Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You should get this AR-15 to match the revolver Kronk

Nice abs, KalashnikovMarine!

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intedted the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.

 d-usa wrote:

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intedted the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.

+1

 d-usa wrote:

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.

I agree d-usa, I mean so much has changed since then. What else can we update for the modern world? Let's see... habeas corpus is already out the window, so we should probably cut to the chase and knock off the 4th and 5th Amendments as well, if you're a law abiding citizen you should have nothing to hide right? So why shouldn't police officers be able to perform warrant-less searches? Speaking of that let's kick Posse Commitatus in the groin so we can put troops in the streets... for your safety of course. Now move along citizen.

I'd like to suggest the following article: The AR-15 is a Modern Musket


“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson

And that pesky Freedom of Religion too. Seriously, there is no way that the founding fathers would have ever imagined Scientology!

 d-usa wrote:
And that pesky Freedom of Religion too. Seriously, there is no way that the founding fathers would have ever imagined Scientology!

Keep it coming!

As an aside... that's the great thing about the Constitution... it still works!

 d-usa wrote:
And that pesky Freedom of Religion too. Seriously, there is no way that the founding fathers would have ever imagined Scientology!

Oooh good one! I forgot about that, I think we'd be a lot more calm and unified as a society if we all had one unified religion and mandatory services once or twice a week.

 whembly wrote:

As an aside... that's the great thing about the Constitution... it still works!

To a point. As LordofHats mentioned in another thread (or possibly this one), it is a 200 year old document.

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

The First Amendment was drafted in the time of the manual printing press and the street corner. Clearly it was not meant for texting, the internet, Twitter, or even letters to the editor. I'm not advocating the banning of all speech but i don't see a need for these types of communication in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much speech for civilian communication.

Edit: beaten to the punch!

Getting slow old man...

 d-usa wrote:
Getting slow old man...

Yep, bound to happen.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

As an aside... that's the great thing about the Constitution... it still works!

To a point. As LordofHats mentioned in another thread (or possibly this one), it is a 200 year old document.

The other thread. But yeah. Scientology is a less example of what I mean. They're a scam. Anyone with a brain can see it. But for better or worse we aren't allowed to make that distinction within the bounds of the Constitution (and in the case of Scientology, I can honestly say I can live with that).

Now, the Church of Body Modification. They earns my ire. EDIT: This however is a problem I don't think any solution exists for so I don't feel the Constitution is lacking in it. Any possible 'improvement' would just be overtly arbitrary.

 Greenizbest wrote:
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

OH GOD A FLASH SUPPRESSOR!!!! ITS PROBABLY GOING TO MURDER A THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!!!!

You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

So what? Even if the only reason to own a gun like that is because you enjoy shooting lots of holes in paper targets really fast and dreaming about how someday you're going to get off the couch, get in shape, and join an elite special forces team and save America from all the terrorists you still have a right to own it, just like you have the right to own all kinds of things that have no practical value. There's no credible evidence that a ban on evil military-looking rifles would have any meaningful effect on crime, so individual freedom takes priority.

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2013/01/04

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2013/01/04

Read it. Love it Funny stuff.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2013/01/04

It's a good strawman, no question about it. If the NRA's position was that all weapons should be completely unregulated, it might almost have a point.

 Seaward wrote:

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.

I want a warship
Evil Banker: So why do you need $600mm Mr. Frazzled?
Frazzled: I want to commission a fully stocked frigate to raid the seven seas under appropriate letters of marque. I need $590mm for ship and crew, and $10mm for congressional campaign contributions.
Evil Banker: Sounds like a plan.

Give him a cut of the treasures and an evil banker will approve anything...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Greenizbest wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.

The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.

I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.

Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.

I want a warship
Evil Banker: So why do you need $600mm Mr. Frazzled?
Frazzled: I want to commission a fully stocked frigate to raid the seven seas under appropriate letters of marque. I need $590mm for ship and crew, and $10mm for congressional campaign contributions.
Evil Banker: Sounds like a plan.

You've got a letter of marque? Where do I sign up?

I think getting the letter is what the campaign contributions are for.

What did Peirce actually say?

Hell yeah, I'm an able sailor and solid in a boarding party

 Hordini wrote:

You've got a letter of marque? Where do I sign up?

Get Ron Paul elected and we might start issuing them again.

I'm surprised we even have an army. Nationalized soldiers seems like socialism to me. Why don't we let the free market reign and switch to pure mercenaries and privateers?

 dogma wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

You've got a letter of marque? Where do I sign up?

Get Ron Paul elected and we might start issuing them again.

I think that's the best reason to vote for Ron Paul that I've heard so far. You want to be my first mate, Dogma? You'll get your fair share of the booty!

 Hordini wrote:

I think that's the best reason to vote for Ron Paul that I've heard so far. You want to be my first mate, Dogma? You'll get your fair share of the booty!

Considering how many cruise ships are around, the second half of that double entendre would probably get you more crewmen than the first.

Considering how many of those cruise ships have a majority population of old people I'll pass on the booty and stick to the loot.