"Grabbers aren't real, but seriously you guys... the 2nd amendment is archaic and we should get rid of it. Anyone who disagrees is a stupid poopy head."
"Grabbers aren't real, but seriously you guys... the 2nd amendment is archaic and we should get rid of it. Anyone who disagrees is a stupid poopy head."
Obama, as explained already, had zero to do with banning any sort of ammo or it's rise in price.
Too bad facts aren't treated like bullets. You guys would be a lot smarter with all the hoarding you'd be doing
It doesn't really matter if he came out publicly supporting or not supporting the ammo ban. He supported the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban the Democrats tried to cram down our throats after Sandy Hook, so we already know where he stands on AR-15's and the ammunition they use.
It doesn't really matter if he came out publicly supporting or not supporting the ammo ban. He supported the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban the Democrats tried to cram down our throats after Sandy Hook, so we already know where he stands on AR-15's and the ammunition they use.
Basically this. The fucking commie president needs a legacy. You can bet before the d-bag leaves office he will attempt to force some type of gun legislation down our throats with executive order.
Bullshit. In 1576 most weapons were wheel locks or even triggerless match locks. Snaphaunces were high tech and virtually unknown, and the flintlock wasn't even yet an idea. By 1776 the Founding Fathers had seen two of the biggest innovations, the rifle replacing the smoothbore musket and the Ferguson rifle, within their lifetimes. Washington had in fact faced the Ferguson rifle at Brandywine, so he was hardly unaware of fast firing rifles (ten rounds a minute), and his use of flintlock rifles against a British army armed almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets (with the noted exception of Ferguson's experimental company) represented a military revolution in itself, as aimed fire replaced massed volley fire. Yet the Founding Fathers didn't seek to limit the arms available to citizens, they sought to encourage citizens to arms themselves.Gawd that's dishonest. "Better" is one thing, 200+ plus years of development is entirely another. At the time of the revolutionary war, firearms development had been stalled for nearly 200 years in which the flintlock reigned supreme.
To say that they expected the greater rate of change that took place more than strains credibility. They simply could not know, just as we don't know what the future will bring, either.
Air rifles are not firearms, by definition, so they're unregulated-
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html
Hairspray powered potato cannons, otoh, do fit the description.
All of which has Jack & Shit to do with M855 ammo.
Said no one, ever.
Bullshit. In 1576 most weapons were wheel locks or even triggerless match locks. Snaphaunces were high tech and virtually unknown, and the flintlock wasn't even yet an idea. By 1776 the Founding Fathers had seen two of the biggest innovations, the rifle replacing the smoothbore musket and the Ferguson rifle, within their lifetimes. Washington had in fact faced the Ferguson rifle at Brandywine, so he was hardly unaware of fast firing rifles (ten rounds a minute), and his use of flintlock rifles against a British army armed almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets (with the noted exception of Ferguson's experimental company) represented a military revolution in itself, as aimed fire replaced massed volley fire. Yet the Founding Fathers didn't seek to limit the arms available to citizens, they sought to encourage citizens to arms themselves.
Revolvers too date from the very late sixteenth century, their main limitations being limits in metallurgy and manufacturing, separation of charges prior to percussion caps being invented, and their extreme cost due to the huge number of required manhours by a highly trained gunsmith with precision equipment. Yet in the late eighteenth century a man with means could purchase a handgun capable of firing four to six shots (using separately loaded barrels) if he felt the need for such an expensive, fragile beast. One would have to be a complete moron to believe that firearm technology had been "stalled for nearly 200 years" when the Founding Fathers crafted our government.
Because I'm a nice guy, I'm not even going to ask you to prove that absolute unprovable negative.
Why would ivwshane or Jhhnn even post here?
Were they planning on building an AR this year?
concerned about the ammo scalpage/shortage (that really isn't)
why?
Do they even own guns?
Let's not forget Operation Choke point and those damned money laundering gun/ammo stores.It doesn't really matter if he came out publicly supporting or not supporting the ammo ban. He supported the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban the Democrats tried to cram down our throats after Sandy Hook, so we already know where he stands on AR-15's and the ammunition they use.
I'll gladly take back my statement if you can give me an example of any one active politician who has proposed such a thing.
"I will gladly retract the assertion that I have already made but won't defend, if you consent to my moving of the goal posts."
At least you know you guys are jerks.
Really you are: Liberal shills..both.
TBH..Nobody gives a crap about the stuff you guys post on this msg board.
