Why do so many people who claim to be ex-military say that AK-47’s and AR-15’s are only for the battlefield. Not home defense?
It is very concerning.
8 Likes
Those are the
“We support the 2nd Amendment, but” people.
10 Likes
Ah like how I support pizza but I just want to take the dough away!
3 Likes
I think it’s safe to assume that person is probably a keyboard sergeant.
3 Likes
Or if your vegan, the cheese… 
I believe it is because they claim to be ex-military. An honest person would not make that false claim. Oddly, the two true military weapons/weapons of war, that we still can and do legally possess as private citizens that also were not around at the writing of the 2A are the Garand and the 1911. They seem not, at present to take issue with those.
Also, those same people are unaware of the Girardoni air rifle, and auto-feed weapons that were available at the time the 2A was written. Clearly the Founding Fathers were aware of those firearms as Jefferson gave Lewis and Clark one of the Girandoni rifles to take on their expedition. People then and today, even legally own cannons, and we are still “allowed” to own tanks. With the right licensing/permits, the main gun can be functional, too. I have read about several companies that rent tanks and you can drive them around on their property, shoot the machine guns and fire the main guns.
4 Likes
Not for home defence…
2 Likes
They are non-thinking liberals regurgitating the ole hash.
6 Likes
I’ve taken a more aggressive approach. You either support the constitution and Bill of rights or you don’t. No more “common sense” reform.
I cannot understand how a veteran can take the oath we all swore seriously AND be in favor of gun control. We swore to protect the freedoms of this country, ALL of them not just the ones we like or agree with
8 Likes
Well, AZ candidate Mark Kelly is legit military but openly anti-2A.
2 Likes
he’s snowflake military… all glitter and no substance.
4 Likes
I know lots of military that are anti 2A. They are NOT on the sharp end of the stick and are more on the push end. 80% of the military will never fire or handle a weapon of any type in combat. There are also a great many that will never fire or handle a weapon EVER in their service careers. He!! one half (the enlisted Nuke half) of the Submarine Force will never have an opportunity to stand watch with a gun and unless they got lucky and were able to send 48 rounds down range in boot camp they never will unless it’s outside the Navy. Lots of rates and MOS’s are like that. While enjoyed the benefit that I didn’t have to take a CCW class I know a lot that used the same benefit with ZERO experience. Not that military experience will teach you anything about CCW unless you are one of the very rare few.
I don’t agree with the good Sergent and those like him, as my primary objective if I get into a gun fight is to end it as quickly as possible and to my best advantage. I will take every option on the table including the AR, AK, M1, M1A or a pointy stick.
Cheers,
Craig6
Cheers,
Craig6
9 Likes
You are well versed in history… I know of the Girardoi – 20 round magazine fed…and my dad brought his Garande and 1911 returning from Korea.
Many people seem to be willingly ignorant and are content with their ignorance…
1 Like
Those like D J Kenny O in the original post… state that when the Second Amendment was written we did not have AR-15s or AK-47s, (and remember, both semi-automatic and not selective fire…although the Constitution does not prohibit our having automatic firearms)… is not a valid argument.
When the First Amendment was written, we did not have computers, telephones or cellphones, the internet… so is the First Amendment Freedom of Speech ONLY for quill, ink and parchment? Is the First Amendment Freedom of the Press ONLY for newspapers? We did not have television or television news… did not have online news… nothing except newspapers and pamphlets.
By the way, the founders knew of semi-automatic repeating rifles… there were actually repeating air rifles and they were used in the Peninsular War by the forces of Napoleon and Wellesley… The Girardoni air rifle.
To argue that 'we did not have AR-15s when the Second Amendment was written not only tries to limit that and every other right to only what we might have had in the 1790s… it also tries to claim our founders, some of the most insightful and intelligent men… are actually ignorant and short sighted and stupid.
Those types are the Yes I support the Second Amendment, BUT … people. Usually they have little credibility and their argument fails to hold much authority or actual basis in reality.
4 Likes
Indeed.
We all say the military will help protect the Constitution, however, it seems we give far too much credit to the military and we should be selective.
How many former military vote for anti-gun Democrats… how many Democrat candidates and elected politicians who are anti-gun, are former military.
Indeed.
And, our founders knew of many innovations and did not expect us to remain at the technological level of flintlocks … as they even knew of the repeating air rifle… Girardoni air rifle
1 Like
Girardoni air rifle… yep, mentioned it myself.
Not only did Lewis and Clark carry one, it was used in the Peninsular War … Napoleon and Wellesley …
A repeating air rifle… .hmm, developed BEFORE the Second Amendment was written…
Those who argue the Second Amendment was written before ARs and AKs… seem to think the rights are limited to the technology of the time it was written… so that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech is only for ink, quill, and parchment… and Freedom of the Press is ONLY for newspapers, as computers, internet, Television all did not exist when the First was written… (hey, the same argument he made on the Second.)
I still say the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
1 Like
How about “common sense” PRESS control? Like make them report facts neutrally without editorializing.
10 Likes
That would be great.
They can editorialize all they want on the op-ed pages… but the actual news being reported … the facts and let us decide, would be a pleasant and refreshing change…
Hey… OANN is like that… hmmm
1 Like
Exactly, if it is editorialized it should be clearly recognizable as such. Like it should say CNN or MSNBC!
3 Likes
I wish that were enough.But with Fox coming out of the closet and transferring it’s flag to the left, we now have a one party news system where all the main line media outlets are concerned. Who is there now to tell us what gets left out, or just inst reported,? I think it will now become the stories we never see that will be the most important ones.
They are the A**es of the world.
1 Like