People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

As a European I can actually understand why you want weapons in a country like the US, but I dont think more weapons is the answer to gun violence. So you need alternatives for people to feel safe and being able to overthrow a government since I think thats why guns are allowed according to your constitution. So it would be nice if the discussion on ATS would be more around those alternatives instead of this screaming how you all love your guns. Because that isnt solving anything, while the problem is real and wont be solved with more guns. Unless you really want to go back to the wild west of the 1800s.

originally posted by: whatsup86
As a European I can actually understand why you want weapons in a country like the US, but I dont think more weapons is the answer to gun violence. So you need alternatives for people to feel safe and being able to overthrow a government since I think thats why guns are allowed according to your constitution. So it would be nice if the discussion on ATS would be more around those alternatives instead of this screaming how you all love your guns. Because that isnt solving anything, while the problem is real and wont be solved with more guns. Unless you really want to go back to the wild west of the 1800s.

Teh crime rate was WAY LOWER back then BTW. SO maybe shooting criminals instead of tossing them in jail might make the world safer.(felony levell crimes only)

a reply to: whatsup86

Of course more weapons aren't the answer to the problem, because guns aren't the problem...they're merely the tool.

The Wild West? It actually wasn't that wild. Probably because of the presence of those nasty guns, and the fact that folks knew how, and when, to use 'em. Remember, many of those folks in the latter half of the nineteenth century in the "Wild West" were veterans of our Civil War, had seen combat of the dirtiest sort. Many had hunted for their evening meals using those guns. Protected their homes, livestock, etc...with their guns.

The movies aren't even remotely like the reality.

I myself am only three generations removed from those folks who lived the "Wild West"...one of my great-grandmothers was born in a Conestoga wagon headed west to the new settlements in Oregon. That they settled in Colorado is beside the point, or that they decided Iowa was more their speed. My grandmother and her sister decided later to come west by train in 1900.

My grandfather was a deputy in Colorado, and rode a horse on the job in 1910, only years before he went to the trenches in Europe.

The Wild West wasn't all that long ago, really. Barely over a lifetime ago... There was less violence then, then there is now per capita.

That points to an issue outside of "evil guns". It's something much, much deeper.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: gosseyn

When used intelligently(My IQ is 115 at last measure) then that abrogates the ignorance you suggest .
HOWEVER when these devices are handled or used by someone with ill intent or in a break down of sanity,the obvious occurs.
Claiming some kind of intellectual or moral high ground based on your judgement of the rifles used by a TINY, itty ,bitty ,HANDFUL of our populace because the current administration's work in media?
SAD,mistaken ,insulting and pointless without an empirical reference.
You will be flamed and deservedly so and for it,you have NO logical recourse,apparently THAT isn't an issue for Progs and Euro-pacifists.
Germany ,France in fact ANY of the counties, who have allowed "refugees" into their borders,would LOVE American style gun ownership,now that their governments have seen fit to invade in behalf of ISIS with their polices.
DON'T blame ME if you can't handle guns...

I am merely asking the question : how are guns going to be useful ?

this video comes to mind

a reply to: gosseyn

blah blah blah none of that RT commentator's rant applies to me. I'm thinking he is angry on stuff from his personal life experience.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: gosseyn

blah blah blah none of that RT commentator's rant applies to me. I'm thinking he is angry on stuff from his personal life experience.

So are guns just a psychological device that some people hold onto like a talisman of some sort while the whole world around them has slipped into another dimension ?

a reply to: gosseyn

Guns are a defensive weapon too .

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: gosseyn

Guns are a defensive weapon too .

Like it is said in the video, they don't attack you with tanks but with think-tanks. You can't shoot an idea. They don't threaten you with death, but with debt. And their system is already well functioning, they are happy with it.

a reply to: gosseyn

Guns are a defensive weapon, a survival tool, and a recreational device all in one. I can scare away bandits simply by pointing it at them or discharging a warning shot. I can take down large and small game to feed a family, or myself. I can even use the bayonet attachment to shank fish in a stream. I can smash walnuts with them, double as a hammer if I am desperate. I can open a single cartridge and start a fire with the powder.

And when I am bored, I can take it out into the middle of nowhere and do some target practice or blow # up.




