Originally Posted by Bugfatty

No. We have lots of them.

Thats part of why I own "assault weapons"

God help us!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by major liability

No, it's the fact that real assault weapons (NOT the ones they usually try to ban) like the Kalashnikov and AR-15 were originally designed to be used in combat, and are most useful in this role.

The problem is that lots of "civilian rifles" were originally designed as combat weapons.

Virtually all bolt-action hunting rifles are just a copy of various combat rifles which were the "assault weapons" of their time.

The only difference between civilian and military "assault weapons" is the absence of a selective fire option on the former. Which I guess in some views make them more deadly than semi-auto only rifles. My opinion is that doesn't since full auto in a rifle is used mostly for supressive purposes rather than taking out multiple targets at once like in the movies.

But I don't know what your opinion is on private full-auto ownership but I'll say this anyway for the whole forum.

The 2nd amendment itself was "designed" with combat and war in mind. It was not "designed" for hunting or sport shooting. So idea that true military rifles can be banned or restricted is simply wrong and every NFA act since 1934 is an infringement.

I guess my points are that being designed with combat in mind doesn't make a gun more deadly than those that aren't and that it shouldn't even matter considering the context of the 2nd amendment.

Originally Posted by Lord Londonderry

God help us!!!!!!!!!!

I'd rather not myself, I'd rather have a good assault weapon so I can help myself and those about me.

If you are one of these mealy mouthed God botherers who believe that "the meek will inherit the earth", I would strongly recommend that you see about getting your medication reviewed.

"God helps those who are willing to get off their a*se and help themselves."

Originally Posted by Lord Londonderry

God help us!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Seno

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'd rather not myself, I'd rather have a good assault weapon so I can help myself and those about me.

If you are one of these mealy mouthed God botherers who believe that "the meek will inherit the earth", I would strongly recommend that you see about getting your medication reviewed.

"God helps those who are willing to get off their a*se and help themselves."

Lets just hope that you obey the law in whatever situation that you find yourself in when you feel the need to use your weapon old son.

I don't think "old son" shows proper respect for another member. If senojekips had wanted that title, he probably would have put in his profile. This is a just warning this time.

I've had no problems for over 40 years of gun ownership, I guess I'll get by.

The biggest problem is that people like yourself seem to think that because a man likes to use a weapon that doesn't suit your own taste, he is some kind of stereotypical redneck retard.

And what is it that makes you think I would NOT obey the law? I probably have a better record of compliance with the law than you. My most severe infringement is two parking tickets in forty years.

God is best turned to when one still has threats to life and limb but has sadly run out of ammo.

If the case were made today where the U.S. Government still forced by law citizens (at their own expense) to keep and bear Arms, even as a Civilian, as was the case in Federal Law from 1792 until the beginning of the 20th century, I would say there would be something for people not liking guns to complain about, but the Law requiring most male citizens of the Nation to keep Arms at the ready was changed in 1906.

So, today, the United States Federal Government is not forcing by law any Civilian to keep or bear Arms, at this point in time. Although State and Local Laws may still be in affect in parts of the United States of America.

If there are people who do not wish to keep and or bear Arms, and feel that they just cannot function in a society which allows Citizens to keep and bear Arms, and wish to change things, well there are Nations on this Earth without such a right.

Originally Posted by jequirity

I asked this question in another thread but didn't get a reply, how are the militias regulated in america? What kind of system is in place to decide whether a militia is or is not regulated?

In the United States of America, in Title 10 of the United States Code, in Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311...... The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The home of every male Swiss national between the ages of 19 and 48 contains at least one military weapon. This is estimated at 460,000 - 490,000 weapons, yet the Swiss have one of the lowest rates of homicide or crime involving firearms in the world.

Originally Posted by senojekips

The home of every male Swiss national between the ages of 19 and 48 contains at least one military weapon. This is estimated at 460,000 - 490,000 weapons, yet the Swiss have one of the lowest rates of homicide or crime involving firearms in the world.

Perhaps the Swiss Government does not view its Citizens as idiots and or potential criminals.... and it sounds like the Swiss Government treats its Adult Citizens as Adults with all the duties and responsibilities of being a Citizen.

Freedom is not free, it is paid for in blood time, and time again.... and having freedom is not always the safest thing in the World, but in my opinion it is better to die free than it would be to live as a slave.

Originally Posted by Bugfatty

But I don't know what your opinion is on private full-auto ownership but I'll say this anyway for the whole forum.

My opinion on private full-auto ownership is HELL YES. I'm most likely never going to be invovled in a popular revolt against the government, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love owning an MG-42 for recreational purposes!