arma virumque cano (et alia)
Really? I'd get to keep it?
Since they aren't really "free" your way to get them is misleading. And I don't have to enlist to own them. However I did buy them instead, yes the ones with the "giggle switches" and all. They are a lot of fun!
I did enlist, however, its been over three years since funding has allowed me to actually qualify with a weapon. That's why I went out and bought my own. Isnt that the mark of a professional? Buying your own tools? Had to draw the line at the Abrams though, the loan didn't come through. *grin*
As it happens, that's not necessary. I already have several rifles much like that (no full-auto capability, but I might equip one or more of them with a reasonable facsimile), despite my military service being in the distant past.Turns out that just living in a (somewhat) free country is enough to guarantee one's right to own what I like to call "regime change rifles."
My gun rights, protected by the Second Amendment, are not connected with serving in any military organization, no matter how much you delude yourself.But please, explain to us how one semiautomatic rifle is different from another? To be an assault rifle, the weapon must have full-auto capability, again, no matter how much gun control freaks try to deny the truth.
Please cite Supreme Court rulings that prove your gun accessories are protected under the 2nd amendment.
I don't need to. The plain text of the Second Amendment identifies each of us as having the right to own and carry firearms. That right requires the objects associated with exercising it. And the Ninth Amendment declares that we retain all rights not specified as being limited by government power.
Hog wash. The amendment does not protect your 30 capacity magazine. It might, if the court finds that, but a right to own, or even bare arms is not addressing accessories. In fact the right to bare arms has not yet been decided as an earlier post has described. Just because you think something doesn't make it a fact, especially since you are a known liar.
. . . or even bare arms is not addressing accessories. In fact the right to bare arms has not yet been decided . . . Is it just me, Greg, or do you also find it enormously amusing that you're being lectured on the Second Amendment by some anonymous coward who thinks ten percent of the Bill of Rights was devoted to protecting the right to wear short sleeves?
As usual, gun loons make no sense. Just here ti insult people.
Kurt, that would be amusing, if it weren't for the goal behind it. Of course, Anonymous thinks that the Constitution and the courts give us our rights, so it's probably hopeless to try to educate such a gun control freak.
You do need it, or these laws banning accessories would not be legal.
No thanks. I already have one. But thank you for the offer