User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:26:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was the best pic I could find to demonstrate what happens when the general populace has unrestricted access to everything...... The people in this thread saying their rights are being infringed because they can't buy breaching charges cash-and-carry OTC are , or have recently been, smoking crack This aint the 1920's anymore when you went with grandpappy to the hardware store to buy dynamite to blow a few stumps Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If that’s Liberia, possession of that RPG (and nearly any other sort of repeating firearm) is very illegal. The people in this thread saying their rights are being infringed because they can't buy breaching charges cash-and-carry OTC are , or have recently been, smoking crack This aint the 1920's anymore when you went with grandpappy to the hardware store to buy dynamite to blow a few stumps Do you not see the connection or parallel?... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:27:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they require a government permission slip? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:28:31 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not talking about firearms...... I give up.....you guys are right.... I fully support your right to walk around with a fucking fully semi automatic assault rifle Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You think unrestricted access to firearms is why those countries went to shit?  I give up.....you guys are right.... I fully support your right to walk around with a fucking fully semi automatic assault rifle |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:28:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be a lawful Privateer? Absolutely Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did they require a government permission slip? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:29:10 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hard to create a stable government when you have a 1000 different "militias" armed to the teeth ready to challenge any attempt to have some sort of normal government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Id wager that has a whole lot more to do with corrupt and tyrannical governments than dudes with AKs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:29:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're vastly over-estimating the numbers in armament available to Privateers during the War 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You realize that many merchant vessels were armed even if not engaged in war, right? They might have only had 12-20 guns or so, but they were still armed for self-defense. Those ships, their crews, and their owners didn't need permission to arm them, ONLY to use them offensively. 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:31:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was the best pic I could find to demonstrate what happens when the general populace has unrestricted access to everything...... The people in this thread saying their rights are being infringed because they can't buy breaching charges cash-and-carry OTC are , or have recently been, smoking crack This aint the 1920's anymore when you went with grandpappy to the hardware store to buy dynamite to blow a few stumps Practically all of your 3rd-World shitholes where you can trade a chicken for an AK have cripplingly draconian restrictions on legal private firearms ownership. Laws only regulate the behavior of the lawful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:31:48 AM EDT
[#8]
Smoke, OC, flashbang, and stinger grenades should be legal and non-regulated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:33:14 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about to be an armed merchantman? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they require a government permission slip? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:33:15 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're vastly over-estimating the numbers in armament available to Privateers during the War 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You realize that many merchant vessels were armed even if not engaged in war, right? They might have only had 12-20 guns or so, but they were still armed for self-defense. Those ships, their crews, and their owners didn't need permission to arm them, ONLY to use them offensively. 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:33:39 AM EDT
[#11]
This thread is further evidence that this is not actually a pro second amendment site.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:34:23 AM EDT
[#12]
Nvm, don't want another bullshit lie retribution for pointing out the truth warning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:34:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Realist. You guys internalize your own desire to have this stuff and in your world view you apparently see only you or good guys possessing it I look at the reality of who would actually be in the ownership pool if it was unregulated. I can just imagine what home invasion robberies would look like if this stuff was available OTC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
racist much? You guys internalize your own desire to have this stuff and in your world view you apparently see only you or good guys possessing it I look at the reality of who would actually be in the ownership pool if it was unregulated. I can just imagine what home invasion robberies would look like if this stuff was available OTC |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:34:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're vastly over-estimating the numbers in armament available to Privateers during the War 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You realize that many merchant vessels were armed even if not engaged in war, right? They might have only had 12-20 guns or so, but they were still armed for self-defense. Those ships, their crews, and their owners didn't need permission to arm them, ONLY to use them offensively. 14,872 guns amongst 1700 ships amounts to an average of 8 guns per Privateer. