I've seen that before...never did it to my guns, though. I figured if someone's going to break into my house at night, I won't see them so there's a 50/50 chance I'll either hit them or one of my cats regardless of what's on my sights
@Montecristo There is one thing wrong with what you said and didn't say. "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."
Nit picking IS infringement. All of this is illegal, bullshit. Everything this corrupt, illegitimate government says has zero power. So don't give it to them, ignore it.
EXCEPT…As of May 30th 2023, the two AR pistols with braces on the bottom left of the legal side…will no longer be legal and will require disassembly and removal of the brace, or destruction of the weapon, or add a 16” or longer barrel to make it a legal rifle, or turn the weapon in to the ATF, or apply for a SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) tax stamp from the ATF (They are waving the $200 fee if the paperwork gets to them by May 30th….good luck with that. (This MUST be done before the deadline!). If you are successful in registering the weapon, there are a slew of special laws pertaining to an SBR that have to be followed or you get fined $250k and go to jail 10 years……AND, the ATF can come knock on your door and demand to see the weapon to make sure you still have it in your possession. Hint, don’t let them in your house, bring the weapon to them….carefully and cautiously……unless they actually have a warrant to enter. Also, I believe they have added the “angled foregrip” to the no-no side as being the same as the vertical foregrip. Also, a simple “hand-stop” may be considered a foregrip?? It’s all very ambiguous and confusing…..By Design. BE AWARE!!! Some law abiding people that purchased braced pistols from stores/dealers at a time the ATF “said” they were 100% legal may not even be aware that they will become felons overnight on May 30/June 1, 2023. Watch your ass boys and girls.
That's all bullshit too. Soon, it will be ruled unconstitutional. It takes a while to catch up. The politicians know this and ram it down your throat. Then it gets revoked.
To quote @Londy3 "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." The ammendment begins with a purpose and put the use of the term "arms" in it's historical context. Or don't interfere with my homemade nuclear weapons.
While I certainly respect the opinions(s) of you both, neither of you have captured the essence of any of the historical rulings on the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment...courts have only ruled that the government cannot infringe on the right to keep arms for self-defense purposes. The logic is this:
Using an example of how the 2nd Amendment applies, I'll take Venezuela. I think everyone can and will agree that Venezuela has become a totalitarian state with one party rule through the use of force and intimidation, starting with the Chavez regime. How did the government attain that power? Some would argue it was because their constitution allows the executive branch to pick supreme court judges, but it really had little to do with that in my opinion--that only allowed the ruling party to rig elections, it was in fact the outlawing and confiscation of guns...period. Without guns, the populace had no way to rise up against a corrupt government (i.e., form a militia) and hinder the ruling party's ability to maintain power over, and intimidate, the populace (i.e., self defense).
So, I would argue that both of you are wrong and that the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes. The debate really lies in what constitutes arms for self defense and arms for intimidation and power--for example, what is an "assault" weapon, etc. This is along the lines of what @Balisong pointed out with the nuclear weapons--i.e., it's difficult to argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for 'self defense' purposes, I don't know.
That said, every single state in the country has laws against using weapons for intimidation purposes--handguns, knives, bombs, etc., doesn't matter what the weapon is...so it seems that laws are already in place to address that, so, in my opinion, the real argument is whether someone can own a "scary" looking gun for defense purposes, or whether because it is "scary" looking, is it in fact intimidation instead.
@vtgrad2003 We seem to agree on the purpose of the second amendment, I consider it the right to revolt. Many nations have used weapon restrictions to control their populations or the citizens of countries they conquered. As to what arms are protected, the question is an open one.
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" as you call it. However, the United States Government is exactly that, an under cover entity hell bent on disarming the People. They are THE assault weapon. A demonic entity that is corrupting the public on issues they know nothing about. It's also called "re-education" aka brainwashing, rebranding, relabeling, redefining, or misinterpreting for their angle, proving "outdated" statements. The government is playing on the American citizens' general stupidity on subjects to gain support for an advantage which will be used against you. Taking your rights and giving them power is sold as a benefit or the safely of the kids, for your health, for the common good, stop crime, blah blah blah. It's all bullshit. But, this is the best way to get the public to believe the government has your best interest. Again, all bullshit. They NEVER had your best interest.
@vtgrad2003 I don't think there is any merit whatsoever to the "scary" looking gun argument. I think it's an absolute crock of bullsh*t and always has been. The assault rifle/weapon rhetoric is also nonsense and to @Londy3 point the american public, especially the young american public, is much to ignorant about guns to know any better. I can take a ruger 10/22 and put a black synthetic collapsible stock on it and a bull barrel and an extended magazine but it's still a 10/22. It isn't an assualt 10/22 it remains a semi-automatic rifle. Now if you want to be nit picky you can argue that the magazine increases the capacity to do harm in the hands of a skilled shooter for the simple fact that they have more bullets and that the bull barrel increases the accuracy of the gun via greater stability or an improved rate of twist or what have you. But how is that any different than putting a body kit and exhaust on a car. No one applies the logic we use to jump to conclusions about guns on vehicles that are modded or other comparable scenarios. The car is still the car it just looks different but you can't convince any one who has been given the wrong idea about guns or who has no idea that it's the same even though you can hurt/kill many people with a car if you choose to do so. But that's just another sticking point in the argument about guns and most issues is choice and choice is about people but we can't say that people are the problem cause that just couldn't be. It MUST be the item never the person except when its convenient i.e. drugs are bad not people who use drugs; guns are bad not people who use guns to do bad things. We have a people problem not a gun problem and that is especially true in our government. The system is not meant to help the people anymore.
