PDA

View Full Version : A possible argument as to why citizens should have a right to AW's


missiontrails
01-08-2013, 11:19 AM
I have not spent enough time in this forum to see if this has already been posted, but it's a constitutional argument to directly address AW ownership.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc_W1kPL3DU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ScottsBad
01-08-2013, 11:39 AM
Starting by not referring to semi-auto rifles as "assault weapons" would help. I don't think we should use "their" language. Feinweiner's ban bill is not limited to AR and AK style rifles. It includes Mini-14s and other more "traditional" rifles.

We should not conceed anything. They are not "assault rifles", they are not "automatic weapons", and they are used in a tiny number of crimes. This is simply another way to boil the frogs. They come out with a massive gun control and registration bill and it gets "compromised" down to new restrictions that look less onerous. The Rino Republicans call it a victory. None-the-less it takes away some of our rights little by little until the it seems OK that we give up our rights altogether.

No amount of argument is going to persuade the committed anti-gun people. For them it doesn't matter if it is an AR-15 or a .38 revolver or a 10/22. They are anti-gun.

For the public that is ignorant about guns, but is open to debate the best arguments are already out there.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:44 AM
The argument for so called "assault weapons" is so that we can protect ourselves from the government. If the time comes to take back the counry, I do not want to be armed with a revolver and bolt action rifle.

We have to call out any politician or anti gun wingnut that suggests that the Second Amendment has to do with hunting. That is their primary position and it misrepresents the intent of the SA.

We need to make people aware of the principles behind the Sa and the debate that occurred during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution. We can't let the wanna be dictators revise the facts. Educate as many people as you can.

TeddyBallgame
01-08-2013, 11:55 AM
Starting by not referring to semi-auto rifles as "assault weapons" would help. I don't think we should use "their" language. Feinweiner's ban bill is not limited to AR and AK style rifles. It includes Mini-14s and other more "traditional" rifles.

We should not conceed anything. They are not "assault rifles", they are not "automatic weapons", and they are used in a tiny number of crimes. This is simply another way to boil the frogs. They come out with a massive gun control and registration bill and it gets "compromised" down to new restrictions that look less onerous. The Rino Republicans call it a victory. None-the-less it takes away some of our rights little by little until the it seems OK that we give up our rights altogether.

No amount of argument is going to persuade the committed anit-gun people. For them it doesn't matter if it is an AR-15 or a .38 revolver or a 1022. They are anti-gun.

For the public that is ignorant about guns, but is open to debate the best arguments are already out there.that's what always confused me some years ago, talking about banning assault weapons...i always thought they were talking about the fully automatic firearms...I out of the country a lot, so getting a grasp on what they were talking about took a while

Damn True
01-08-2013, 12:15 PM
Possible? There is no "possible" argument. The justification is absolutely clear. Read this: http://thedamntrueexperiment.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-does-2nd-amendment-exist-at-all.html