Acts20.com NEW Acts-Celerate

It’s not that difficult. The context of the 2nd amendment is arms that a man can carry, like a rifle. So called assault rifles are protected.But here is a point few consider. The 2nd Amendment was not written to GIVE anyone a right. It was included to protect already existing rights from Federal encroachment. So it’s repeal would not grant the Federal Government t any new powers to ban guns. It would simply mean that every State is sovereign to make its own gun laws, which was really the original intent even with the 2nd Amendment to begin with. The only way the Federal Government could ban guns would be for the States to give them such power by way of a new Constitutional Amendment________________

I know some good men, one a very educated first Cousin, that KNOW we are going to have a revolution one day; WE must be prepared. Now of course this has been going on for over 50 years. There was ALWAYS going to be some internal war in the USA. The reasons vary, but these are good guys, I love ’em. I think they are wrong, but I sure cannot prove it.It is true, at some point in ‘war logic’ accuracy gave way to ‘heavy fire power’, spray the room instead of taking time to aim.I see no need for a ‘machinegun’ in my home or life, but some people really do. With millions of ‘assault’ type weapons out there, most will never be seen or heard, BUT THEY ARE READY!Banned they would still be available, but at enormous prices.We have been outlawing drugs for years, and I hear you can buy anything you need in a short period of time TODAY!Banning only ‘restricts’ an honest guy, not the dishonest________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

Yeah, I was thinking it won’t sail anyway so why ban it But I have seen this before though…not sailing ’em.I would think everyone would be against sailing assault weapons.It is a very dangerous thing…for the ones sailing them

It was a clip for years before it was referred to as a magazine. The official definition of The M-1 is a ‘clip fed, gas operated, semi automatic shoulder weapon.Then The BAR first used clips, then switched to the name of magazine.Just so you will know the term ‘clip’ does not in anyway indicate ignorance, Having been ordered With a clip and three rounds, lock and load, or hearing ‘With a full clip, lock and load.’I might ask, You mean you have been around weapons all your life and really do not know what a clip is? There is a difference in a clip and a magazine of course, but they have been used interchangeably________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

You are correct Cojak the M1 is indeed a clip-fed rifle. What Aaron was referring to as a clip is not, it is a magazine. I’m sure he appreciates the defense though.

I tend to agree with this. People like to control others it seems. It is even down on the Home Owner’s Associations level. The attitude: We need to tell you what you can have in your yard, type of fence and who cuts your grass. Sometimes I think congressmen were the ones who started Home Owner’s associations.. Controls DO GROW! ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

First, Uncle JD, I forgive you for being harsher than you had to be. No, you didn’t ask for forgiveness–may not even think you need it–but just in case, there it is (SMILE).We can disagree without being hateful, and because I esteem you as a brother, I hope you can understand that my point is not to paint myself as rip-roarin’ gun lover who wants some guns banned. I suppose I could have used a more appropriate word than love. My point was I was raised with guns and am FOR gun ownership. I suppose I could have said that I’m fine with guns, since that seems more along the lines of what I meant to convey. It was not an attempt to be dishonest, as you put it. By the way, why are so you angry? You DO realize that good folks can be on different sides of an issue, right? In any case, here’s the equation in my mind:Assault type rifles make very little unique difference in terms of actually protecting a home. That is, another, lesser, gun will serve the purpose–a .38 revolver; a 9mm, and certainly, my favorite, a 12 gauge pump.All of these weapons can serve to protect a home in virtually all but some Hollywood version of the zombie apocalypse. But in real life, we all are aware that an assault rifle is not for hunting (never saw anyone hunting with one, anyway) and is designed for rapid-fire and high count ammunition. It just is. Yes, all of these other guns will kill you just as badly, but while they will serve as well (and perhaps even worse) than an assault rifle in protecting one’s home, they will NOT serve as well if the intent is to kill a lot of people in a short time. I can get off my five shots of my shotgun, but then I need to reload. I can get off all the shells in my .357, but then I have to stop, etc. But with an assault type weapon, I have a dramatic edge in terms of the amount firepower.There is a reason that this is the gun of choice, increasingly, for those who intend to kill a lot of people. So, since we almost would never need such a gun to protect our home, why not accept that we have what is needed to protect our homes…and get rid of the guns that are too often used for evil purposes?Let me put it this way…. If hand grenades were the weapon of choice for killers, does that mean we need grenades too? No. In fact, it is almost surely the case that we should NOT have grenades! Rather, by using what we already have easily available, we can take out those with grenades.And in the context of our protecting our HOME, we certainly would not think grenades would be the best idea.These things being the case, it MIGHT be that by prohibiting the sale of such things, we would edge our way forward in preventing these tragic attacks. It’s not a silver bullet, but surely if we make it harder for killers to get their hands on them, then AT THE LEAST we have slowed down the death rate and so forth.