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm The fact is, no government at the time would object to a privately-held vessel being armed, and a Letter of Marque is only relevant when discussing offensive operations. Privateers and Pirates are the only classifications that would include privately-owned warships, however the fact they were armed is not what gets them that classification. The manner in which they use those arms in the determining factor. Having a 40-gun ship was not illegal, but using those guns to seize someone else's property was. No reason or justification was necessary for the acquisition of the ship or guns, just money. No permission or license was necessary, as it was incredibly common, if not ubiquitous, to arm your vessel for defensive actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:36:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is further evidence that this is not actually a pro second amendment site. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:37:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then your expectations are unrealistic We can't lock bad guys up forever. The death penalty is a shrinking option for even the most heinous of crimes. Society is literally filled with people who shouldn't have access to "whatever the fuck they want". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Project much? Freedom is freedom. I want every citizen who isn't in prison to be able to own whatever the fuck they want. We can't lock bad guys up forever. The death penalty is a shrinking option for even the most heinous of crimes. Society is literally filled with people who shouldn't have access to "whatever the fuck they want". I have the sole responsibility to protect myself. I have it individually as part of the people guaranteed arms without infringements by the Second Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:38:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be fair it’s 84.46% pro 2A site Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This thread is further evidence that this is not actually a pro second amendment site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:38:36 AM EDT
[#18]
Here’s a thought, no object no matter how trivial or dangerous should be illegal to posses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:38:52 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you're being obtuse; I just stated that many, if not a majority, of merchant-vessels were armed. I will qualify that statement with the appellation of "ocean-going", as many coastal vessels would not need to be armed. The fact is, no government at the time would object to a privately-held vessel being armed, and a Letter of Marque is only relevant when discussing offensive operations. Privateers and Pirates are the only classifications that would include privately-owned warships, however the fact they were armed is not what gets them that classification. The manner in which they use those arms in the determining factor. Having a 40-gun ship was not illegal, but using those guns to seize someone else's property was. No reason or justification was necessary for the acquisition of the ship or guns, just money. No permission or license was necessary, as it was incredibly common, if not ubiquitous, to arm your vessel for defensive actions. AS the link I posted pointed out, the colonies were forced to use Privateers to achieve their goals because they couldn't afford to man and equip a comparable number of vessels themselves |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:39:14 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is further evidence that this is not actually a pro second amendment site. Don't get on a high horse and proclaim that if you don't tow the absolutist line then you not "pro second amendment". The founding fathers themselves would end up disagreeing for decades on interpreting what the Constitution did and did not do. Having a different opinion on the outer reaches of the second amendment does not make you "anti' second amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:43:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS. Don't get on a high horse and proclaim that if you don't tow the absolutist line then you not "pro second amendment". The founding fathers themselves would end up disagreeing for decades on interpreting what the Constitution did and did not do. Having a different opinion on the outer reaches of the second amendment does not make you "anti' second amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:44:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not small arms. edit: this is pretty normal training stuff for SWAT teams What is that material called that is inside of small arms that oxidizes super rapidly to produce a ton of super heated gasses in a short amount of time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:48:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. I'm not real comfortable with it, but that's liberty. And just because I'm not comfortable with it doesn't mean that those who are should not be able to buy it, it just means that I wouldn't. Because that's how rights and liberty work. My concern is the dipshits that live in the cities. But then again, freedom be scary, yo. Demolition is a fuckton of fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:49:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It means that you don’t understand what the 2nd Amendment was suppose to prevent: the disparity of force between the people and the government, guaranteed by law. NFA 1934 de facto made exactly that happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:50:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You posted a number, I simply posted a source that backs up my earlier claim that many privateers were at best minimally armed AS the link I posted pointed out, the colonies were forced to use Privateers to achieve their goals because they couldn't afford to man and equip a comparable number of vessels themselves Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And you're being obtuse; I just stated that many, if not a majority, of merchant-vessels were armed. I will qualify that statement with the appellation of "ocean-going", as many coastal vessels would not need to be armed. The fact is, no government at the time would object to a privately-held vessel being armed, and a Letter of Marque is only relevant when discussing offensive operations. Privateers and Pirates are the only classifications that would include privately-owned warships, however the fact they were armed is not what gets them that classification. The manner in which they use those arms in the determining factor. Having a 40-gun ship was not illegal, but using those guns to seize someone else's property was. No reason or justification was necessary for the acquisition of the ship or guns, just money. No permission or license was necessary, as it was incredibly common, if not ubiquitous, to arm your vessel for defensive actions. AS the link I posted