I hear you but that's not a reason to ban AR's, right? My argument is intended for the reason why we have the right to keep and bear our AR's, mags and stuff. If you let people stray your conversation to other arguments like you can't defeat tanks or why do you have to have a 30 round magazine, then you will get nowhere. All we need to do is leave it at our right to have them, which I have pointed out earlier.
I hear you but that's not a reason to ban AR's, right? My argument is intended for the reason why we have the right to keep and bear our AR's, mags and stuff. If you let people stray your conversation to other arguments like you can't defeat tanks or why do you have to have a 30 round magazine, then you will get nowhere. All we need to do is leave it at our right to have them, which I have pointed out earlier.
When the Constitution was written, private citizens could own F***ing warships and cannons. The average citizen had acces to the same, if not better, weapons than the military had. The Founding Fathers knew this(since some of them owned private armies) and I interpret the 2A based on this fact.
Very good reasoning. If they don't like it then add don't come knocking when the **** hits the fan. Maybe then they will stop and reconsider thier views.
When they wrote the first amendment covering free speech did they know the internet would exist? TV? Radio? I doubt it very highly. Now you can only say what you want via your mouth or a handwritten letter. If you truly believe what you just said then what I just said MUST be true as well. That's my response to the quoted statement above. Following their same logic it doesn't make sense.
Who the f%&$ said anything about hunting? The 2nd amendment doesn't mention hunting...anywhere. It mentions organized militias. These are weapons for defense which can also be used for hunting. Every gun in the hands of civilians was initially developed for military use, even muzzle loading muskets. Their conversion to civilian use just seemed logical.
These are the counters to the quoted statements. At least they are mine.
I think you can argue it without even mentioning the 2A.
What percentage of gun related violence involves an "assault rifle"?
What effects did the AWB have on gun related violence, DIRECTLY?
What is the violent crime rate, per capita, of countries that have recently implemented gun bans compared to their previous violent crime rate and also compared to the US's current crime rate.
IMHO, while the 2A is the main reason why WE think we have the right, I think its a pretty weak argument. Use statistics, use facts. Hit em where it hurts... scientifically.
What percentage of gun related violence involves an "assault rifle"?
What effects did the AWB have on gun related violence, DIRECTLY?
What is the violent crime rate, per capita, of countries that have recently implemented gun bans compared to their previous violent crime rate and also compared to the US's current crime rate.
IMHO, while the 2A is the main reason why WE think we have the right, I think its a pretty weak argument. Use statistics, use facts. Hit em where it hurts... scientifically.
oh, I'll hit em where it hurts, alright. I'll bash my commie uncle right in the junk with a turkey leg if he opens his big mouth.
Now that's funny, not productive but funny. Give him a hug also.
We have got to find a way to reach these luke warm gun owners. Give them plausible scenarios under which an AR is invaluable. The best scenario I've got is the Katrina aftermath with roving gangs threatening your family. An AR is the best force multiplier available to us civilians when facing multiple attackers. This is very plausible because it has happened before and will happen again.
Another viable use for 30 rounds is attempting to control feral hogs.
If anyone can think of more uses, please share. IMO the first reason is plenty reason enough to keep ARs available.
They don't listen to the constitutional argument or about a deterrent to a tyrannical govt.
Similar threads
