Sutherland Springs, TX church shooting

Or Sessions? Who, as I pointed out in another thread, has only just dropped an attempt to imprison a woman for laughing at him during his confirmation hearing. 1st Amendment? Only if these fuckers like what you say.

Fourth Amendment? Stop and goddamn Search laws. Racist bullshit. Chuck these cunts out, Paladin, for they have sinned!!!

Fifth Amendment? Trump says if you invoke it, you're guilty. Unless you're a Republican, then it's fine.

The Sixth? GOP loves to attack Hillary and the ACLU over legal defence of child molestors, murderers etc but the right to an attorney is in the Constitution too. You gonna vote these fuckers out?

Seventh? Trump wants tort reform and the ability to toss out "frivolous lawsuits", without recourse to jury trial.

I could go on, but much as you rag on the Dems for trying to impose sensible limits to the Constitution, there are much, much worse cases of the GOP trying to wipe their asses with it. You might want to declare a plague on both houses, but until the US system allows true multi-party politics, I'd query why you aren't sticking with the ones that are trying to preserve 95% of the amendments over imposing some restrictions on the 2nd.

You might say the 2nd is the only one that enshrines your right to fight back, but if the GOP gets its hands on the rest? You're fucked so bad even the right to own nukes ain't gonna stop the rectal tearing.

No limits that actually negate the right.

Clarinets. And fugues and excellent.

Limits on assault weapons don't negate the 2nd.

Next?

Depends on what you mean by limits. If you mean forbid people from owning them, then, yes, those limits do negate the 2nd.

The 2nd is about securing the people the right to resist a tyrannical government, therefore limits on the weapons that are suitable for that task are not legitimate.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Might as well give up arguing with him. He’ll never understand.

Nukes for everyone!

I don't understand why you insist there can be limits on other rights but not GUNS. No. Never.

[/quote]
I heard he hit him twice. Once in the torso, and once in the leg. I'm surprised dude was able to live long enough to shoot himself. An AR round is supposed to tear somebody up more often than not.[/quote] - MAOHS

Negative ghost rider - lethality is all about shot placement. The .223 round zips right along at pretty much any bullet weight you use (55 grain, 62 grain, whatever the shooter used) but it's very much a round designed for fast, accurate shooting versus knockdown power. It's a great round for engaging multiple targets fast, and the light recoil means you get back on target fast for follow up shots. Even in only semi-auto you can "double tap" and put two rounds in the same spot, so it's good for critters up to deer sized. He was shot in the torso? The torso is a lot of real estate, so unless he was hit in the liver, kidneys, or a major artery it would take a long time for him to bleed out. Without medical treatment if he was just gut-shot he would die of blood poisoning before he would bleed out.
As for the leg, unless he was hit in a major artery (the femoral artery in the thigh for example, but it's only the thickness of a pencil so it's a small target) his bones might be shattered and his muscle turned into hamburger, but he wouldn't bleed out anytime soon. No doubt he would be in serious pain once his adrenaline leveled off, but he would have survived to be taken alive once he crashed his vehicle, thus he shot himself.

Because guns are how we will stand up to the tyrannical Clintonian Antifaempire that has nuclear weapons at its disposal.

Ordnance, not small arms. No one remotely in the pro-2nd mainstream makes this argument, only those attempting to make a strawman argument against.

I heard he hit him twice. Once in the torso, and once in the leg. I'm surprised dude was able to live long enough to shoot himself. An AR round is supposed to tear somebody up more often than not.[/quote] - MAOHS

Negative ghost rider - lethality is all about shot placement. The .223 round zips right along at pretty much any bullet weight you use (55 grain, 62 grain, whatever the shooter used) but it's very much a round designed for fast, accurate shooting versus knockdown power. It's a great round for engaging multiple targets fast, and the light recoil means you get back on target fast for follow up shots. Even in only semi-auto you can "double tap" and put two rounds in the same spot, so it's good for critters up to deer sized. He was shot in the torso? The torso is a lot of real estate, so unless he was hit in the liver, kidneys, or a major artery it would take a long time for him to bleed out. Without medical treatment if he was just gut-shot he would die of blood poisoning before he would bleed out.
As for the leg, unless he was hit in a major artery (the femoral artery in the thigh for example, but it's only the thickness of a pencil so it's a small target) his bones might be shattered and his muscle turned into hamburger, but he wouldn't bleed out anytime soon. No doubt he would be in serious pain once his adrenaline leveled off, but he would have survived to be taken alive once he crashed his vehicle, thus he shot himself.[/quote]

That's assuming even that the AR was chambered in 5.56

There are limits on all Constitutional rights: the rights of others.

Nukes worked great against the Viet Cong and the Iraqi insurgents, didn't they?

What's the point of having assault weapons if they would be ineffective in any armed rebellion and prove to be deadly effective to gun nutters looking to shoot up a church? I ask as someone who doesn't really care if guns are legal or not.

They are very effective in an armed rebellion. Look at how well the Vietcong did against our Army. The government cannot win against the people in this country.

Who claims that? Those are the ONLY effective arms available to civilians.

So-called assault weapons aren't required for mass shootings. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech used two ordinary handguns. Once people are trapped, any modern repeating firearm will suffice.

Seriously?

Do you guys seriously think that if the US government was in serious danger of being overthrown they'd just hand the nukes and everything over?

Guns are great, but if the US actually wanted to fuck up its citizenry they could, and would. 1789 was a long time ago.

Actually the Vietcong were effectively destroyed by the U.S. during the 1968 Tet Offensive. Thereafter most of the fighting done by the communist side was by North Vietnamese regulars.

The idea is that if the government faces armed civil resistance, things will never get that far in the first place.

But, put yourself in the tyrant's place: armed citizens are about to overthrow your government. WHAT do you nuke?

I saw something earlier today that said fifteen empty magazines were found in the church.

Yes, but insurgencies don't have to win to be effective. They only have to make winning very expensive for the other side.

Also, the scenario where the U.S. Army crushes armed citizen resistance has another problem: namely, that a great many of those U.S. soldiers are likely to be siding with the resistance they're supposed to crush.

Exactly. Once they use nukes it’s over for them. Other countries will step in to help the rebels. Just like we do with other countries.

They need the infrastructure more than regular people.

Well, when the Christian Right takes over the US, I hope you guys are right.

Millions of gun owners would seriously fuck up a tyrannical government, too.

But, again, the idea isn't to achieve military victory. It's to make the whole prospect of tyrannical government so expensive that it's never attempted.

yep - risk versus reward. Who has the guts to play the "long game?"

So let me see if I have this right. We shouldn't ban assault weapons because we need them should the government become tyrannical?