Jump to content
William1444

assault rifles are unconstitutional and illegal

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Giujo said:

Yeah... the horse and wagon they would use would be the militia... Hahaha hahaha are you a dumbass

It takes one person to operate a cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note with interest that William The Dumb did not respond to my below post... It's very difficult to argue with cold hard facts and the law especially when you have no concept of Legal Construction or the know-how to Shepardize a law. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the founding fathers would be stupid enough to include a right granted to the federal government in a catalog of individual rights of the people when they feared central government more than anything else.

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

In the construction of law every word, the words placement, every capitalization, every period or comma, all punctuation, has a specific meaning. The comma after the word State means the preceding wording is a preparatory phrase. The only wording in the second amendment that is legally compelling is the word Shall preceded by a comma. The word people is self explanatory... It means the people as a whole separated from the capitalized word State.

 

At the writing of the Constitution the word militia meant all able-bodied people. If they meant a state militia they would have refered to it as an organized militia.

Regulated meant well supplied as in regulation issue... The same type of firearm the organized militia would use.

 

The wording of the founding fathers in The Federalist Papers makes it crystal clear that the militia was all of the people and their intent was clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed by governments. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that this is a collective right of the government and not the people ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights is a catalog of individual rights and the founding fathers would not be stupid enough to place one restriction of the people by the central government in it... The central government that they feared the most and was the impetus for the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution and the first damn place. Those would hold this meaning are liars or complete idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skans said:

Actually, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. For example, it was very common for private merchant ships  to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen".  The term "Arms" did include cannons.  In fact, it is legal today to own a cannon, if you want one.  I know one individual who makes cannons.

 

good point Skans.    Soooo, now why can't I get a BAR on my sailboat and letters of marque to fend off pirates 

of the Caribbean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, William1444 said:

 

Because probably most sane people wouldn't trust you with a butter knife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

Then why didn't the second amendment specify muskets? 

2 hours ago, William1444 said:

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

Unless it needed to be overthrown 

2 hours ago, William1444 said:

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards. 

 

The national guard is Army. Don't kid yourself. That isn't militia. Militia can come and go as they please unless it's wartime. Militia keep thier own arms. Militia can quit when they feel like it. Militia don't wear the same uniforms that regular army does. 

 

That is NOT a militia.

 

Not only that, the amendment gives the right to the people.

2 hours ago, William1444 said:

  And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Giujo said:

I note with interest that William The Dumb did not respond to my below post... It's very difficult to argue with cold hard facts and the law especially when you have no concept of Legal Construction or the know-how to Shepardize a law. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the founding fathers would be stupid enough to include a right granted to the federal government in a catalog of individual rights of the people when they feared central government more than anything else.

Did you read where I answered your sophomoric idiotic question and told you that in Article I, Section 8 is about 

the duties and powers OF CONGRESS??????????????????????     

 

If you amend something about the powers of Congress, the amendment applies to the powers of congress.   duhhhhhhhhhhh.

Da yam, i hate the stench of your stupidity, communist.

 

And BTW you little sonofab tch, do not put your comments under one of my supposed quotes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kfools said:

Then why didn't the second amendment specify muskets? 

bear arms.   No knives either nor baseball bats.

 

Unless it needed to be overthrown 

Doesn't allow for that.   you have to vote to change things.

 

The national guard is Army. Don't kid yourself. That isn't militia. Militia can come and go as they please unless it's wartime. Militia keep thier own arms. Militia can quit when they feel like it. Militia don't wear the same uniforms that regular army does. 

maybe that is why the founders wrote in the Constitution the fact that Congress had to form up 

an organized militia which they did and it is now called the national guard.    Duhh.

 

That is NOT a militia.

The national guard is NOT Army.   It is only Army when it is serving a national interest, not always.

The head of the National Guard is the governor of each state according to the Constitution unless 

it is made part of the army like in the civil war.

 

Not only that, the amendment gives the right to the people.

People is plural like in an organized militia, not individual persons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Gun Control.

From 1768 through 1776 the Brits vainly attempted gun control in the Colonies.

The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.

Vic Biorseth, https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com

Prepping the citizenry for herding via unconstitutional Gun Control legislation.

