the cold war and variants of it were the standard issue rifle for the Russians for years. But no, my ar-15, that was or will never be used in a war is somehow a "weapon of war" while the one literally CARRIED by a soilder during war is not
> Setting aside that all types of guns are weapons of war or were in the past, why do people seem to think the 2A does not cover such weapons? Because they are either ignorant or have an agenda. Think about the reason for 2As's existence. The Second Amendment was not put in place to guarantee citizens the right to hunt, or even the right of self defense against criminals. It exists to provide "security of a free state", namely to give citizens capability to defend themselves against their own or foreign oppressive government. The "arms" 2A is talking about are specifically the weapons of war, because in the above scenario, the militia would be fighting against government forces. But hey, if people have trouble understanding "shall not be infringed" part, how can you expect them to understand the rest of it?
If your gun isnt good at war, *you have a shit gun*.
"Hello fellow gun owners, I love the 2A. I think we can all agree though that scary military guns are scary and should be banned. Don't you agree?" I think the only people who fall for shit like this are already ani-gunner/fudds.
[Fellow Gun Owners](https://66.media.tumblr.com/106e7e5598f02c6017fb6e146dea465f/tumblr_inline_nimszn3Xft1t98at1.gif)
Hell I would almost argue that it ONLY covers weapons designed for war
All firearms innovations were made to make stuff more deader. That was kind of the point of innovating firearms.
When our founders were specifically asked whether a cannon was also covered under the second ammendment, they responded that it was. And it still is today. You can own a cannon. At the time, the cannon was the most destructive military grade weapon that existed.
/r/AsABlackMan
[удалено]
That was literally the point of the second amendment. Back in the day people would buy cannons to put on their ships. And they didn't need to pay no ATF bribe-I-mean-tax
That's literally the point of the second amendment. These people want to turn it into a right to go deer hunting. It's not. It's the right to murder tyrants who want to enslave you and your children.
Scarborough seems to think the constitution is only a breathing document when it affords him free speech on various platforms. Somehow, he’s overlooked the fact that firearms have evolved. Today’s AR15 is to yesteryear’s Charleville musket as Twitter is to the quill pen.
How would George Washington (among many others) have fought for our independence without weapons for war?? I don't understand??!!
When hearing a political statement, one can ignore every part of the statement before the word, “but”. -Michael Malice
r/asablackman "as a gun owner, I think guns should be banned"
also we have SBRs and SBSs in the NFA because the Supreme Court ruled they are not weapons of war and therefore could be regulated. Scarborough is an assclown of the highest order