I'm done comprising with the left. It never works.

Quote:

---

That's why I propose we outlaw abortion and keep our ARs. Screw compromise.

---

Wouldn't that lead to more fatherless kids with AR15's shooting up the place?

Wtf are you implying?

Can you shoot 7.62x51 in a rifle chambered for .308?

Well?

Oh, you're busy doing a google search...

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

That's why I propose we outlaw abortion and keep our ARs. Screw compromise.

---

Wouldn't that lead to more fatherless kids with AR15's shooting up the place?

---

That's pretty damn racist.

If they're fatherless, who is gonna teach 'em how to run a AR?

CAM is what made magazine fed semi autos cheaper.
Colt AR15s with stamped steel magazines in the 1980s were expensive compared to M1 carbines and hunting rifles at the time.

Now you can buy a basic one for under $1,000, comparable to a hunting rifle.
Making them cheaper has led to higher sales and just by sheer numbers you have people who should not have them, have them.

When the govt wants less of something, they tax it.
Think smokes, gas guzzling vehicles, booze, pot, etc.
I am surprised the DemocRATS have not imposed a 200% tax on new semiauto sales and magazines with greater than 10 rounds.

We might end up with pump ARs.

.

96ags said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

That's why I propose we outlaw abortion and keep our ARs. Screw compromise.

---

Wouldn't that lead to more fatherless kids with AR15's shooting up the place?

---

That's pretty damn racist.

---

Not if you trust statistics.

Yeah, I was hoping he would answer promptly instead of doing a google search.

Ag87H2O said:

---

"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."

Give the left an inch they will try to take a mile. It isn't hard. The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to have weapons for the preservation of life, liberty, and property, and for self-defense including the ability to defend against tyranny from government. The government doesn't have the authority to violate that right.

Americans that demand the second ammendment be followed aren't asking for a favor. They are demanding their rights be honored. Any shooting, no matter how tragic or sickening or pointless, does not, in fact cannot, change that right.

Individuals with mental problems are the issue, not guns. The exception cannot dictate the rule.

---

Quote:

---

"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."

---

Translation: Because a standing army is necessary to a free state, and we have seen the tyranny that standing armies can impose upon the people (see, redcoats), the people (that's a broader category than "militia") shall not be prevented from keeping and bearing arms.

I'll edit my post.

On a side note, if you don't already have something in the M1A/M14 family, I highly recommend one.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

F no on mag limits. What the pea brained liberals fail to understand is how hard it is to hit moving targets in a chaotic dynamic adrenaline filled environment. If you had a home invasion…let's say POS George Floyd and his 2-3 buddies rush into your house with guns…you are going to want a 30rd mag over 10 or 12 every fuggin time. If not, you're a complete idiot. If several men are moving, good luck neutralizing both with just a standard 10 rd mag.

---

When I grew up in West Texas ranch, we had a pump shotgun and that was deemed sufficient to feel secure about handling an intruder. easy to get a hit and nice and noisy too.

Some of ya'll make it sound like you need to be worried about defending your home against a cartel raid like Tony Montana in Scarface.

---

Why should any law abiding citizen be prohibited from owning the tools necessary to protect their lives and the lives of their family from more than one intruder? Many of our fellow Texans near the border do actually have to worry about Cartel members on their land.

How many high-capacity mags and AR's did Jim Jones use?

Slicer97 said:

---

Can you shoot 7.62x51 in a rifle chambered for .308?

Well?

Oh, you're busy doing a google search...

---

Sign up for my mechanical engineering class. No free questions for the professor.

TxTarpon said:

---

CAM is what made magazine fed semi autos cheaper.
Colt AR15s with stamped steel magazines in the 1980s were expensive compared to M1 carbines and hunting rifles at the time.

Now you can buy a basic one for under $1,000, comparable to a hunting rifle.
Making them cheaper has led to higher sales and just by sheer numbers you have people who should not have them, have them.

When the govt wants less of something, they tax it.
Think smokes, gas guzzling vehicles, booze, pot, etc.
I am surprised the DemocRATS have not imposed a 200% tax on new semiauto sales and magazines with greater than 10 rounds.

We might end up with pump ARs.

---

Aggie369 said:

---

I'll keep my freedom to defend myself how I see fit

Thanks and Gig'em

---

Well clearly if I am planning to rob you, better bring several guys and plenty of stun grenades, noise be damned.

B-1 83 said:

---

Why 5? Ever gotten after a sounder of hogs in the open?

---

Yeah, and you miss 90% when they start running

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Can you shoot 7.62x51 in a rifle chambered for .308?

Well?

Oh, you're busy doing a google search...

---

Sign up for my mechanical engineering class. No free questions for the professor.

---

I thought as much. Good day.