Criminals, by definition, disobey laws. That’s what makes them criminals. They disobey existing laws, and they may reasonably be expected to disobey new laws, because they are criminals.

Law abiding citizens, by definition, obey laws. That’s what makes them law abiding citizens. They obey existing laws, and they may reasonably be expected to obey new laws, because they are law abiding citizens.

Therefore, gun control laws that restrict citizen gun ownership may reasonably be expected to increase the ratio of gun ownership among the criminal element, and to decrease it among the law abiding.

What, then, is the true motivation of those who continually seek to disarm the sovereign American citizen via gun control laws? With remarkable consistency, statistics show higher incidents of crime where gun control laws are the strongest, and lower wherever gun control laws are the weakest, or non-existent. Is there an ulterior motive here? Let’s look a little closer.

Amendment II; Constitution of the United States of America:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s pretty clear. The right is granted to The People, not to the State. In fact, the State is prohibited from infringing the right. What did it mean to be a “well regulated Militia”? Well, the Militia consisted of every able bodied man between the ages of 15 and 60 not inclusive. So, what did well regulated mean?

To regulate was to make regular, meaning, orderly, disciplined and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock. In the context of human beings, to regulate them is to bring a person or body of persons to order; in military terms, it would mean to become well trained and “regular” in the military and martial arts.

In the pre-Revolutionary period, in military parlance, regulation was near synonymous with training and drilling, with the goal of regulating or making regular. To this day, the term regular soldier is a military term that means, precisely, professional soldier. Not a conscript or draftee; not a militiaman; not a part-time soldier. All of these might become more regulated, but they could never or seldom hope to achieve the level of professionalism of the regular soldier unless and until they lived the life of a soldier full-time.

In pre-Revolutionary times, the most awesome and feared soldier on any potential field of battle was the red-coated British Regular; he was referred to as a Regular because of his utter predictability. He would not only exhibit good order in his marching, uniform and equipment, but he could be absolutely counted upon to not break ranks under fire. Any unit of Regulars that would be put into the field by the British could be expected to be a virtual killing machine, because of their extreme regulation. They would be referred to as a well regulated military unit.

So, in the language of the day, the authors of Amendment II intended the citizen-soldier – meaning, able bodied men aged between 16 and 59 to be well regulated, meaning, precisely, well trained in the use of military arms. I submit that one cannot become well trained in the use of military arms in the absence of military arms.

Redefining Regulated, and Militia.

Today’s gun control nuts never cracked open any dictionary from circa 1760s or 1770s, and they would have us believe that what the authors of Amendment II meant by the word regulated was ruled or controlled by the very State that was prohibited from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that militia no longer meant all able bodied men, but meant instead the various State National Guard units (which may be Federalized at any time by the stroke of a pen,) or Federal Reserve units. Thus, in their interpretation, regulated means under the command of the State or nation, and militia means members of National Guard or Reserve military units.

We know from their own writings that that was not the intent of the authors. The concept of the citizen soldier involved the possibility of long periods of time when a large standing army would not be needed or could not be maintained. Our current National Guard and national Reserve military units represent only a tiny fraction of the able bodied men in America. The whole notion of the citizen soldier involves the ability to mobilize all able bodied men quickly, with a minimum of training required. Today, in America, I submit that that cannot be done.

The reason may have less to do with gun control laws than with a gun control mindset. Generations of Americans have been raised with a gun control laws are always good, lack of gun control laws is always bad sense inculcated into them over a lifetime of preconditioning. The perceived social need for rigid gun control prevails in education, among leading academics and scholars, in the SLIMC1 , in the Democrat Party platform, and virtually in the very air we breath.

In a similar manner, these same forces demonize the military, the one institution in which citizen skill at arms matters the most. The same Lefties and others who champion gun control laws are our greatest military detractors. Making military service unpopular is a proper step toward eventual total gun control. Where once military service was broadly seen as a duty and an honor, today it is seen, as publicly projected, as an oddity, a negative, even an evil. Anti-military and pro-gun control programs go hand-in-hand. They have the same authors and the same champions.

Gun control nuts always seem to be anti-military nuts, and anti-military nuts always seem to be gun control nuts.

