Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

My objection to that as a black guy is (a) they're brandishing their weapons by holding them rather than slinging them, (b) the Black Panthers are known thugs, and (c) most cop shootings turns out to be justified. Not only that but statistically speaking white people have it worst off.

 

Whites have it worse off?

You're dreaming, buddy.



"Thugs"???


Our Founding Fathers were called thugs by the British.






Government repression is EVIL. Anybody who is a true American will endorse the right to use the 2d Amendment to protect everyone's rights, regardless of skin tone or political affiliation.

 

Statistically more white individuals are killed by police officers than black individuals. It is simply the incidents that involve black individuals being killed by police officers that receive more attention from the media.

 

You miss the point.

Nobody can know how many people own something illegally. Registering guns won't change that fact. Criminals don't follow the law, they will not register or do background checks or go through an FFL. Even obama's executive action ordered CDC report states the same.

 

The context of the Second Amendment is that the framers of the Constitution had just finished fighting a government, and the assumption was that the citizenry should be able to defeat the government when necessary. Were they to write it now, the wording would probably be the right to bear an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (and a bazooka and a Sherman tank.)

It is hard to find anyone further right than me, and I readily support your objection. Moreover, I work with a lot of serious right wingers who agree. (Even if the HOA objected to us parking them in the side yard, what could they do about it?)

By the way, what is up with the unarmed guy in the front? Is he some kind of anti-gun liberal?

 

Would you say that a limiting of the supply of a good is the same as banning the good itself? Even if Obama never did try to ban the guns themselves, (which I'm not entirely sure is accurate), banning the supply of something is the same as banning the thing itself. Let me explain. If you wanted to frcefully take away all guns from the citezenery, there would be choas in the streets, and likley, another civil war, this is for many reasons, but most of all because Americans like their guns. The second option is to limit the supply of amunition to the market itself. Yu see this with something as simple as Redbox. This amazing idea flourished, and spread like wildfire. A movie for a dollar a night, and everyone baught into it; soon enough, all the other competitive companies died, and Redbox became the single spplies for cheap movies. Fast forward a couple years, and the same movies are now 50 cents more. Not much of a difference, but enough to cause the increase of revenue by 50%. Theoretically, if Redbox decided to shut down, and destroy all its movies, it would take several months if not years for someone else to take over the supply for the demand. So, when you say that all Obama wanted to do was restrict the gun manufacturing, kno that this is the safest way of taking over the supply of demand of goods, and thus being able to control it. Obama's EPA shut down the last iron smelting plant in America, not much of a big deal, except when you realize that we now have to import lead in order to make ammunition. This is a form of control, not directly, but subtly in the background.

 

I get the distinction now after reading some more, thanks for the lesson.

 

And cops as well as feds are likelier to be killed by whites.

 

Bravo!!!!

 

Why. Are you expecting to be invaded by a gang of bikers in broad daylight.

 

we dont need attack choppers to take their funding. When there's no economy, there's no army, cause nobody works for free (for long) no economy means no food, no water in the pipes, no electricity, which means no commo, no way to charge stuff for commo, etc. Smashing the economy aint that tough. Also, we know where to find the govt thugs. We can follow them home, bit by bit, over time, and after we (each) know where 5 or so of them live, we can publish it on the net and see how THEY like having armed men show up at THEIR homes. I know a dozen ways that one man can cost the gov't billions of dollars, with no special training or skill. One way is to burn CA off of the map, which can be done in one night, during dry season.

 

THAT has nothing to do with the choice in home defense firearms. BTW bikers aren't known for home invasions.

 

Nope. Whites are statistically more likely to get shot by police. And as for your last sentence I agree, however you're going after the wrong thing. Most police shootings are justified.

 

the only reason to choose a 10mm over a 223 is if you use subsonic ammo in a suppressed AR, which aint all that effective and wont pierce soft armor. 223 softpoints go thru soft armor like so much cheese! The 223, with full charge ammo and a decent suppressor, sounds like a normal. 22lr. It is a lot better for hearing after your first shot, a lot better for not causing flinching, than a 12 ga. It also has almost no flash. The 12 ga flash at night, in small room, is stunning. You can easily miss with a shotgun, since the pattern spread is about 3" at the typical range (Ie, 10 ft). and there can be more than one attacker, too. Given 60 gr softpoints, the shorty 223 is extremely likely to down a man with a single torso hit. Most shots in combat miss. Our troops fire 50,000 rds for every hit that they get in rifle combat and only 1 hit in 4 is lethal, due to the nearly worthless FMJ bullet-limitaion and the fact that most hits are not solid torso or head hits.

 

You wish for a well thought out and coherent explanation for why the AR-15 carbine is superior for home and self defense scenarios than a shotgun? Then you will be given such. Prior to such, however, you must first provide three pieces of information that will be key; the weight in ounces for twenty rounds of twelve gauge, nine pellet buckshot. Twenty rounds of twenty gauge, twenty pellet buckshot. And twenty rounds of .223 fifty five grain. With such information being provided, it will be possible to explain precisely why.

If you truly have as much access to firearms as you claim, it should be trivial for you to present such information for the sake of discussion.

 

Why... what?

Why is an M4-style AR better suited for home defense than a shotgun, especially if chambered in 40S&W/10mm/45ACP?
The M4 is a lighter, smaller weapon with less recoil and less muzzle blast, greater ammo capacity, and faster and more accurate follow-up shots.

If you believe a shotgun us suitable for home-defense - and you do - you then have no sound argument against the greater suitability of an M4-style AR, especially if chambered in 40S&W/10mm/45ACP.

 

Interestingly, many right wingers have said over the years that we would need fewer police if every one had a gun. Yet, some are now endorsing Trump's idea of the feds intervening in Chicago because of the violence. This despite the presence of so many guns.


Hmmm - how could that be?

 

You are really good at making up arguments that no one else is backing.

 

Cite, please.

 

We have only discussed this dozens of times before.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/b-jeffrey-madoff/if-we-all-had-guns-wed-al_b_813662.html
Examples provided there. Google for many more.

 

I don't see an right-wing pro-gun person making the claim you put forth.
Please cite the text to that effect.

 

Ive never endorsed President Trump sending the Feds. However since you've brought it up if the law abiding of Chicago won't or can't arm up then maybe the Feds aren't such a bad idea. If you won't take of it yourself someone else will.

 

So you believe that a ban should be universal? I don't believe firearms should be banned, but I do believe that there should be systems in place to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to obtain firearms.

How would universal background checks prevent crime...?
By making it much easier to identify and hold accountable those facilitating straw purchases, which would consequently reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

 

When your entire position is based on something said over 20 years ago - which hasn't come to fruition under republican or democrat administrations that have come and gone since then - you might need to stop and realize that not everything everyone says in politics becomes reality. Just sayin'.

 

How would UBCs even affect a straw purchase? The DOJ doesn't even consider UBCs enforceable, so there is really no need fornthem.