pointed out, the colonies were forced to use Privateers to achieve their goals because they couldn't afford to man and equip a comparable number of vessels themselves I can recommend some decent titles on the evolution of naval warfare in the 17th and 18th Centuries, if you'd like? Alternately the Annapolis Naval Institute Press has some excellent articles on the difficulty our early Navy had with acquiring vessels or the cooperation of privately-owned armed vessels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:50:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is your ignorant interpretation. Find a court that agrees with you. Explosives are not arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All armaments are considered arms under the 2A. If explosives aren't a weapon, then what the fuck is? This ain't about what some robed jackass thinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:53:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be the Provisional Government. There were hundreds of merchant vessels that were available, they just couldn't afford to compensate the owners and hire/purchase the vessels. Privateers had to be compensated as well; Prize money had to come from government coffers. I can recommend some decent titles on the evolution of naval warfare in the 17th and 18th Centuries, if you'd like? Alternately the Annapolis Naval Institute Press has some excellent articles on the difficulty our early Navy had with acquiring vessels or the cooperation of privately-owned armed vessels. You're right about the government being unable to compensate the owners of the Privateers, which is why they relied on the incentive of profit to encourage the Privateer owners to engage in their activities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:53:47 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Jamal is a felon he shouldn't have access to any firearm. Same with Tom, Dick and Harry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The exact same argument can be made for an AR15. the is no acceptable reason for Jamal as you say to own an AR15. An acceptable reason is the unwritten threat of don't become a tyrannical government and we wont use these things against you, or another would be dont invade America and we wont use this stuff against you. Both of those are acceptable arguments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:55:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Privateers made their money by selling the contents of the ships they were raiding. Pure profit motive. You're right about the government being unable to compensate the owners of the Privateers, which is why they relied on the incentive of profit to encourage the Privateer owners to engage in their activities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:56:40 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Privateers made their money by selling the contents of the ships they were raiding. Pure profit motive. You're right about the government being unable to compensate the owners of the Privateers, which is why they relied on the incentive of profit to encourage the Privateer owners to engage in their activities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That would be the Provisional Government. There were hundreds of merchant vessels that were available, they just couldn't afford to compensate the owners and hire/purchase the vessels. Privateers had to be compensated as well; Prize money had to come from government coffers. I can recommend some decent titles on the evolution of naval warfare in the 17th and 18th Centuries, if you'd like? Alternately the Annapolis Naval Institute Press has some excellent articles on the difficulty our early Navy had with acquiring vessels or the cooperation of privately-owned armed vessels. You're right about the government being unable to compensate the owners of the Privateers, which is why they relied on the incentive of profit to encourage the Privateer owners to engage in their activities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:57:41 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thought it would be about the German police (at the request of the Dutch ) blowing up the door of some suspected terrorists this morning. https://www.tubantia.nl/enschede/opgepakte-personen-in-gronau-hebben-banden-met-islamitische-terroristen~a35ba785/ Guess the Baghdadi splattering caused some shitbirds to reschedule FO time https://images2.persgroep.net/rcs/RJTehfkmvvOkCKeH34jnEvyEOFY/diocontent/159504897/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9 Eta yes it is protected as you never know when you need to go a'breeching
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:57:54 AM EDT
[#32]
 Spetsnaz - Magic Stick vs Bus |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 11:58:22 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS. Don't get on a high horse and proclaim that if you don't tow the absolutist line then you not "pro second amendment". The founding fathers themselves would end up disagreeing for decades on interpreting what the Constitution did and did not do. Having a different opinion on the outer reaches of the second amendment does not make you "anti' second amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This thread is further evidence that this is not actually a pro second amendment site. Don't get on a high horse and proclaim that if you don't tow the absolutist line then you not "pro second amendment". The founding fathers themselves would end up disagreeing for decades on interpreting what the Constitution did and did not do. Having a different opinion on the outer reaches of the second amendment does not make you "anti' second amendment. It doesn't make you right....or even really pro-second amendment for that matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:00:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smoke, OC, flashbang, and stinger grenades should be legal and non-regulated.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:02:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep it up. You keep failing Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"the right of the people (except black people) to keep and bear Arms, as long as they're for good, constructive or self-defense purposes, shall not be infringed" You keep failing |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:03:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BS. Don't get on a high horse and proclaim that if you don't tow the absolutist line then you not "pro second amendment". