Posted on 08/12/2019 3:03:15 AM PDT by marktwain
“Assault weapon” under proposed Florida ballot initiative. “Assault weapon” in New Jersey, 1990-2018. Banned in Australia.
A political activist on twitter posted a non-argument about “assault weapons” on 4 August, 2019. He got over 8 thousand retweets and 57 thousand likes. How many of those were bots is unknown.
Jason Isbell wrote if you argue about the definition of an “assault weapon” you are part of the problem. He claimed his opponents know what an assault weapon is, and know they do not need one.
The rifle pictured above has been one of the most popular hunting rifles in the United States. It was legally an “assault weapon” in New Jersey from 1990 to 2018. It is proposed as an “assault weapon” in the Florida petition to amend the state Constitution. It is banned in Australia.
The term “assault weapon” has never been clearly defined in dictionaries. It is a legal term. From the outset, those pushing for a disarmed population have deliberately sought to confuse the public about the term and what it means.
They point to fully automatic firearms on TV ads, then they include common, everyday rifles, pistols, and shotguns in their legal definitions.
Below is the tweet meant to convince people that facts and definitions are not important. Tweet that assault weapon definition is unimportant.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, they say.
These two things may seem contradictory, but they are not. They both work to strengthen government power.
I am becoming an accelerationist. I am starting to think people should get what they want. Good and hard.
I’m not sure but I think my intelligence is being “assaulted”. Can you define that?
More and more I'm hearing the term 'assault-style weapon', which is an even more silly term.
BUT, by saying 'assault-style weapon', they're now getting around the standard definition of 'assault weapon', that being select-fire.
No question in my mind that every day we see even more things we thought we would never see. The Brown Shirt Media losing it’s grip for one thing. NOBODY believes them any more. Ferinstance this Epstein thing. NOBODY believes the “official story”. People are divided on “hit” or “witness protection” but no one believes “suicide”.
I agree with him. It’s a stupid semantic argument.
Semantics are law.
Words mean things.
The “militia” mentioned in the 2nd amendment was defined in several rulings by the SCOTUS as a body of citizens organized for military purposes. They then went on to say that when summoned to appear as members of the militia, they were expected to appear with weapons supplied by themselves and of the type in common military use at the time. (Presser vs Illinois, Miller)
Accordingly, the firearms that that citizen militia should have access to should have the most direct military utility of those available. For example, the AR-15 in 5.56 NATO configuration is the closest modern equivalent to the Brown Bess musket for an armed citizenry. It’s ammo is interchangeable with standard military ammunition, almost all of it’s parts; save those of the fire control group that enable selective fire options, are interchangeable with Mi6/M4 variants also.
Semi-auto fire from an individual non belt fed shoulder firearm is superior to full auto fire for most tactical situations anyway, save for gaining initial fire superiority, suppressive fire, the final stages of an assault, and when firing along final protective lines in a defensive situation.
We must not be afraid to DEMAND access to military grade firearms, of whatever type, for the individual militia soldier. The 2nd amendment ain’t about shooting bunny rabbits. It is about protecting the community from internal and external threats, and opposing tyranny. In short “NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state.”
If the 2nd amendment isn’t about firearms SPECIFICALLY designed for military use, then the constitutional rationale for it is severely weakened.
I only use defensive weaponry.
Exactly correct.
As usual, the left is willing to lie, obfuscate and contradict itself to obtain what it wants.
They *insisted* the 2nd Amendment was all about the militia... until ... the obvious consequences are pointed out.
Then they insist that it is *not* about the militia, or military purposes.
When you start from the premises that the Constitution is an impediment, that lying to the people is always necessary to good government, and there is *no* higher authority than the government, the rest follows.
The question remains; are Assault Weapons ARMS?
If so my RIGHT to Keep and Bear them shall not be infringed.
I don’t need JUST one. Why do I know I’ll need more.
” they’re now getting around the standard definition of ‘assault weapon’, that being select-fire.”
half bricks/whole bricks?
The bottom line: You cannot ever trust the MORON LEFT to be honest on any subject.
LYING is their nature, just as slithering is the nature of a snake.
Yours, TMN78247
Something like that.
Yep...the Left has moved the goalposts again.
You can't be expected to head to the golf course with just one club in your bag.
Different situations call for different weapons clubs.
OK you gun grabbers!
BAN THESE! I DARE YA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.