Why you can’t ban AR-15s

Assault rifles are already covered by the NFA 1934.
The NFA 1934 does not ban any firearms.

 

as someone who plays war world two games you should know that Hitler's opponents were nearly exclusively on the left both within Germany and outside. Virtually no significant conservative of the era spoke out against him. Hitler was not a conservative (or any political persuasion) but he appealed to things popular on the right of that era notably anti-communism (and in Germany anti-semitism and nationalism primarily on the right).

A good example of this can be seen in the reaction to the Spanish Civil War.

 

So you want to ban my hunting rifle now too? https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog...erfire/Remington+30-06+Semi-Automatic+CARBINE

 

This is true. Although the mechanisms that are part of it make getting certain weapons very difficult and expensive to get. It did in practice if not legally make getting fully automatic weapons beyond the capacity of much of the public.

 

Of course. You miss the point.

 

This is, of course, why such a thing cannot be applied to firearms that qualify as "bearable arms" under the 2nd.

 

No weapon able to do mass murders should be consider bearable arms under any part of the constitution.

 

Sounds like you might be ok with banning handguns too?

 

-All- firearms are able to do mass murders -- in fact, more people are killed in 'mass shootings' by handguns.
Like handguns, 'assault weapons' are protected by the 2nd.
You can not like it all you want, but until you amend the constitution, it shall remain so.

 

If you search the internet you can find Gen. Von Stuben's rifle drill for reloading and firing a flint lock that he used to train Washington's Colonial soldiers. I guess it can be done, three shots in one minute.

I don't own any black powder guns but have shot them and you're right, they are really fun to shoot.

 

Those Kentucky rifles were used by the militias during the revolution. Citizen soldiers.

European armies were slow to adopt the rifle the rifle and kept using muskets.

Look at the battle at the Alamo. Texans and Americans were armed with rifles and the Mexican with muskets. Outnumbered 180 Americans vs. 1,800 Mexicans and the Americans racked up 400 to 600 kills.

 

So cleavers should be banned? (by definition, mass murder is murdering four or more in a single incident).

And axes should be banned also?

And knives?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/china.school.attack/

 

I think I remember when they took away my M-14 and issued me a M-16A1 they said something like that, the M-16 didn't need that much cleaning.

 

Most American soldiers in the American Revolution used smooth-bored muskets.
Yes, there were a few with rifles, but they were more like the snipers of today than the infantry of the day.
https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

 

No you couldn't. They are running fast, the copter is swinging. Semi-auto is needed.

 

If you hunt them on foot you might get one. By copter you can get several, protecting the environment that they are destroying.

 

Von Stuben is the unsung hero of the American revolution. He turned a rag tag bunch of undisciplined farmers into a viable military force. Washington gets all the glory and much of it rightly so but without Stuben the revolution may well have failed. It was nip and tuck as it was and in a way the beginning of guerilla warfare. Washington knew he couldn't go to to toe with the biggest standing army on Earth and fought a largely shoot and scoot battle plan with a few exceptions most of which ended badly for us. It was also largely a war of attrition which for once we were on the winning side of. It also speaks against those anti gun people nowadays that laugh at the prospect of an armed civilian militia being able to stand up to an entrenched military. There's more points I'd like to make but I fear I'm rambling now. LOL

 

Uncle Ho and Gen. Giap studied the American revolution war.

What was to become the U.S. Army, the training, organization and tactics were based on the Germans in particular Prussians military in which Von Stuben was.

While the U.S. Marine Corps is based upon the Royal Marines the U.S. Navy based upon the Royal Navy.

Since all Colonial Marines and what would become the U.S. Marine Corps, all American Marines were at a minimum rifle marksmen many were sharpshooters. During the American Civil War General Grant wanted the Marine Corps to put a regiment of Marine sharpshooters on the battlefield. The Commandant of the Marine Corps shot down the idea saying our Marines only know how to fight using the skirmish line. Lincoln sided with the Commandant.

Came across this.

 

That was my point. Between us we nearly spelled Muntjac right.

 

Now that is a straw man. No one here is suggesting that homicidal nut jobs should be allowed to buy firearms. In fact almost all the gun rights people here have argued that the main reson this happened was that the FBI completely dropped the ball on this one.

 

The original assault weapons as used by the Germans in WWI were submachine guns and flamethrowers both of which were issued willie nillie to their assault battalions after Ludendorff essentially rewrote the Infantryman's text book in 1915.

 

I'm pretty sure the first assault weapon in the world was a U.S. Marine with his 03-Springfield rifle at the battle of Belleau Woods in 1918.

It's when German soldiers coined the phrase referring to U.S. Marines as "Devil Dogs" and the most dangerous weapon in the world is a U.S. Marine and his rifle.

Before WW l the Marine Corps had already earned the reputation as America's elite fighting force per George S. Patton.

U.S. Marines were not American citizen soldiers but the only service that required U.S. citizenship that were made up of American adventures. Extremely aggressive, going on the assault and never retreating and all were trained marksmen.


These are the Marines who fought at Belleau Woods who assaulted the Germans and started engaging the Germans with well aimed rifle fire from 900 yards away and kept advancing until the battle was won.

 

Move to a country with a different constitution

 

Then you work for the repeal and I'll work against it.

 

It's NOT a ban. It's a reasonable accommodation