If you have that kind of funding, you can acquire one whether the government wants you to or not.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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

---

You don't fight tyranny by fighting the government (republican or democrat).
You fight tyranny by destroying the dip****s who vote away everybody's rights

And you have it backwards.
My weapons aren't because i fear government.
My weapons are so that the government fears its people

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

I can't buy a nuclear weapon now and I won't be able to after the compromise, but I gain back my ability to buy suppressors for hearing protection, SBRs and SBSs for efficient home defense, and machine guns for fun. I gain and the left gets nothing, that's the kind of compromise they've been wanting from us for decades. Why should we "accept restrictions" with nothing in return? What are you going to give back to me? Making demands without reciprocating is not a sustainable path long term. That's why gun owners are not willing to give another inch.

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.

---

How long ago did you grow up? Things have change significantly in the last decade. They've changed even more in the last 3 decades.

In the 80s/90s, we didn't generally have thousands of criminals pouring over the Texas border every day. We didn't have cities trying to decriminalize "low value" property crimes. With the exception of Rodney King, we generally didn't have race riots in the streets. You weren't at risk of driving into an armed mob in downtown Houston or Austin who closed down streets, surrounds your car, and tries to pull you out of it only because you're white.

We live in different times. If you want to have a pump shotgun for home defense, more power to you, but that should not keep me from owning anything I feel like I need to be prepared for, and to stop, the potential threats we have today

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'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

Because what they wrote was a protection of the individual to bear arms in a maintained militia to provide for liberty. A weapon of mass destruction does not do that as it incinerates all is the antithesis of that goal. It is not an arm to be born. But you knew that already.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

I can't buy a nuclear weapon now and I won't be able to after the compromise, but I gain back my ability to buy suppressors for hearing protection, SBRs and SBSs for efficient home defense, and machine guns for fun. I gain and the left gets nothing, that's the kind of compromise they've been wanting from us for decades. Why should we "accept restrictions" with nothing in return? What are you going to give back to me? Making demands without reciprocating is not a sustainable path long term. That's why gun owners are not willing to give another inch.

---

No no, i wasn't negotiating a compromise, just establishing you're willing to give up some part of your constitutional right to bear arms.

Quote:

---

IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

The afghani's say hi. They did quite well with small arm against our Abrams. And the T-72's before them...

jteAg 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'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

What our country has been doing is passing restrictive gun laws. And you are correct. They aren't working. So how are further restrictive laws going to change anything other than making it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire?

Our country has been practicing gun control since 1934 and it clearly isn't working. More gun control laws isn't going to change that. Maybe we should try to solve the mental health crises instead. It would also help if left wing propaganda cut back on the victimhood, hate and fear mongering.

jteAg 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'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

Look at history of civil wars in most countries.

Civil wars don't start because people take on the government.
Civil wars start because people fight each other. Why take on the government when you can take on the feckless folks who hand over other peoples rights.
We won't be fighting M1s. We'll be fighting each other.

So, you handing over your alleged guns to the government will be appreciated.
Good luck,

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

Because what they wrote was a protection of the individual to bear arms in a maintained militia to provide for liberty. A weapon of mass destruction does not do that as it incinerates all is the antithesis of that goal. It is not an arm to be born. But you knew that already.

---

Hmm but a tyrannical government won't infringe on my rights if i have an armed militia with nukes.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

I can't buy a nuclear weapon now and I won't be able to after the compromise, but I gain back my ability to buy suppressors for hearing protection, SBRs and SBSs for efficient home defense, and machine guns for fun. I gain and the left gets nothing, that's the kind of compromise they've been wanting from us for decades. Why should we "accept restrictions" with nothing in return? What are you going to give back to me? Making demands without reciprocating is not a sustainable path long term. That's why gun owners are not willing to give another inch.

---

No no, i wasn't negotiating a compromise, just establishing you're willing to give up some part of your constitutional right to bear arms.

---

I can't give up what's already been taken from me. I want as much of what is rightfully mine back as I can get. Nukes are a bit of a stretch

Not this **** again…

I have an idea. A bad guy with a gun/ammunition necessary for "mass destruction" is only effective against crowds.

There are no constitutional rights for large crowds. Ban them. Boom, problem solved!

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

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.

---

Because what they wrote was a protection of the individual to bear arms in a maintained militia to provide for liberty. A weapon of mass destruction does not do that as it incinerates all is the antithesis of that goal. It is not an arm to be born. But you knew that already.