No matter how technical or how professional our standing armed forces become, no matter how good our National Guard and Reserve units become, they are collectively less of a deterrent to foreign aggressors than a small professional force, like them, that is backed up by a whole nation full of armed and trained able bodied men. That’s the concept of the citizen soldier, or the militiaman.

The concept is based on the Swiss model, where, theoretically, whatever else he might be, every man was also a soldier. Now, Switzerland is, militarily speaking, blessed with gigantic mountains, lots of caves and tunnels, and easily controllable very narrow passes and pathways through the mountains. Everywhere in Switzerland are opportune ambush points reminiscent of the pass of Thermopolae made famous by the heroic stand of a mere 300 Spartans against tens of thousands of Persians under Xerxes.

But, as in many things, the blessing comes with a curse. Mountains are just as hard to get around in for the Swiss as for any invaders. So, to be ready, whoever is wherever he finds himself once an invasion begins must be prepared to fight at that moment, without waiting for any regulars or reserves to be called up. When the invader is in the pass is the time to act, not the time to communicate, or to plan, or to organize, or to train. Switzerland was forced by circumstance to become a nation of citizen soldiers. And they presented a good model for the rest of Western culture to emulate.

Hitler, with all his mighty forces, fully aware that his tanks could only enter these narrow mountain passes one or two at a time, and that a massive blitzkrieg across any broad front in Switzerland was quite impossible, and that all Swiss men were also soldiers, never even tried to take tiny little Switzerland.

The citizen-soldier concept, properly applied, is a military deterrent.

For centuries, English kings ordered all commoners and peasants to practice diligently with the longbow. There arose in England a veritable “class” of proud men highly skilled at archery and well respected by their peers. When a nobleman had cause to “raise an army” he had access to vast numbers of skilled archers in his domain, who could not only hit what they aimed at, but could rapid fire as many as six aimed arrows per minute. The very existence of such numbers of skilled archers gave pause to would-be invaders.

That kind of skill can only be developed over years of regular practice. That’s why we support such things as Boy Scouts of America, the National Rifle Association, various Trap and Skeet clubs, hunting, public ranges, private gun clubs, rifle, pistol and shotgun competitions, archery and so forth. Marksmanship of various kind is not only good for life-long development of individual self control and self discipline, but it also lays the most important piece of groundwork for possible future military training.

Beginnings of citizen gun rights.

The English Declaration Of Rights of 1689 reinforced the standing right of “Protestants” to not be disarmed, particularly since “Papists” were armed, and employed, in violation of standing law. It defined among those defined as “true, ancient and indubitable rights”, that, “Subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law.”

That precedent would be used and quoted among the September 1768 Boston resolutions presented to the (British) Governor. “ … that the Subjects being Protestants, may have arms for their Defense … for the necessary Defense of the Community.” “ … every listed Soldier and other Householder (except Troopers, who by Law are otherwise to be provided) shall always be provided with a well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accoutrements and Ammunition, as in said Law particularly mentioned, … ” The resolutions used the pending threat of war with France as an excuse to arm the citizenry, a ploy that fooled no one. The Governor, of course, rejected the resolutions out of hand, and three days later, British Regulars landed in Boston and took control of key strategic points, with no resistance.

In December of that year, the English Parliament responded to the Boston resolutions with some resolutions of their own, which called for a Military Force to protect the King’s Civil Magistrate and other Officers of his Majesty’s Revenue, since the Colonists were so upset over this taxation without representation business. They further resolved that the September resolutions from Boston were “ … illegal, unconstitutional, and calculated to execute Sedition and Insurrection in his Majesty’s Province of Massachusetts-Bay.”

Of course, things got worse. The Provincial Congress, John Hancock presiding, protested to Governor (and General) Gage about British Regulars invading private property, confiscating ammunition and leaving the Province in a state of defenselessness. Several tons of gun powder had been seized. Militiamen, under arms, began to gather in Boston, threatening to take the munitions back. There were multiple incidents of Regulars disarming Militiamen, but there were too many of them for it to be systematically done. There were cases of a group being disarmed by Regulars, who then encountered a larger group of Militiamen, who would take the arms back.

So we can see that the American Experiment began under the specter of an all-powerful and ever increasingly unrepresentative government seeking to enforce rigid gun control on the citizenry, by unrepresentative law, and by superior force of arms.