You fucktards should be out of a job soon,or at least be assigned to troll somewhere else.
This is largely a tech site.
How's that WYSE box?
:awe:
Is it functioning well enough for you to troll here properly?
I'd bet it is only 50% of the time :awe:
So...
Genuine question:
When did the first laws restricting private ownership of cannons, mortars, or large volumes of gun powder get put on the books? Because those were around with the writing of the Constitution, and can cause more destruction than a even a modern rifle.
Gawd that's dishonest. "Better" is one thing, 200+ plus years of development is entirely another. At the time of the revolutionary war, firearms development had been stalled for nearly 200 years in which the flintlock reigned supreme.
To say that they expected the greater rate of change that took place more than strains credibility. They simply could not know, just as we don't know what the future will bring, either.
...
All of which has Jack & Shit to do with M855 ammo.
Bullshit. In 1576 most weapons were wheel locks or even triggerless match locks. Snaphaunces were high tech and virtually unknown, and the flintlock wasn't even yet an idea. By 1776 the Founding Fathers had seen two of the biggest innovations, the rifle replacing the smoothbore musket and the Ferguson rifle, within their lifetimes. Washington had in fact faced the Ferguson rifle at Brandywine, so he was hardly unaware of fast firing rifles (ten rounds a minute), and his use of flintlock rifles against a British army armed almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets (with the noted exception of Ferguson's experimental company) represented a military revolution in itself, as aimed fire replaced massed volley fire. Yet the Founding Fathers didn't seek to limit the arms available to citizens, they sought to encourage citizens to arms themselves.
Revolvers too date from the very late sixteenth century, their main limitations being limits in metallurgy and manufacturing, separation of charges prior to percussion caps being invented, and their extreme cost due to the huge number of required manhours by a highly trained gunsmith with precision equipment. Yet in the late eighteenth century a man with means could purchase a handgun capable of firing four to six shots (using separately loaded barrels) if he felt the need for such an expensive, fragile beast. One would have to be a complete moron to believe that firearm technology had been "stalled for nearly 200 years" when the Founding Fathers crafted our government.
Your argument is stupid and backed up by ZERO facts!
Bullshit. In 1576 most weapons were wheel locks or even triggerless match locks. Snaphaunces were high tech and virtually unknown, and the flintlock wasn't even yet an idea. By 1776 the Founding Fathers had seen two of the biggest innovations, the rifle replacing the smoothbore musket and the Ferguson rifle, within their lifetimes. Washington had in fact faced the Ferguson rifle at Brandywine, so he was hardly unaware of fast firing rifles (ten rounds a minute), and his use of flintlock rifles against a British army armed almost exclusively with smoothbore muskets (with the noted exception of Ferguson's experimental company) represented a military revolution in itself, as aimed fire replaced massed volley fire. Yet the Founding Fathers didn't seek to limit the arms available to citizens, they sought to encourage citizens to arms themselves.
Revolvers too date from the very late sixteenth century, their main limitations being limits in metallurgy and manufacturing, separation of charges prior to percussion caps being invented, and their extreme cost due to the huge number of required manhours by a highly trained gunsmith with precision equipment. Yet in the late eighteenth century a man with means could purchase a handgun capable of firing four to six shots (using separately loaded barrels) if he felt the need for such an expensive, fragile beast. One would have to be a complete moron to believe that firearm technology had been "stalled for nearly 200 years" when the Founding Fathers crafted our government.
Hey, I'm not the one who started arguing about the 2nd Amendment. I don't know who the hell did. But you're the one carrying on with it.
Your same argument however can be applied to...well, everything. The founding fathers saw the foundations for the industrial revolution being laid down, but since they are dimwits, had no idea what it meant. They never though free speech would evolve past yelling and printing things on a Gutenberg press. So bullhorns that are powered, internet, phone calls and such are clearly not protected under the first amendment. They wanted free speech, but not THIS much free speech!
It isn't dishonest to assert that the founding fathers knew progress would happen. If they wanted muskets only to be approved, they would have said as much. They left painted the bill of rights with very broad brush strokes for a damn good reason. Go read about the constitutional convention and all the details. Or don't. I don't give a fuck.
The founding fathers also had seen interchangeable parts (at least, Jefferson had - around the time of the constitutional convention.) IE, they saw the beginnings of weapons being mass produced.
Go read the heller decision, which very much looked at the intent of the 2nd.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It's why amendments were allowed
Remarkable effort, if entirely dishonest. The flintlock was introduced in 1610