Slicer97 said:

---

My 1911 is more than sufficient for an intruder (or at least it was before it ended up at the bottom of the lake in a horrific boating accident).

Multiple intruders call for more than a 7 round mag. That's why I had an AR15 that's currently lying next to the 1911.

---

I forgot to add we had a shotgun…and a good dog.

Dan Scott said:

---

Texas house committee passed raising the age of buying guns to 21. It now goes to floor for vote. Besides that, I don't think see anything else.

---

I can almost guarantee you that bill will die in Calendars.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Can you shoot 7.62x51 in a rifle chambered for .308?

Well?

Oh, you're busy doing a google search...

---

Sign up for my mechanical engineering class. No free questions for the professor.

---

No wonder all the recent MEEN grads from A&M at my office can't do basic Engineering tasks...

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

deddog said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

You caught me

---

You clearly didn't know what AR stood for. Then once you were schooled, you pretended like you did. Then you've been insulting pretty much the whole thread.

Seriously, you aren't fooling anyone. We've had plenty of trolls here.

C minus.
At best

---

Maybe I'm just a JEW like your buddy implied

---

All you've done is insult people on this thread.
And we are all dumber for having read your posts.

Get a life. You are a piece of racist trash.

Texarkanaag69 said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

A controversial name in and of itself. We all here know what AR stands for.

Is there a compromise that could be CONSIDERED?

These look scary, but in reality they are powerful rifles due to the ammunition and 20 to 30 count ammo magazines - let's not duck this truth. Whether they are or are not weapons of war is ridiculous because a dude with a 30 ammo magazine and two more on his vest or belt is a menacing functional fact even while not fully automatic. Sure, other setups can be deadly but this is at another level if we are being honest.

Obviously the law can be skirted and bad guys will forever break the law; that is why I dislike gun-free zones.

Should magazine size be limited to 5? You could legislate that only one more 5 count magazine could be on your person. L e g i s l a t e. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Some say heck no because it will be the beginning of more restrictions on the second amendment.

"IF" (and you can't) you could guarantee that this was the last compromise would pro-2nd people agree to it?

Should background checks be done even for those who inherit firearms or are loaned firearms?

Are red flag laws really that troublesome? If there was a mechanism to get your rights back would they be okay?

It seems people are locked into one side or the other but there are people in the middle. It seems to me the problem is with the extremes. Some would ban all guns and others are okay with an alcoholic person with schizophrenia inheriting guns from his pappy because Merica.

What say the rational intelligent people of TexAgs?

---

---

Until you control the evil in man's heart you're not going to find a solution.

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

That's my compromise offer. In return, I'd like the rights back that liberals have already taken. Clearly taking the rights that they already have, has done jack and **** to stop mass shootings.

---

Ok, so you are willing to compromise your 2nd amendment.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

You absolutely should be able to. After all the great uniter Joe Biden threatened half the country with nuclear weapons and F-16s,

But we don't need them against democrats.
All you need to do is cough on them to send them scurrying.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you lack the funds to acquire one.

deddog said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

You absolutely should be able to. After all the great uniter Joe Biden threatened half the country with nuclear weapons and F-16s,

But we don't need them against democrats.
All you need to do is cough on them to send them scurrying.

---

Ahh so the weapons are for fear of a Republican Government. We might align closer than you think!

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Slicer97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you lack the funds to acquire one.

---

Nope, I could buy one if the government respected my freedom and allowed it.

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

2A and gun ownership is not primarily about hunting, home self defense, or hobbyists. It is about retaining the ability to combat a tyrannical government. Anything less than that is antithetical to the American ideology and way of life. Red flags, limits, background checks, restrictions, etc. are ways and means of the corrupt powers limiting your ability to keep them in check.

---

I mean, we already accept certain restrictions. You or I can't buy grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear bombs, but these are all weapons a 'tyrannical government' will have. So, philosophically, why can't we have the debate on what type of rifle citizens can own without being 'antithetical to the American ideology and way of life?'

---

All clear violations of the 2nd amendment. I'll agree to draw the line at nuclear weapons.

---

Wait, why? Why do you draw the line at Nuclear weapons? If the 'right to bear arms' shall not be infringed, why can't I have any 'arm' I desire?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

I thought the right was explicit in that my right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Why can't I have a nuke to deter a tyrannical government?

---

Nuclear weapons are stand off weapons meant to deter nations from fighting world wars. They have very little value in or purpose to a domestic rebellion or defense, which is the intent of the 2nd amendment.

---

How are you able to know our fore fathers intent? I'm going by what they actually wrote and they were CRYSTAL CLEAR that I can bear arms, all arms, and that wont be infringed. Anything else is just your liberal interpretation.