When only the State has the right to bear arms, and the citizens are denied the right to bear arms, what you have is a Police State.

A Nation of Laws, or a Nation of Opinions.

Gun control advocates, almost invariably, describe our Constitution as a “living, breathing, organic document” that may be changed, or whose meaning may be interpreted in new ways as new needs manifest themselves. Gun control opponents, almost invariably, describe our Constitution as a fixed legal document, written in English, which says very specific legal things. It is the foundational document in mind when we describe ourselves as a Nation of Laws.

Thanks largely to the devastating effect that the Democrat Party has had on nominees to our Supreme Court and to the lower courts, we have degenerated, and are degenerating more, into a Nation of Personal Interpretations. Public politocrats, mediacrats, celebricrats and even real live actual bureaucrats push gun control as a positive issue that “we the people” want. Perhaps “we” whispered in their ear or something.

Every single time the polls close, we are told how “we” have spoken, not on whatever we specifically voted on, but on whatever the public speaker interprets our votes to have really meant. Political victory for a candidate or a Party is publicly hailed and interpreted as a People’s Statement on a war, or on gun control, or on any other issue-of-the-moment, other than the actual candidate or Party that won the most votes in the specific election. It’s a form of what they call spin. The predominant spin you will see regarding gun control is that we the people want more gun control, rather than less gun control.

Note carefully how much gun control law is regulated rather than legislated. Note well how it is, or is not (or is selectively), enforced, and how cases involving gun control law are adjudicated. Note how many times some bureaucrat is able to make a personal judgment regarding whether an applicant, whether a dealer or a consumer, “needs” the variety or model of weapon applied for. Do we now have official Commissars Of Needs to determine for us what we really need? How nice.

It is already illegal for convicted felons and mental incompetents to possess firearms, but that is not enough for the gun control nuts. They want gun control to address the kind of gun possessed, to launch international gun control efforts, and, eventually, for nobody anywhere to possess any firearms. Right. (Well, in their thinking, Utopia is possible.)

Assault Rifles, and Saturday Night Specials.

Note, in the 1768 Boston resolutions mentioned above, that the “ … well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accoutrements and Ammunition … ” referred to what were considered to be the purely military assault rifles of the era. And the American Militiamen, the Minute-Men included, equipped themselves with the most modern military arms available at the time. From Brown Bess muskets to the newer “rifles” with actual rifled bores, with bayonets whenever possible. Modern military assault weapons all. Their use was intended to be military. The purpose of a militia is to be trained and fully prepared to serve as a military force on short notice.

The only reason any of this should be surprising to you is if you might possibly have been miss-informed and mal-educated about it all your life.

”The founders never intended for private citizens to possess fully automatic weapons!” is most likely what you’ve heard most frequently, from many quarters.

Sez who?

If fully automatic weapons had been available, they would have been acquired and used by the militia, at the insistence of the founders. The only reason they weren’t mentioned is that they didn’t exist yet. Everyone involved, founders included, bent every effort to get hold of the very latest, best and most modern military weaponry available at the time.

Saturday Night Special is a concocted myth alleging that, when someone has a fight with his wife, he goes out in a fit of anger on Saturday night to purchase a gun, with which to go home and murder his wife. Or someone else he’s miffed at. There are no statistics to back it up. It’s a dream. I have been unable to find a good description of one, as a weapon type. It’s a gun control tool of opportunity, pure and simple. You can’t even properly define exactly what a Saturday Night Special is, so, how, exactly, are we to legally restrict them? The answer is that the hidden intent of such a law is to be vague enough for opinionated and highly selective interpretation, enforcement and adjudication.

If you define it as cheap, then, you do a disservice to the poor, in restricting them only, while those better off can still afford more expensive guns. No matter how poor it may operate or how cheap it may be, and even no matter how ineffective, it may still be more effective than an old, arthritic fist attached to a poor elderly person who couldn’t afford a better gun. Saturday Night Special gun control laws expressly operate against the poorest among us.

For whatever reasons, the Left seems to despise the very notion of self defense, let alone national defense

The above is from the Catholic American Thinker.

