Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Anti-gun loon gets owned


Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L

Recommended Posts

Polite, firm, kept trying to get the panty wetting schill to clearly answer one question rather than go haring off onto another. Didn't let him twist words and meanings. Called him on the "well what about nuclear weapons" and "why a grenade launcher" hysterics.

 

A thing of beauty.

Link to comment

He couldn't seem to get the news guy to give him a straight answer, could he? Present 'em with facts, they answer with emotion.

 

"You're armed. That's scary to me."

 

I read a psychological treatise recently about projection, and that's exactly what the news guy in this case, who obviously thinks an AK47 is some sort of grenade launcher, is doing. "I don't want the guy down the street to have an AK47 because he'll go nuts and kill people with it."

 

Guns are hallucinogenic? Who knew?

 

PS I posted that one on Facebook.

Link to comment

I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance."

Link to comment

I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance."

 

But if you look at the powers of Congress, one of them is to issue letters of marque and reprisal. That power supposes private ownership of cannon since the Navy doesn't need letters of marque.

Link to comment

I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance."

I like that! Can I quote you elsewhere?

Link to comment

I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance."

Great explanation Birdgun, maybe you outta go on TV!!

 

:) Rye

Link to comment

Yes, you are correct. The commentator was clearly owned. Unfortunately, there will be no rational discussion until the hysteria ends. :(

And the hysteria is perpetual with the left-ee-leanie wennies.

 

GG

Link to comment

And the hysteria is perpetual with the left-ee-leanie wennies.

 

GG

 

Yep. Every time they claim they want a "rational discussion" they end up trotting out the "nuclear weapons" trope (meme?). Or the claim that the pro-civil rights side dreams of having a 5 year old toting a Пистолет-пулемёт Шпагина and festooned with drum magazines.

Link to comment

 

 

Hey! Then I could have foreign affairs!

 

um...

 

 

was that my outside keyboard I used?

And after you leave you could get $200,000.00 per speaking engagement.

Too bad you can't get that Senator's pension too. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.