Looks like Cruz just got a 9 point lead as opponent says ARs are bad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I only cut it out to show you the part of the description YOU cut out. Stop distorting things that literally just happened for everyone in the thread to read and see. The entire description is still posted where I originally posted the link and I never edited it to remove it.

The case... Is about DC's gun ban...

Not gun ownership as a whole. If you think that's what the case was about.... You are wrong...

I know what the case is about. I've been agreeing with you on that point. In ADDITION to the case being about the DC gun ban the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected gun rights. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you think the Supreme Court never heard a case about guns, and the second until 2008.... You are wrong...

Prove it then. Show me a court case where SCOTUS ruled on the 2nd prior to this case. And don't tell me about the other case you linked before, it didn't mention the 2nd.

Are you freaking serious ?

The case I quoted was ABOUT whether Congress could regulated that weapon, as an exception to the second amendment. How can you interpret that to NOT BE about the second amendment ?!? the case I quoted. was about exceptions to the second amendment and was from 1939 ! You want something earlier than 1939 to prove you wrong about the 1990's ?!?

Does a case from 1939 not predate the 1990's ?!?

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) - A post Civil War era case relating to the Ku Klux Klan depriving freed slaves basic rights such as freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms. The court ruled the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government," respectively. In summary, it ruled the federal government could not file charges against citizens in federal court regarding violations of other citizens' constitutional rights. It was up to the states to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens when their rights were abridged by other citizens.


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:


We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.










Those are just the big ones.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: gortex

Spoken like someone who has never seen 100 hogs lay waste to a crop

Wait, wait he did say their hunters are more skilled from where he is from, they only require rifles, thus it's deduced that he has, infact, seen crops destroyed by pigs, but the absolute skill and cunning of the local hunters eliminate them easily with simply rifles, .22 more specifically, probably, meh 😌

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Fine. I was wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

well played sir

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

Guess he has never been on a pig hunt in Texas

Yeah , them Texan pigs are armed to the teeth no other option than to use an AR.

Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of civilians.

what makes it a weapon of war? that it's Black? is it the attachments you can put on? It it the round used?

I honestly want you to detail what you mean by that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Fine. I was wrong.

It's all good, i'm wrong about stuff to occasionally.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

Sounds like you should go work on Cruz's opponent's democratic campaign.

No thanks.


a reply to: Bluntone22

Civilians hands are exactly where they belong.
And an ar is not a weapon of war.
Bayonets are though.

I wonder if those who wrote the constitution had automatic weapons in mind when they drafted that amendment.
Bayonets are a weapon of last resort.

a reply to: ketsuko

You've never done much study on feral hogs have you? They're destructive and dangerous and an AR is one of the best weapons to hunt them with, and they *need* to be hunted.

I don't doubt they need to be hunted but if you need an AR to do it it makes me wonder how your forbears managed with just riffles.
Better hunters I guess.

Oh now I get it. Ignorance is the problem here. Automatic? Yea, my advice EDUCATE before you MASTICATE.

a reply to: gortex

Hi man I am of the same opinion of you, maybe because we live in the UK, I remind myself constantly to stay out for gun threads as you usually end up getting straight up abuse for your opinions rather than debate

I mean if you got pigs what better way to kill them than with a 5.56×45mm bullet fired out of a semi automatic, I mean fairs fair and all those pesky pigs might bite ya!!

AR-15 style rifle

AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[66] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[67] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[67] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[68] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

False flag, flase flag these shooting never happened though


As for now I will retreat back to the UK

"Gotta stay out of gun threads" says that 3 times, vanished.....

originally posted by: ridgerunner
a reply to: Gothmog And hogs also run in sounders(packs).10 or so hogs coming your way will make a AR feel pretty good in your hands.They don`t always run away.Besides all you mentioned, a AR in 6.5 Graendal will shoot thumbnail size groups and is one of the best deer guns around.I think I just convinced myself to build a upper in that,lol.

,

But wouldn't a 1022 plinking rifle or a Remington 7400 .30-06 be just as effective?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: projectvxn

Gotta be a complete ass and can't talk civil to people who disagree with you I guess.

what a tool.

and right after you say:

Ok genius, explain to me what you think that court decision did.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: gortex

Hi man I am of the same opinion of you, maybe because we live in the UK, I remind myself constantly to stay out for gun threads as you usually end up getting straight up abuse for your opinions rather than debate

I mean if you got pigs what better way to kill them than with a 5.56×45mm bullet fired out of a semi automatic, I mean fairs fair and all those pesky pigs might bite ya!!

AR-15 style rifle

AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[66] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[67] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[67] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[68] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

False flag, flase flag these shooting never happened though

As for now I will retreat back to the UK

"Gotta stay out of gun threads" says that 3 times, vanished.....

what way should farmers combat the feral pigs? What weapon would be acceptable to you?

Javelinas' won't bite you... They'll shred you and then share you as dinner with the rest of their pack. I grew up in South Texas and they were definitely something to stay clear of.

EDIT: If you ever found yourself on a pig trail, you were in the wrong place...

Not automatic, not weapons of war, well not until liberals come try to take them...

a reply to: Gothmog


but..but...derp...."I thought it meant Assault Rifle"....derp

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

Guess he has never been on a pig hunt in Texas

Yeah , them Texan pigs are armed to the teeth no other option than to use an AR.

Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Anything less than semi-auto for hunting pigs where they are a problem simply will not do. A bolt action has zero chance of thining a herd. There can be 30 or more destroying a field and with the first shot they run. It is not like you can go hunt them down once they are off property. You know there are gun laws against that. BTW an AR is just a semi auto that people think looks scary.

hog hunt AR hunt

a reply to: gortex

I wonder if those who wrote the constitution had automatic weapons in mind when they drafted that amendment.

Wonder no more.

a reply to: gortex

this is one of those instances where you just can't believe the nonsense that was stated, but unfortunately, dozens of people have already beaten me to the punch calling it out..... So i can't really say much except wow. just wow.

a reply to: gortex

Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Ok, then we need to ban trucks, cars, planes, helicopters, boats, cellphones, radios, etc...

Those are all weapons of war as well.

Sigh...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Thanks for the info.