 

 Article 1 Section 8 is no answer you have no concept of the meaning of was when written under the rules of Legal Construction.... and that "answer" was given before my post.

 

And if you don't want anything placed under your name make sure that when somebody hits the quote button that it works like it's supposed to and not the way you've designed it to work... And if you won't you don't get to complain or you can just ignore me... or go fuk yourself dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying stupidly that the Second Amendment only applies to single-shot muskets is like saying the First Amendment only applies to hand-cranked single-pane printing presses... Only an ignorant dumbass would make such a statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, William1444 said:

 

Then why didn't the second amendment specify muskets? 

bear arms.   No knives either nor baseball bats.

Not bear arms. Bear arms have claws. BARE arms. Knives and Clubs are quite obviously arms. Especially in 1776. Where do you come up with s hit?

 

Unless it needed to be overthrown 

Doesn't allow for that.   you have to vote to change things.

Jefferson claimed it did allow for that. 

 

The national guard is Army. Don't kid yourself. That isn't militia. Militia can come and go as they please unless it's wartime. Militia keep thier own arms. Militia can quit when they feel like it. Militia don't wear the same uniforms that regular army does. 

maybe that is why the founders wrote in the Constitution the fact that Congress had to form up 

an organized militia which they did and it is now called the national guard.    Duhh.

The founders didn't want a standing army at ALL. They said congress could form a militia in wartime. We have a standing army and the national guard are regular army reservists. The only difference is their state can call them up for some minor things. 

 

That is NOT a militia.

The national guard is NOT Army.   It is only Army when it is serving a national interest, not always.

They are literally army. I mean literally. They report to army units, they are called up and deployed by the army. They are called the ARMY national guard. They are reservists not militia. 

The head of the National Guard is the governor of each state according to the Constitution unless 

it is made part of the army like in the civil war.

Well right now the national guard can be called up by the president. They are also governed by the UCMJ. They have regular army officers and bases. So.....I don't know where you come up with this. 

 

Not only that, the amendment gives the right to the people.

People is plural like in an organized militia, not individual persons.

People is plural for person. As in individual. You could reword it in fact to say the right of individuals shall not be infringed and it would mean the same thing. The first amendment is also given to "The people" and yet that means individual or do you also think the first amendment does not apply to individuals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, William1444 said:

good point Skans.    Soooo, now why can't I get a BAR on my sailboat and letters of marque to fend off pirates 

of the Caribbean?

Sounds like a personal problem, William.  There is nothing that would prohibit you, from Florida, purchasing a BAR, if you pass the FBI/BATFE backround check  - transfers are running about 9 months.  Oh, and if you have $70,000 to spare. Browning BAR's don't come up for sale very often, but if your are serious, you can usually find one at Rock Island Auction.  Just pick a Class III dealer in Florida to handle the transfer for you.  I see no reason why you can't have it on your sail boat - just keep the transfer form with the Doc Stamp on it with you. 

 

FWIW, you might rather consider an all stainless AC556 for a boat gun, but that won't have nearly the punch a BAR will.  Make sure you get lots of magazines. 

 

Look, I even found one for you - remember to thank me, William!

pix759469799.jpg

 

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/818602656

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and by the way the National Guard and the reserves are what's considered the organized militia... Because they can be federalized by the US government. Every state in the United States has a law that allows for a State Defense Force or a state guard... I know I am a past member of the New York State Guard... that's the unorganized militia or just militia... they cannot be federalized by the US government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Giujo said:

giujo said his mother is a whore and gives blow jobs to everyone.

 

okay, you are the boss but you shouldn't say such bad things

or interfere with others posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skans said:

 

Look, I even found one for you - remember to thank me, William!

pix759469799.jpg

 

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/818602656

 

Thank you Skans.  Now the question is whether the boat can enter into other countries' waters

with a machine gun on board because it seems Caribbean countries like to protect their pirates and criminals.

That BAR is a beautiful weapon.   No recoil and packs a punch.   Small mag though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

 

You need to get off your electronic device. The only grandfathered 1st Amendment items are quill pens and parchment; which is what was around when the Bill Of Rights was created.

