What is an "Arsenal"

[Dalko43]

As for middle america supporting gun rights to some degree, I doubt that is true as I have not seen any non-partisan survey that makes that point...

http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

Polls can be subjectively biased based on how the questions are phrased and how the sample pool is selected. But if you look hard enough, you'll see a general trend of support for gun ownership rights by the majority of Americans.

I'm not going to address the rest of your comment other than to say: if you pick a fight with every person who disagrees with you, you're not going to have any allies left for when the true battles arise.

 

[NevadaLover]

I'm not going to address the rest of your comment other than to say: if you pick a fight with every person who disagrees with you, you're not going to have any allies left for when the true battles arise.

Not trying to pick a fight, but throw down the gloves about the 2nd amendment and a fight it is.
as toylandcruiser keeps quoting "shall NOT be infringed". Amen.

 

[Dalko43]

Not trying to pick a fight, but throw down the gloves about the 2nd amendment and a fight it is.
as toylandcruiser keeps quoting "shall NOT be infringed". Amen.

If you keep overusing that slogan to validate your opinion on every trivial subject related to firearms, it's going to lose its meaning.

And if saying that a gun owner with different views from your own "hates" firearms isn't picking a fight, I don't know what is.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Again, I encourage you to read some of these Supreme Court cases. At least half of the justices are decidedly conservative in their interpretation of the Constitution. The fact that firearm ownership is even still considered a right instead of a mere privilege is due to the conservative Justices adhering to a strict, traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller vs DC case.

The fact that you summarily dismiss their role in all of this and label most of them as liberal tells me that you are ignorant of why you still have gun ownership rights to begin with.

Also, I don't see anyone here arguing that we make RPG's or artillery pieces legal for civilian ownership. So obviously even the most diehard 2nd Amendment supporters acknowledge that our gun ownership rights can be infringed to some degree.



I know diehard gun control advocates won't stop with bump stocks. But the rest of middle America, the majority of which supports gun rights to some degree, does want there to be some control over automatic weapons. And my stance is less about appeasement and more about enacting regulation/legislation on our terms instead of their (gun control advocates') terms. I'm firmly convinced that if we don't take the initiative in crafting regulation/legislation that at least allows for law-abiding citizens to apply for and buy bump stocks in a regulated manner, a much more unfriendly administration will come along and prohibit their ownership all together.

Also I just don't think bumpstocks are worthy of the gun advocacy groups spending their political capital on. They're mostly impractical for everyday shooters (and consume a lot of ammo). They do skirt around the intent of the 1986 NFA, and it's pointless to argue otherwise. And there are causes much more deserving of our attention (over-turning state-specific bans, loosening restrictions on suppressors, concealed carry reciprocity, ect.).

I care about gun rights, probably more than you because I live in a state that expressly forbids certain types of firearms due to how they look. I just think starting a long and costly political fight over bump stocks is a waste of time and effort.

I’m far from ignorant. I have zero issue with citizens owning anything they want. After wwii they auctioned off tanks, fighters bombers. If you can afford it why can’t we own it. YOU understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment right? Or are you ignorant?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Hey dalko I'll try not to say anything questioning your opinion on 2A because I'd like to have a conversation. When the framers wrote it do you think the intent was to keep civilians from being overwhelmed from a government that had superior arms? From that stand point do believe there are some weapons that we should be able to own today, but are not allowed to?

 

[Dalko43]

I'm far from ignorant. I have zero issue with citizens owning anything they want. After wwii they auctioned off tanks, fighters bombers. If you can afford it why can't we own it. YOU understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment right? Or are you ignorant?

Were they auctioning off tanks and aircraft that had functioning guns and armaments?

Do you think any citizen should be able to own a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank?

The further you go down this rabbit hole, the more you alienate yourself from law-abiding, reasonable gun owners who would otherwise align with you on the more relevant gun rights issues....just a word to the wise.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Were they auctioning off tanks and aircraft that had functioning guns and armaments?

Do you think any citizen should be able to own a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank?

The further you go down this rabbit hole, the more you alienate yourself from law-abiding, reasonable gun owners who would otherwise align with you on the more relevant gun rights issues....just a word to the wise.

Very few citizens could afford a M1 Abrams, but having some way to defeat one would be acceptable under the original intent of 2A.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Were they auctioning off tanks and aircraft that had functioning guns and armaments?

Do you think any citizen should be able to own a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank?

The further you go down this rabbit hole, the more you alienate yourself from law-abiding, reasonable gun owners who would otherwise align with you on the more relevant gun rights issues....just a word to the wise.

Yea they were auctioning off working tanks. They’re are citizens who could afford it. I don’t care if I “alienate” myself. The wording says “Shall not be infringed” and I fully support it. It does not say only certain style of weapon that we the gov seem as fit for your ownership Shall not be infringed.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I'm gonna start a go fund me page for a M1 Abrams, and a second go fund me page so I can afford to fuel it.

 

[NevadaLover]

First 100 right here if I get a ride.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

First 100 right here if I get a ride.

I imagine the start up procedure cost more than a 100 bucks lol. It could be like those change jars I saw at gas stations after 9/11 where you could donate money to buy part of a bomb hehe.

 

[NevadaLover]

With your leprechaun like charm you'll have the funds faster than zimm can say a$$hole!

 

[Dalko43]

Yea they were auctioning off working tanks. They're are citizens who could afford it. I don't care if I “alienate” myself. The wording says “Shall not be infringed” and I fully support it. It does not say only certain style of weapon that we the gov seem as fit for your ownership Shall not be infringed.

I'm going to chalk this up to brave internet talk. You keep saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment means nothing is off limits. And yet we live in country where machineguns are highly regulated, and tanks, warplanes, and various types of ordinance (conventional and non-conventional) are in fact off limits to civilians. I haven't seen any LandCruiser enthusiasts start an armed revolution over those 'infringements,' so I'm going to hazard a guess that you do acknowledge, explicitly or implicitly, that there are practical restrictions on the types of weapons you can own.

Edit: Also, you didn't answer my questions. Were they auctioning off WWII tanks with functioning armaments? Do you think a civilian should be able to own a fully functioning M1 Abrams tank (with an operational main gun and accompanying machineguns)?

 

[Dalko43]

Hey dalko I'll try not to say anything questioning your opinion on 2A because I'd like to have a conversation. When the framers wrote it do you think the intent was to keep civilians from being overwhelmed from a government that had superior arms? From that stand point do believe there are some weapons that we should be able to own today, but are not allowed to?

The 2nd amendment was most certainly written into the Constitution to allow for an armed citizenry that could resist the threats of tyranny (both foreign and internal threats). That said, the Constitution is a living, breathing document and there has been judicial interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and nearly all amendments for that matter, in order to determine their applicability to the modern laws that govern our society.

The court cases relevant the the 2nd amendment clearly demonstrate that while the citizens haven inherent right to own firearms, certain weapons can be restricted (machine guns) or outlawed all together (JDAM's and nuclear weapons on the more extreme end of the spectrum). I don't think the 2nd amendment was meant to give the citizenry parity of military capabilities with the US government. Nor do I think a citizen population would need those kinds of weapons to resist government tyranny in some hypothetical conflict (parity of weaponry is not needed in asymmetric warfare). The 2nd amendment was intended to give us, the citizens, the ability to own basic infantry weapons that are needed for defending life and property. In the 1700's that equated to muskets and bayonets. In the modern era that equates to bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons. That's my take on the issue anyways....

 

[NevadaLover]

Wow, read the same story almost word for word in a gun control story in the NY post.