"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

LOL, so much internet posturing.

 

No, allow all types of guns to be owned by anyone...but ban bullets...all types of bullets. Minimum 5 years imprisonment for the possession of one or more bullets.
Problem solved. Citizens can bare arms as much as they like as per the over hugged constitution...

 

Such a proposal would never pass constitutional muster, and therefore it not worth discussing beyond that specific point.

 

"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"
I am horrified by the extremism voiced by these gun owners. They act as if open, free access to any gun they want is the ONLY political issue out there. America is a nation of many people, many perspectives, many choices, many opportunities, many dreams & many dreamers. These civil war advocates ignore all these truths in favor of self-interests. They represent the worst in America & Americans.

 

This would require an amendment. The 2nd precludes you from banning ammunition.

 

Virginia law makers are making a direct assault on the constitutional rights of its citizens, and anyone passing through the state. Their proposed laws are unconstitutional with the exception of universal background checks. When any law violates the constitutional rights of the citizenry, the citizenry has a duty to seek a legal remedy. They chose to exercise their first amendment rights at the protest, and will take the matter to the courts should the proposed laws become actual laws.

That is literally what America was founded on.

 

I am in full agreement that any American has the right to take any issue that concerns them into the courts for resolution, but that's not what my post addresses. My post addressed those who advocate "Civil War" against those who want more restrictive gun laws. That's a VERY DIFFERENT animal. No American has the right to rise in armed rebellion against their fellow Americans just because they're angry about a law. Period.

 

Gotcha. I misunderstood your post. I agree no citizen has the right for armed insurrection. That’s called treason.

 

That presumes they have businesses that the people in those counties own. When I lived in rural Goochland county VA we had one grocery store and it was a corporation that employed locals for minimum wage.

They were either farmers or minimum wage workers, no one owned businesses or made rich profits.

 

Thanks for the pics. What would one need such a gun for?

As for the people who already own guns like the AR-15, I never said they were using them wrong, I asked why they needed them.

An you are quite wrong, killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time is exactly what such guns were designed for ... for military purposes.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

If that isn't enough support for you, I'm wasting my time and yours. (And yes, I know that the versions made for and sold to civilians do not qualify as assault weapons because they don't have the "selective fire" fearure that would allow them to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire.)

These guns are wanted by collectors as well as nut jobs, but they are not needed. The reasonable responses from maker and retailers are a good start at reducing the number of these guns among civilians. Colt no longer makes the civilian version of the AR-15, and several retailers no longer sell them.

Stopping further sales, and offering generous buy-backs and/or tax incentives for turning them in, does not violate the 2nd Amendment. You are not in the majority on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Strange i thought it was the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs....
Please dont break up quotes it makes a mess of the entire thread.. Thanks[/QUOTE]
Scolding me for breaking up quotes? I did no such thing, but even if I had, when did you become a moderator here?

No one is talking about violating your 2nd Amendments rights. You can have lots of guns, just not the rapid-fire type with high capacity mags. How many shots does it take you to hit a target? Even I can hit my mark 7 times out of 10, and I rarely go to the range anymore. If you need a 30 round magazine, one can only conclude that you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a boat. (Kidding! I just love that line and rarely get a chance to use it. )

 

Hopeless case.

 

I was asking a question, and I wasn't asking you, but if you can tell me what someone would use such a weapon for, by all means answer my question, without the snark.

 

Its not -my- fault you cannot support your position - but, I do accept your surrender.

 

Then what IS it designed for?

 

Banning the sale of firearms and other items protected by the 2nd is, obviously, a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights.
Thus, anyone talking about ban this -is- talking about violating my 2A rights.

 

hunting, recreational use, competition use and self defense.

 

An AR15 was created to hunt? Um, okay, actual hunters have said different.

 

The AR platform is suitable for all of the traditionally legal uses of a firearm.

 

the problem with and reason why your argument is invalid, is because nobody has to present a "need" in order to exercise their constitutional right.

you can in no way substantiate this claim. The AR is not intended for, designed for, or suitable for military use. It's why not a single military on earth uses them.

 

Why do you think an AR is unsuitable for hunting?

 

no they haven't. The AR is ideal for predator hunting like coyotes, also ideal for wild boar/feral hog hunting as well as a number of other game.

 

Okay so it is an extermination weapon, so why do they need to be in anyone's hands who do not live out in the country?

 

Good of you to agree they are suitable for hunting.

 

Hunters eat the meat.

 

You say that as if it is relevant to... well... anything.