 

While we are at it, your 4th Amendment rights do not extend beyond your property., unless you are ridding a horse. Your car wasn’t around back then, so it can be searched whether you like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deadric said:

 

You need to get off your electronic device. The only grandfathered 1st Amendment items are quill pens and parchment; which is what was around when the Bill Of Rights was created.

 

I guess that is why they seize the computers (with a warrant) of alleged criminals after a crime.

 

1 minute ago, Deadric said:

While we are at it, your 4th Amendment rights do not extend beyond your property., unless you are ridding a horse. Your car wasn’t around back then, so it can be searched whether you like it or not.

The right of a person to be secure in their person or EFFECTS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Now the question is whether the boat can enter into other countries' waters

with a machine gun on board because it seems Caribbean countries like to protect their pirates and criminals.

That BAR is a beautiful weapon.   No recoil and packs a punch.   Small mag though.

Stay in international waters!  And, keep your weapons well stowed.   That BAR might as well be a really nice 4 ct diamond.

 

You will be glad that it only takes 20 round mags when you find out the cost of replacing a shot-out barrel!  It's a heavy beast. I've handled a couple but never shot one of those. 

 

You could get the semi-auto version for about $7,000.  But, then again, you can buy a .308 with a 100 round drum that would be much more compact, and more effective.   My boat gun would be a good AR-10 with a good stainless barrel, stainless parts kit and several drums.   The BAR is 1918 technology.

 

If I were traveling the world in a sail boat, rather than paying 70K for the BAR, I might rather invest a fraction of that money in a 40mm grenade launcher and some genuine 40mm grenades (each a separate NFA item)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Skans said:

Stay in international waters!  And, keep your weapons well stowed.   That BAR might as well be a really nice 4 ct diamond.

Can't scuba in international waters.   Too deep.   Plus, have to go in and drink rum and listen to steel drum music

and Bob Marley

 

You will be glad that it only takes 20 round mags when you find out the cost of replacing a shot-out barrel!  It's a heavy beast. I've handled a couple but never shot one of those. 

You have to be easy on the trigger or it will go through the mag very quickly.

 

16 minutes ago, Skans said:

You could get the semi-auto version for about $7,000.  But, then again, you can buy a .308 with a 100 round drum that would be much more compact, and more effective.   My boat gun would be a good AR-10 with a good stainless barrel, stainless parts kit and several drums.  

Naaaa, maybe a AK47 cheap.

 

The BAR is 1918 technology.

Hey, I represent that remark.   That was my puppy on my ship's landing team.

 

If I were traveling the world in a sail boat, rather than paying 70K for the BAR, I might rather invest a fraction of that money in a 40mm grenade launcher and some genuine 40mm grenades (each a separate NFA item)

Hey, I like your thinking.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

literal interpretation to change what was said to mean what you say it should have been all the time.  You are an Old World mentality , a contextual soul whose character matters more than their own genetic point of being part of the population here now as phyically displaced conception to dead s are all lifetimes regardless plant, animal, predator, prey, male, female, asexual means to reproduce their own replacements or become extinct once dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, William1444 said:

Hey, I represent that remark.   That was my puppy on my ship's landing team.

 

The BAR - Long loved by the Navy.....and Bonnie and Clyde.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, William1444 said:

At the time the Constitution was formed, homeowners had only single shot muzzle loaders.

That is the only firearm which is grandfathered in.

 

State militias were used to repel invasions and to support the Constitutional government, and NOT to 

overthrow it.

 

The Constitution provides for ways to change it.    It is illegal for the supreme court to ignore the 

explicit wording of the Constitution which requires that anyone who wants to keep and bear arms 

MUST BE in a well regulated militia which is now the states' National Guards.    And the purpose of 

that is to protect the elected government from invasions and from insurrections like the confederacy, 

and NOT TO overthrow the US government.    republicans and gun nuts need to get their heads out of 

their fat asses.

 

Dude, you have been thoroughly owned on this topic multiple times. You're wrong. Period. Get the hell over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Imgreatagain said:

Kimber Classic Carry Elite - Photo via: http://www.kimberamerica.com/classic-carry-elite

 

An excellent, excellent choice.

It will serve you well.  For a lifetime.      🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, William1444 said:

 

 

 

Right to bear ARMS.

 

Since you want to emphasize words. Not the right to bare MUSKETS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...