And I thoroughly answered all of them in my responses, and you continued to almost completely side step all of it and move the goal post afterwords.
What? Where did I say that? And please do directly quote me.
Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny or insulting, but you do really seem to have some major reading comprehension issues. You might want to calm down, collect yourself, go back, and re-read what I wrote to gain an actual understand, because right now it just seems you're pulling things you wish I said out from out no where in order to build some ad hoc argument ie a strawman.
The freedom of expression in this country is enshrined in the 1st amendment along with free speech. The nothing about the 2nd amendment right to bear arms infringes on that. You are allowed to express yourself by protesting, rallying, speaking openly, and publishing anything you want. In fact the 1st and 2nd amendment often go hand in hand with using one to defend the other as we see with the open carry protest(hpngc south dallas TX mosque counter protest or nbpp paris TX protest) or using the freedom of speech to defend the freedom to bear arms, as I'm doing now.
Ehh, no. Every so often there's a mass shooting or school shooting, which are statistically very rare, and account for very small amount of total deaths.
And rifles(of which the ar-15 is a small subset) are only used in
less than a QUARTER of all mass shootings and
%3.4 of the firearm murders and %2.5 of the total homicides(knives, blunt objects and hands/feet account for more homicides).
And the fact that these fact that these kids are free to march up the down the streets protesting, regardless of how uninformed they are, proves their rights to freedom of expression are alive and well.
No, but, you're trying to limit my rights to bear arms based on what you arbitrarily think I need, based on what you arbitrarily consider to be a "military grade weapon", which is ridiculous to say the least.
And again, the common civilian AR-15 is not a 'military grade weapon'. It's not used by the military. It wasn't designed for use by the military, but specifically as a hunting and defense rifle. And while well made, isn't anywhere close to being the most power rifle even on the civilian market, seeing as it uses the same caliber rounds as a standard .22 handgun. It's just very VERY common, thus an easy target for scrutiny by the media and uninformed individuals.
Again, I already addressed your "need" argument, which I never made and specifically pointed out as being an illogical red herring.
And addressing the point about taking on a rouge government
^You can also add Hezbollah driving out the Israeli military in Lebanon in 2006 to that list.
Again goes back to reading comprehension.
Actually, you did.
http://www.thecoli.com/posts/28780747/
^^You
^^^See previous quotes addressing the "need" and "rouge government" point.
Actually, that's exactly what the 2nd amendment was originally written for. It guaranteed the rights of citizens(except enslaved and free blacks who weren't considered full citizens) to own ANY type of firearm, including the one's used by the military at the time. Only later would 'gun control' measure be put in place by federal acts and court cases to limit citizens second amendment rights- One of the earliest being those of the 'black codes' of the reconstruction era south.
And btw the "assault weapons" ban that you're referring to, was shown to have no discernible effect on lower gun violence or even mass shootings in the country when it was in place. And one of the reasons was because, like you don't for 'military grade', the congress didn't have a set definition for what it considered an "assault weapon", thus just came up with a ad hoc list of guns to be put on the ban list. The company that manufactured the ar-15 simply designed another model called the 'colt sporter' that essentially had the same specs to be sold for civilian use while the ban was in place.
The 2nd amendment doesn't restrict my access to any of those weapons. The National Firearm Act of 1934 does. There's nothing within the 2nd amendment itself that say I can't own an M16. If we repealed the 1934 NFA like we did with the 1994 AWB(technically expired) and kept the 2nd amendment, and I would be able to purchase and own all of those guns.
I don't see how we can continue to have this conversation if you insist on continuing to run away from the points being raised, and then moving the goal post.
.
