Somebody FINALLY gets it

[njineermike]

The REAL reason the 2A exists.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

[WartHog]

Spot On - best article I've ever read on the subject!

[Jay-lee]

The REAL reason the 2A exists.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ond-amendment/

Thank you. This keeps a tyrannical government in check, not to mention how much easier it would be for a foreign country to invade here. I bet they would think twice about that, as someone once said "behind every blade of grass, a gun..." or something to that effect. These sheeple need to get woke

[mshill]

While the article is good (not great) they make several "standard mistakes" common to journalists not really familiar with firearms: "assault rifle","high capacity magazine", are all nomenclature prevalent in the anti-gun culture. The author does, however, at least reasonably define "assault weapon" as we here in CA know it (SACF that looks like something from the modern military).

Also, the picture is captioned as being from "Ringmasters in Springville, Utah" it is Rangemasters of Utah and I go there when I visit my sons and it is too cold to go out to BLM on the west side of the valley to shoot.

I would prefer that journalists were more meticulous about what it is that they publish. They all seem too rushed to get stuff up on the internet to worry about spellchecking, editorial review, let alone fact checking.

[sMp]

"Thus, to properly defend life and liberty, access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn’t a luxury; it’s a necessity."

Well said. Nice article.
The only argument needed is life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You have the inherent right and obligation to defend your own life. No one should say or think otherwise.

[readysetgo]

But but but my ovaries have been hurting this whole news cycle!

Nothing but total and complete Cuckfest '18 will satiate my desire for pre-thought crime control.

[RandyD]

This is one of the better articulated articles on why the citizens are entitled to possess modern well designed firearms. In the past week, I keep hearing the same tired argument from liberals, you don't need such firearms, they are too destructive and civilians should not possess them.

[NytWolf]

While the article is good (not great) they make several "standard mistakes" common to journalists not really familiar with firearms: "assault rifle","high capacity magazine", are all nomenclature prevalent in the anti-gun culture. The author does, however, at least reasonably define "assault weapon" as we here in CA know it (SACF that looks like something from the modern military).

Also, the picture is captioned as being from "Ringmasters in Springville, Utah" it is Rangemasters of Utah and I go there when I visit my sons and it is too cold to go out to BLM on the west side of the valley to shoot.

I would prefer that journalists were more meticulous about what it is that they publish. They all seem too rushed to get stuff up on the internet to worry about spellchecking, editorial review, let alone fact checking.

I disagree. The author uses terms the anti's can understand. If you were trying to teach an anti-2A person about the importance of the 2A, attacking terminology they can understand will only turn them off.

[elSquid]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/californias-high-capacity-magazine-confiscation-halted-judge-second-amendment/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/jimmy-kimmel-gun-control-comments-las-vegas-shooting/

[Barang]

I thought it's only for hunting, says the snowflake.

Good reminder.

[MosinVirus]

Some of my instagram conversations.

jaeinfachelias@mosinvirus Gun control hasn't really change in the last decade. And if you love the constitutuon that much, you would want guns to be well regulated, because that is what is written in the second amendment. What do you think does well regulated mean? That a seventeen year old with severe mental illnesses can legaly purchase a semi-automatic riffle and a very high amount of bullets?

mosinvirus@jaeinfachelias you sir are the one who needs to understand what well-regulated meant in that time. And you should further understand that if it meant what you wrongly think it means, the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED would have destroyed that entirely anyway. Simply put, in current terms the language of the and amendment reads "Because a capable force is necessary to maintain our freedom, the right of THE PEOPLE to own and carry arms must not be restricted". Look up what well-regulated used to mean first. Then try your nonsense again.

Some people can't even tell they have been brainwashed. What can you do?

[njineermike]

Some of my instagram conversations.









Some people can't even tell they have been brainwashed. What can you do?

I put it even simpler than that. An armed ready populace capable of assisting the mitary is the reason for the protections, not a requirement for inclusion in its protections.

[ja308]

David French was mistaken about Jimmy Kimmel being sincere about guns!
Jimmy Kimmel is sincere about nothing ! Kimmel's entire existence relies on having super gun grabber and Waco attack advocate Senator Schumer feed him talking points.

Like a highly trained parrot this late night supposed funnyman embarrasses himself and the network that also follows Schumers lead .

OP thanx for the article it is right on !

[JohnnyMtn]

That was darn good.

[Allhailflintlocks]

This is one of the better articulated articles on why the citizens are entitled to possess modern well designed firearms. In the past week, I keep hearing the same tired argument from liberals, you don't need such firearms, they are too destructive and civilians should not possess them.

I'm getting tired being described as a "civilian", as if there are two population classes in this country - the class that can be armed and is collectively known as LE and the military, and the other class that should not be armed and is known as "civilian". I'm not a "civilian" - I'm a citizen.