---

Hmm but a tyrannical government won't infringe on my rights if i have an armed militia with nukes.

---

Or small arms.

Lots of typical discussion here about the 2A, AR-15 details, and some compromise positions actually requested by the OP.

I'm going to comment on the OP regarding compromise positions.

All of the good 2A reasons for not compromising are perfectly legit and stated ad nauseum, but what isn't mentioned often enough in these debates is that ANY discussion of gun compromises is absolutely a non-starter because one side of the issue are complete liars about every aspect of the issue. They would enter any agreement in 100% bad faith and would have no intention of actually holding up their end of any compromise. They would use any compromise as a launching point for the next compromise. They are liars and corrupt beyond measure. This is your democrat party.

Seriously, how many times do you have to take it in the ass but the party of lies before you pull up your pants, stop trying to deal with them, and start trying to defeat them and eliminate their power? We should stop talking about compromise and start talking about reversing all of the compromises that have already been done. For all the stupid laws we have given ground on, people are still getting killed thus demonstrating the laws are ineffective and should be reversed.

We need a law that makes it illegal to break the law!!

There should be a small nuke buried under D.C. with a detonation button somewhere in middle America. Once every couple of years or so, every elected Federal official and all top level Agency officials should be required to appear in Washington and we should take a vote on whether or not to push that button. DC denizens don't get to vote. That would make for some fun election results.

We need access to every weapon we want Ukrainians to have in fighting a tyrannical government. The second amendment compels this. That's not an illogical statement.
You may well disagree, but this argument is not immediately out of bounds.

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

We need access to every weapon we want Ukrainians to have in fighting a tyrannical government. The second amendment compels this. That's not an illogical statement.
You may well disagree, but this argument is not immediately out of bounds.

---

Agreed

American Hardwood said:

---

There should be a small nuke buried under D.C. with a detonation button somewhere in middle America. Once every couple of years or so, every elected Federal official and all top level Agency officials should be required to appear in Washington and we should take a vote on whether or not to push that button. DC denizens don't get to vote. That would make for some fun election results.

---

The solution we NEED; the solution we WANT!!

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

Or maybe I have good critical thinking skills and am not a sheep. Maybe I'm very pro second amendment and want to unite law abiding citizens; or a troll if I don't 100% agree with you. For the record, I'm considered too pro-gun by 90% of my colleagues and don't fit your box so don't assume.

---

I live in California.

If 50% of your colleagues are anything like 50% of my colleagues, the fact that I know which end the bullets come out of makes me a gun nut.

And for your massive troll thread, we already tried a 10 round magazine limit.
You see how well that worked.

Do you want to do Monterey Park? Half Moon Bay? Gilroy? San Jose? Every damn day in Oakland?

Never mind that sadistic MFer - Elliot Roger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shootings_in_California

Teslag said:

---

Quantum Entanglement said:

---

We need access to every weapon we want Ukrainians to have in fighting a tyrannical government. The second amendment compels this. That's not an illogical statement.
You may well disagree, but this argument is not immediately out of bounds.

---

Agreed

---

We need common sense rock control. Only five rocks per person. And only a certain size. No person needs that many large rocks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faris_Odeh

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.

---

Have you had mobs of BLM protestors setting stores on fire within 5 miles of your home?
Have you had this happen while your local PD was providing mutual aid to an adjacent city's Police Department?

I have.

I'd love to have the wide open spaces of West Texas with long sight lines but the reality is, a very real threat in my neighborhood is attack by a large mob for being a White Boy who doesn't have a pro-BLM sign in my yard.

When the street mob arrives, I like for the odds to be "ever in my favour".

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.

---

My Beretta M9A3 sits locked up at my parent's house in Texas because it is illegal to bring to California because it is considered to be an assault weapon.

The first problem of course was the 17 round magazine but you can get a 10 round magazine.

To make it Kalifornia compliant, I have to replace the barrel with one that has a fixed end.

The fact that the end of the pistol's barrel can be unscrewed classifies it as an "Assault Weapon" in Kalifornia.

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.

---

In my neighborhood, I can still scare 1/3rd of them away at the grocery store just by walking towards them NOT wearing a mask. And this is year 4 of the scamdemic. That's how dumb these people are.