More uses than I can count from a single piece of equipment. I'm not sure what you are trying to establish here???

a reply to: gosseyn

You are correct and they have ONE country left to start a problem inside don't they?
OH wait...the counterforce that is better trained and more experienced will JUMP them with small arms.
I had heard THE MOB wouldn't be too happy about some uppity goombah in DC trying to take over either.

The assault YOU speak of is generational,the globalists NOW can't counter the above and take all of us on.
HIGHLIGHTING the primary reason NATIONAL strength.
DON'T think Russia or China wouldn't LOVE to be here if we weren't.

originally posted by: CB328

Why is it so hard for you to understand that we enjoy shootings guns for a variety of reasons

Why is it so hard to understand that peoples' lives are worth more than your selfish, childish desires?

So much for pro-life.

Pro-life??????

So, killing an attacker is a bog no-no in your eyes.

But, killing an innocent child is all good.

Unbelievable.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

revolt is built into our system, should every and all other means are exhausted.

This isn't hard to understand.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

What is operation CHOKEPOINT?
Why do somepeople think you can buy guns online or at a gun show WITHOUT a back ground check? ( I have NEVER in my life seen these transactions...myself).
WHAT exactly IS an assault weapon to you?

Are you in favor of background checks or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I insist on them ,I once bought a pistol in a private sale and worried to death it might have been stolen or whatever.I pawned it TO ESTABLISH my comfort.


ONE does such things when one's brother is a police detective in another state.

a reply to: macman

the question was :

So if your government ever brings out laws that restricts any of your rights you think people should uses their guns to kill the people running the government so they get what they want?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

I insist on them ,I once bought a pistol in a private sale and worried to death it might have been stolen or whatever.I pawned it TO ESTABLISH my comfort.

Thanks. I concur with your position. So from this I take that you are not one of the folks who believe that the 2nd Amendment gives them the unlimited right to own and carry any weapon any where any time. Fair enough.

I did not know what Operation Choke Point was before looking it up. It seems to have something to do with controlling money laundering.

I have no direct knowledge of buying guns on line or at gun shows with or without a background check, so I can't answer your question.

What is an assault weapon to me? A long gun with the appearance of an AK with a high or automatic rate of fire and a huge magazine. I've never really thought about it, because I don't own those kinds of weapons.

My only point was that I believe in the 2nd and the Constitution. I would be fighting alongside of anyone if there were some sort of universal "gun grab" to take away all weapons from the hands of the People (as absurd as that thought is at this time with 300+ million guns at stake). Controls and limits on weapon types available for purchase are NOT a gun grab. Legal limits on who can own (felons, the mentally ill) how they can carry them (concealed or open) what they have to do to buy them (background checks) seem well within the purview of the law to me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A "HIGH capacity semi auto rifle" will aptly describe what you mean
To us assault rifles are FULL auto only, THOSE cost tens of thousands to own and the fed can check you for security.
You would be clear and NOT look like the rest who DON'T know.
We also disagree about owning a high capacity semi gun.
MY situation is: I am a good shot and want to KEEP being a good shot.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

A "HIGH capacity semi auto rifle" will aptly describe what you mean
To us assault rifles are FULL auto only, THOSE cost tens of thousands to own and the fed can check you for security.
You would be clear and NOT look like the rest who DON'T know.
We also disagree about owning a high capacity semi gun.
MY situation is: I am a good shot and want to KEEP being a good shot.

Fair enough. No complaints from me.

Well background checks was never really the topic here anyways. It was the "right to ownership" of a specific type of arm. Now, the court established that what the media, people with an agenda, and the ignorant consider assault rifles are simply semi-automatic weapons. Don't get me wrong, I think holding a trigger and spitting a line of pure lead in mere seconds is fun as hell, but I leave that to the machine gun shows and recreation. IMO, for nearly any instance in daily life outside of open warfare, full auto is not only wasteful, but reckless.


A see of no reason why magazine capacity should be limited in any case either. Makes practicing more efficient without having to load so many small cap mags. I would never dare too try and dictate how many rounds a person feels comfortable loading and attaching to their arms at a time. I just hope they understand the laws of physics and gravity, and understand how to compensate for extra weight at every stage before they decide to load a drum or twin drum to their rifles, shotguns, and carbines.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

And I have answered this question.


Look, we all know your stance here. Is there a point that you are trying to make? Or just bait someone into making a statement about shooting people?