Fooled me. You wouldn’t have said that if you had much experience with guns because it’s patently untrue to anyone who does
save your “civilian ar-15s aren’t automatic or burst fire so they aren’t technically assault rifles or military weapons” nonsense
What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.
You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with some preconceived idea of who you assume I am. That already says a lot about your viewpoint.
When was the last time a bunch of rennaisance faire nerds turned on the news and saw that someone else had just murdered 30 kids in a school dressed up in the same kind of costume they all like to wear
Once again. What? You’re acting like school shooters all show up wearing BDUs, NODs and plate carriers which is just wildly wrong.
But, even if we accept for a moment that were true, normal people with healthy viewpoints are capable of separating themselves and their motivations from bad people who just happen to wear the same clothing. I wouldn’t throw out my favorite t-shirt just because someone did something terrible wearing the same type of shirt. Neither would me wearing that shirt somehow normalize shootings like you seem to imagine it would.
If someone went on a stabbing spree with a shun chefs knife I wouldn’t turn around and throw out my favorite kitchen knife because it’s the same model. Nor would I be normalizing stabbings by continuing to chop onions with my favorite knife.
What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.
Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle? What kind of war do you think you will be fighting that this would actually make a meaningful difference?
Weapons were entirely different things when the second amendment was made, that is your interpretation of the second amendment that a fully kitted ar-15 with high capacity magazines fits the definition of what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote the second amendment is and frankly it doesn’t matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.
Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle?
Do you really pay this little attention to history? If AFVs and fighter jets were some magic bullet, the wars in the Middle East and Asia would have been vastly different affairs. Resistance fighters don’t shoot down fighter jets and they are often successful regardless, it’s a completely silly point to make.
frankly it doesn’t matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.
I could make points about how the founding fathers knew about repeating firearm development, people owned warships, etc.
But ultimately, I really do not care what the founding fathers would have thought. They weren’t gods. Here, today, a large proportion of Americans believe that modern firearms are an important check on tyranny. The second amendment is not my reason for holding this belief, it’s just a guarantee of our right to defend ourselves.
Fooled me. You wouldn’t have said that if you had much experience with guns because it’s patently untrue to anyone who does
What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.
You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with some preconceived idea of who you assume I am. That already says a lot about your viewpoint.
Once again. What? You’re acting like school shooters all show up wearing BDUs, NODs and plate carriers which is just wildly wrong.
But, even if we accept for a moment that were true, normal people with healthy viewpoints are capable of separating themselves and their motivations from bad people who just happen to wear the same clothing. I wouldn’t throw out my favorite t-shirt just because someone did something terrible wearing the same type of shirt. Neither would me wearing that shirt somehow normalize shootings like you seem to imagine it would.
If someone went on a stabbing spree with a shun chefs knife I wouldn’t turn around and throw out my favorite kitchen knife because it’s the same model. Nor would I be normalizing stabbings by continuing to chop onions with my favorite knife.
Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle? What kind of war do you think you will be fighting that this would actually make a meaningful difference?
Weapons were entirely different things when the second amendment was made, that is your interpretation of the second amendment that a fully kitted ar-15 with high capacity magazines fits the definition of what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote the second amendment is and frankly it doesn’t matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.
Do you really pay this little attention to history? If AFVs and fighter jets were some magic bullet, the wars in the Middle East and Asia would have been vastly different affairs. Resistance fighters don’t shoot down fighter jets and they are often successful regardless, it’s a completely silly point to make.
I could make points about how the founding fathers knew about repeating firearm development, people owned warships, etc.
But ultimately, I really do not care what the founding fathers would have thought. They weren’t gods. Here, today, a large proportion of Americans believe that modern firearms are an important check on tyranny. The second amendment is not my reason for holding this belief, it’s just a guarantee of our right to defend ourselves.