2040huck said:

---

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

---

I do so love to "bracket them in" one round at a time.

Aggie369 said:

---

We should make it illegal to kill people with anything...not just scary guns. You shouldn't kill anyone with anything....sounds drastic but this is what has to be done

---

Common sense everything reform.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes. Ban assaults. I also support repealing the NFA and abolishing the FBI and ATF legislatively.

Happy to help find middle ground!

---

jteAg 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'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

That's the only argument that needs to be made.

Now if you want to put my AR-15 up against an Abrams Tank... well, we're going to see how well that works in The Ukraine in another year or so after they finish training the crewmen.

On the American side though, people like me are/were the Abrams crewmen. So... unless you think Bud Light Girlhood is going to even know where the Vehicle Master Power switch is, much less know how to adjust the Headspace and Timing on the .50 Cal, the left will be better off to pickup a welding rig and a Caterpillar D9 and start constructing their own version of the Killdozer because, the limited number of Abrams Tanks aren't going to get very far without a crew and maintenance parts. Oh and at 0.67 mpg, they're not going to get too far on $7/gallon Diesel either.

But hey, Biden is sending Abrams to Ukraine so we'll see how well they fight in the hands of the lightly trained.

If SWAT shows up to your house an AR rifle won't mean diddly squat. Notice how quick these whackos loaded up with their AR are taken out once professional law enforcement shows up? They are real good at shooting soft targets in schools and churches and malls and then somebody finally starts shooting back and end of story.

When somebody says they need their guns specifically to defend themselves against the US government, my question would be first…why? You planning on doing something that justifies the authorities visiting your house?

Now…look…if Red Dawn happens and Russian or Chinese paratroopers start dropping out of the sky…the U.S. civilian population is ready and armed. Nobody going to invade us like that damnt. Better just nuke us.

So these red flag laws you want. How efficient is this going to take to get everything cleared up? Do you have that much faith in our government, law enforcement, and judiciary to make sure this doesn't take months or years?

For example, someone calls the cops to tell them i am a crazy person. The cops immediately come over to my house and take my guns away. Do i get to present my case in front of a judge that day, the next day, that week, that month, that year? How fast do i get to prove i deserve to get my guns back? We all know that this can take months. Why should someone lose their right for months or a year just because someone tells the cops you are crazy?

I am sure I will now have to pay for a lawyer, pay for experts to prove i am not crazy, and pay a lot of court fees just to get my right back? Do you think the government will reimburse me after I prove i am not crazy? Hell no. Do you know how many people won't have the money to pay to fight the government on this, so their right is now gone. Do i get to sue the hell out of the person that told the cops I am crazy, after i prove i am not? Probably not because the wrong judge will say this is for safety reasons.

How hard will a Soros DA fight to keep the red flag on you? If you are in Austin, Houston, Dallas, and SA you are screwed. Prepare for the biggest and most expensive fight in your life that you will lose.

Do you actually trust the government will actually give my guns back to me after i win my case? Oh sorry we lost them. Or we sent them to be destroyed by accident. Or they make a big loop hole to where it can take more time and more of my money to get in back.

Do you actually trust any legislative body to create perfect red flag laws that won't infringe on anyone's rights and that actually do what they should do?

Also aren't red flag laws against the bedrock of our justice system, Innocent until proven guilty. We are going to punish you before you have been proven guilty. Isn't that 3rd world thinking?

It sounds so easy just saying we need Red Flag laws. When you say we have to do something or anything is better than nothing, it can actually make it worse.

You have spewed this logic of yours on multiple threads this week. You always use the same rhetoric.
Did you know that many of the Jews that Hitler was rounding up considered the obtaining of just one K98 German Mauser for defense was worth taking the risk to die for to try and obtain one?
I had a family member who survived the Holocaust and told how they defended themselves with single weapons like that.
Guess what? Hitler had tanks also.
Respectfully go take your thoughts somewhere else.

jteAg 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'm a gun owner and fully support limits, red flag laws,restrictions, etc. Whatever our country has been doing and is doing concerning gun violence ain't working! Let's try the ones listed to see if it helps.
IMO, your argument that you need your AR rifle to combat a tyrannical government, is the stupidest argument those in full support of the 2A spew. Good luck with your little AR rifle against that Abrams tank, if it becomes necessary, which has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell has.

---

Wait, I thought these were weapons of war? Are they or aren't they?