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:06:15 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you avoided my first question....did merchants require government permission to arm their boats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:08:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have plenty of guns here. What's keeping us from being an unstable shithole with a 1000 different militias? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Id wager that has a whole lot more to do with corrupt and tyrannical governments than dudes with AKs. Maybe standard of living, lack of vastly corrupt governments that imprison and kill political prisoners/a group of people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:09:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but you're not going to be able to compare then to now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:12:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem to be.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:14:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not the one using the practice of privateers 240 years ago to justify anyone being able to own any munitions system their hearts desire today |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:16:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but you're not going to be able to compare then to now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since you avoided my first question....did merchants require government permission to arm their boats? In case you didn't get it: There's very good reason the Second amendment reads "arms" and not "muskets". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:17:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but you're not going to be able to compare then to now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since you avoided my first question....did merchants require government permission to arm their boats?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:17:33 PM EDT
[#44]
You guys forget that you CAN easily buy explosives, grenades , tanks, pt boats, heavy machine guns, submarines, warships, etc. Just a year wait and $200 tax on each one, and cash to pay for the item. In the case of machine guns the price is artificially inflated, a m4 rifle that cost uncle sam $500 bucks costs me $25,000. If I had lottery money, I could own a fully operational tank with full load out, c130 gunship, m4 with grenade launcher, cases or grenades, mines, c4 by the pallet, etc
Gov might have a argument if the items were totally illegal, because they are so terribly dangerous, but they are not illegal, as it is though, they are just unavailable to poor people. Which is part of why we have the constitution, to give rights and opportunity to EVERYONE, not just the rich and connected, partly so we can defend ourselves from them if needed. We are slowly losing those rights though, the second amendment, first amendment, property rights etc, all watered down each year over common sense bullshit, that's unconstitutional as fuck. If you can't add taxes, fees, back ground checks to voting, and free speech, then you can't to the second amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:19:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure. I guess you can think you are pro-second amendment if you believe that it secures your right to have an over and under for duck hunting. It doesn't make you right....or even really pro-second amendment for that matter. 
Are you trolling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:21:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be a lawful Privateer? Absolutely Edit- spelling |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:39:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but you're not going to be able to compare then to now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since you avoided my first question....did merchants require government permission to arm their boats? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:56:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Is it really such a ridiculous notion that the founding fathers intended the citizenry to have the same access to arms as law enforcement....given the fact that they intended the 2a to be a limit on the government's power?
If you don't believe the citizenry should have access to any and all arms available to those that could pose a domestic threat, then you have no understanding of the Second Amendment or it's intention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 12:58:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys forget that you CAN easily buy explosives, grenades , tanks, pt boats, heavy machine guns, submarines, warships, etc. Just a year wait and $200 tax on each one, and cash to pay for the item. In the case of machine guns the price is artificially inflated, a m4 rifle that cost uncle sam $500 bucks costs me $25,000. If I had lottery money, I could own a fully operational tank with full load out, c130 gunship, m4 with grenade launcher, cases or grenades, mines, c4 by the pallet, etc Gov might have a argument if the items were totally illegal, because they are so terribly dangerous, but they are not illegal, as it is though, they are just unavailable to poor people. Which is part of why we have the constitution, to give rights and opportunity to EVERYONE, not just the rich and connected, partly so we can defend ourselves from them if needed. We are slowly losing those rights though, the second amendment, first amendment, property rights etc, all watered down each year over common sense bullshit, that's unconstitutional as fuck. If you can't add taxes, fees, back ground checks to voting, and free speech, then you can't to the second amendment. While you can easily buy explosives (at least one type only), grenade launchers, tanks, PT boats, rocket launchers/recoil less rifle/launcher etc. Buying/making their ammo like grenades, and warheads are verboten unless you have an FEL and jump through all their hoops. It's not real easy to get a new barrel for an RPG7 or carl gustav. (I wouldn't trust a re-weld) (though I know some RPG 2 tubes were being sold )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2019 1:04:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure. I guess you can think you are pro-second amendment if you believe that it secures your right to have an over and under for duck hunting. It doesn't make you right....or even really pro-second amendment for that matter. You pretty much either support the Second Amendment as written or you don't. If you don't support it as written, you're just weakening the rest of us. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