You're preaching to the choir here, but that's what it comes down to, if it looks scary, it should be banned. My sarcastic point was very much like yours...the entire gun debate boils down to ignorance--i.e., being scared of something usually results from ignorance of it. The head of the ATF can't even define what an 'assault' weapon is when asked. What puzzles me is that democrats are so emphatic about this issue, one would think they would educate themselves about this topic, but they don't, and it's entirely on purpose that they don't, its the way they have operated for decades. If they educate themselves about these issues, then the issue goes away and they lose a cause to wrap their arms around and feel better about themselves. Remember, democrats have no life...they can't enjoy what life has to offer unless they have a cause to rally around, so they purposely remain ignorant of these issues so they can feel whole.
The 'scary looking gun' argument is exactly what is driving this entire orgy against these weapons, and it doesn't matter if they actually know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon...it simply doesn't matter to them because that's not the point.
Frankly, I don't even own a long gun, just handguns which are far more effective, far more concealable, and far more flexible.
Comments
There is one thing wrong with what you said and didn't say.
"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."
Nit picking IS infringement. All of this is illegal, bullshit. Everything this corrupt, illegitimate government says has zero power. So don't give it to them, ignore it.
Also, I believe they have added the “angled foregrip” to the no-no side as being the same as the vertical foregrip. Also, a simple “hand-stop” may be considered a foregrip?? It’s all very ambiguous and confusing…..By Design.
BE AWARE!!!
Some law abiding people that purchased braced pistols from stores/dealers at a time the ATF “said” they were 100% legal may not even be aware that they will become felons overnight on May 30/June 1, 2023. Watch your ass boys and girls.
That is precisely how democrats work...I couldn't have said it better myself.
"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."
The ammendment begins with a purpose and put the use of the term "arms" in it's historical context. Or don't interfere with my homemade nuclear weapons.
While I certainly respect the opinions(s) of you both, neither of you have captured the essence of any of the historical rulings on the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment...courts have only ruled that the government cannot infringe on the right to keep arms for self-defense purposes. The logic is this:
Using an example of how the 2nd Amendment applies, I'll take Venezuela. I think everyone can and will agree that Venezuela has become a totalitarian state with one party rule through the use of force and intimidation, starting with the Chavez regime. How did the government attain that power? Some would argue it was because their constitution allows the executive branch to pick supreme court judges, but it really had little to do with that in my opinion--that only allowed the ruling party to rig elections, it was in fact the outlawing and confiscation of guns...period. Without guns, the populace had no way to rise up against a corrupt government (i.e., form a militia) and hinder the ruling party's ability to maintain power over, and intimidate, the populace (i.e., self defense).
So, I would argue that both of you are wrong and that the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes. The debate really lies in what constitutes arms for self defense and arms for intimidation and power--for example, what is an "assault" weapon, etc. This is along the lines of what @Balisong pointed out with the nuclear weapons--i.e., it's difficult to argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for 'self defense' purposes, I don't know.
That said, every single state in the country has laws against using weapons for intimidation purposes--handguns, knives, bombs, etc., doesn't matter what the weapon is...so it seems that laws are already in place to address that, so, in my opinion, the real argument is whether someone can own a "scary" looking gun for defense purposes, or whether because it is "scary" looking, is it in fact intimidation instead.
Now, you two debate that, LOL.
We seem to agree on the purpose of the second amendment, I consider it the right to revolt. Many nations have used weapon restrictions to control their populations or the citizens of countries they conquered. As to what arms are protected, the question is an open one.
You're preaching to the choir here, but that's what it comes down to, if it looks scary, it should be banned. My sarcastic point was very much like yours...the entire gun debate boils down to ignorance--i.e., being scared of something usually results from ignorance of it. The head of the ATF can't even define what an 'assault' weapon is when asked. What puzzles me is that democrats are so emphatic about this issue, one would think they would educate themselves about this topic, but they don't, and it's entirely on purpose that they don't, its the way they have operated for decades. If they educate themselves about these issues, then the issue goes away and they lose a cause to wrap their arms around and feel better about themselves. Remember, democrats have no life...they can't enjoy what life has to offer unless they have a cause to rally around, so they purposely remain ignorant of these issues so they can feel whole.
The 'scary looking gun' argument is exactly what is driving this entire orgy against these weapons, and it doesn't matter if they actually know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon...it simply doesn't matter to them because that's not the point.
Frankly, I don't even own a long gun, just handguns which are far more effective, far more concealable, and far more flexible.
Oh man, I really can smell those caps go pop 💥. Had one just like that picture
I wish I still had my old cap guns. Some are worth a little money to collectors.
Today?
Always carry. Always.
Wallet, keys, gun, go!
https://trumpcollectibleknives.com/ https://trumpcollectibleknives.com/ https://trumpcollectibleknives.com/
You getting referral money for all those links?@🤣
It's like the guy with the Trump stand outside the gas station
Now that is a sweet pistola!
Easy to conceal.
STARDW Damascus Pocket Knife Set Mini Chef Knife EDC Knife Set Tiny Knife Cleaver for Package Opener Box Cutter -4-piece set
Those are kinda cool. They must be used to prepare meals for people on a diet?😬