lighthouse99
New member
I thought all weapons were assault weapons?
assault weapons
- Thread starter lighthouse99
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
The Constitutional Amendment on the matter mentions that people have the right to bear arms in order to be part of a militia controlled by an individual State (not the United States) so that individual State can remain a free State.
So, who is the enemy that the free State would fight against?
If it is a foreign enemy, then the militia would be called up by the President of the United States and assembled by each individual State.
If it is a domestic enemy, then it is one or more of the militias of the other individual States that make up the United States, or if the United States created a standing military force, it could be that military force of the United States that the militia is supposed to fight against.
A militia is composed of able bodied men between 20 and 50 years old (give or take) who bring their own personal weapons to the battle field to fight for their State.
In a fight against an army, the militia would need to be able to match firepower with firepower.
So the right to bear arms includes the right to use a sword, a handgun, a shotgun, a fully automatic machine gun, grenades, a rocket launcher, a tank, and even nuclear bombs.
Anything that infringes on the people of the United States from being able to personally own a nuclear bomb is a violation of the Constitutional Amendment.
:wave2:
So, who is the enemy that the free State would fight against?
If it is a foreign enemy, then the militia would be called up by the President of the United States and assembled by each individual State.
If it is a domestic enemy, then it is one or more of the militias of the other individual States that make up the United States, or if the United States created a standing military force, it could be that military force of the United States that the militia is supposed to fight against.
A militia is composed of able bodied men between 20 and 50 years old (give or take) who bring their own personal weapons to the battle field to fight for their State.
In a fight against an army, the militia would need to be able to match firepower with firepower.
So the right to bear arms includes the right to use a sword, a handgun, a shotgun, a fully automatic machine gun, grenades, a rocket launcher, a tank, and even nuclear bombs.
Anything that infringes on the people of the United States from being able to personally own a nuclear bomb is a violation of the Constitutional Amendment.
:wave2:
CherubRam
New member
If a spoon is used to assault a person then that is an assault weapon.
Nice try, huge difference, :duh:
No, but your point is still valid. The term is a redundancy.
CherubRam
New member
The term "assault weapon" was started as sales hype for rifles, later it was used by anti-gun activist. In a court of law any instrument used to assault with is a assault weapon.
Assault has its root in the heart*. The weapon used is not as relevant as the intention of the heart.
heart* not the blood pump.
It's only an assault weapon if you are wearing assault clothing while using it.
lain:
It's only an assault weapon if you are wearing assault clothing while using it.
Are we going to regulate camo now as well? :chuckle:
It's only an assault weapon if you are wearing assault clothing while using it.
Or if you assault somebody
yeah true, weapons are made to defend through assault, and to assault.
You should try reading what you write.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It's only an assault weapon if you are wearing assault clothing while using it.
not an assault weapon?
lighthouse99
New member
i decided i was not against machine guns, etc because if the jihadists have them, we should, as you say match firepower for firepower
Could you explain what is highlighted in your post?
:think:
lighthouse99
New member
at first i thought it was reasonable to ban repeating weapons, but you know how it goes with those liberals: thye always SOUND reasonable, until you think beyond the superficial. Then they look rather foolish.
again, if the terrorists have repeating weapons (or whatever you call them) we should be able to acquire them also
:luigi:
I prefer a pepper weapons.