LeviF

In large part this is because the GOP hasn't resembled anything remotely close to "conservative" since Reagan took office.

Must have been the US Army's new sidearm

Exactly. We hear the calls for banning "assault weapons" because they're low-hanging fruit. It was the same with SBR's and full autos back when the NFA was passed. It's easy to ban "assault weapons" because they're scary looking, on the "edge" of gun ownership, and look like what you see soldiers carrying. In a few years everyone forgets that this concession was made and then gun-grabbers go after the next "edge" weapons, maybe handguns or semi-autos generally. The middle then gets smaller. Rinse and repeat until only criminals and the government have guns and it's illegal to defend yourself. At some point gun owners have to take a non-negotiable stance or we might as well toss out the rest of the Constitution too. If we can be that liberal about the phrase "shall not be infringed" then why pretend we have any rights at all?

My bank account and I know that feeling well, brother

I would be furious if the NRA came to the table. They've wasted enough of our money. The bump stock thing after Vegas was the last straw, and I don't even own (or want) a bump stock. My money goes to GOA now.

Here's my point: discussions with gun-grabbers are completely fruitless and no longer an option for someone who actually cares about their 2nd amendment rights.

It wasn't poorly worded at all; the fact that you can't understand plain English that's only <250 years old doesn't make you smarter than the founders. But if you really think you are, then change it. There's an avenue to change the Constitution, use it and stop being coy about it.

Ignorant? No. Condescending? Yes, because you're just another in a long line of fudds who have no real interest in 2nd amendment rights as long as they can shoot durr and try to zero in their .30-06 for 6 hours taking up 3 benches at the range.

Oh good, another fudd. So in order for a rifle to be an assault rifle, it has to be selective fire. How difficult is it to obtain a selective fire weapon? "Assault weapon" is still a term invented by politicians. Hence why it's different in different jurisdictions.

See, here's the problem. "Assault weapon" is a leftist media/politician creation. As is "extended clip" and "armor piercing ammo." They're terms used to scare people into complying with gun-grabbing.

To properly clean an AR-15, you must field strip it. This goes for virtually every gun. You can do a quick clean (just the barrel and a couple other parts) by simply taking the upper part away from the lower part of the gun.

I have a full size for home defense as well as my "oh ****" gun for work. Granted, I'm a 6'4" tall man, but with minimal range time you can get a smaller person comfortable with it since it's relatively lightweight. Some modifications are probably necessary to make it super effective for home defense (a front hand grip, for instance) but the fact that it's so customizable and can be built around several different calibers allows pretty much anyone to put together an AR that works for them. In a perfect world? Sure. Here? Not so much. This is a boring strawman and I'm bored

Then make one. End of story.

I don't even bother with that anymore, because it just turns into "well that Brady bill seems pretty good" and then I bang my head on my desk. Forget the fact that the AR chambered in 5.56 is arguably the best home defense weapon in existence.

Skipping the fact that these are all infringements for now. Who does the psych e v a l? What are the criteria? Who decides what social media (free speech) keeps you from gun ownership? You can show yourself out now, Fudd.

Care to share the details of these school shootings? Hint: one is a negligent discharge. And it's not the only one of its kind.

- Top law school - NYLS Pick one. A-!@#$in-men to that

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Except, again, it never ends. Even if you want to call it "common sense," it won't stop at common sense. History bears this out and Dianne Feinstein and her ilk prove me right every day.

No.

If that's even true, they're still compromises. And you're just proving my point when I say that leftists just want to ban all guns. It's ok if you want God-Emperor Trump to have control over all weapons in America. Just say it.

Are you even reading what the !@#$ I'm typing? Doesn't anyone notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

NFA, 1934 FFA, 1938 GCA, 1968 CCA, 1990 Brady Bill, 1994 The introduction of the Brady Bill is really the first time the NRA fought for anything, and even then it passed by a wide margin.

If it's not applicable then change it. There's a method to it spelled out in the document itself. And that's not how the Constitution works. It's designed to limit what the government does, not spell out each individual protection that each right enumerates to American citizens. So when it says "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be violated," that's speaking directly to government and telling them what they cannot do, not what individual Americans can or cannot do.

No, you haven't. Frankly, I don't believe you, and I don't believe any gun-grabber when they say things like that. Gun owners have agreed to compromises many times only to have it thrown back in their faces by the same !@#$s who made them promises. Enough is enough. I refuse to compromise on my 2nd Amendment rights. Have you been paying attention? They can't and they won't. The most potent political force "for" 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA who just recently decided to compromise on certain firearm parts and accessories. Don't put words in my mouth.