Sarbanes: Your AR is a Weapon of War Not a Hunting Rifle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Robert2888

    Active Member
    Nov 5, 2013
    896
    Westmoreland,VA
    “These” people see the writing on the wall and are trying to disarm as many of the targeted population before the civil war starts. The problem is most of the people they are trying to disarm don’t or refuse to see what is headed straight at them.
     

    Kman

    Blah, blah, blah
    Dec 23, 2010
    11,991
    Eastern shore
    He is perfectly entitled to his opinion.
    His opinion is no more or less significant than mine.


    He is an ignorant wretch.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,828
    Bel Air
    I thought he was going to realize that the 2A was put in place to cover weapons of war.....then I read the rest.

    We should welcome any and all horrible laws infringing on our rights at this point. Would be even better if Trump replaces RBG.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Sarbanes’ opinion of which type of gun I should own (or worse which type he thinks I need) is irrelevant except for the fact that he holds political office.




    I remind my (increasingly fewer) liberal friends that every INDEPENDENCE DAY (not 4th of July) picnic that they ever went to, indeed our very nation, was only made possible because private citizens brought their privately-owned unregistered, unserialized, untraceable, maybe-even-made-at-home firearms to oppose a tyrannical government.



    The 2A does not establish a right to keep and bear arms, it merely references an inalienable pre-existing right. Having just overthrown what had become an oppressive government, our Founding Fathers did not include the 2A because they were thinking about food.


    (previewing my post, I saw my "signature" below, which reminds me that I need to head over to this government officials facebook page and inform him of my opinion of his opinion. I encourage everyone to do the same.)
     
    Last edited:

    Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,281
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Sarbanes’ opinion of which type of gun I should own (or worse which type he thinks I need) is irrelevant except for the fact that he holds political office.

    I own an AR-15 in case I need to kill someone. Sometimes people need to be killed; that is the stark reality of life. People should embrace that and not pretend they own it for target practice or hunting.

    QFT. That is about all that needs to be said.
     

    Library Guy

    Library Marksmanship Unit
    May 25, 2012
    888
    21108
    The right to keep and bear arms...

    Note the word arms. Now, Mr Senator, find me a dictionary that defines arms as tools or implements for hunting.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    34,027
    The right to keep and bear arms...

    Note the word arms. Now, Mr Senator, find me a dictionary that defines arms as tools or implements for hunting.

    Nitpicker!

    Resorting to definitions of words and phrases. Really. Next thing we know, you'll stoop to talking about things that are "in common use."
     

    Mike

    Propietario de casa, Toluca, México
    MDS Supporter
    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Sarbanes’ opinion of which type of gun I should own (or worse which type he thinks I need) is irrelevant except for the fact that he holds political office.

    I own an AR-15 in case I need to kill someone. Sometimes people need to be killed; that is the stark reality of life. People should embrace that and not pretend they own it for target practice or hunting.

    Sarbanes: "Your AR is a Weapon of War"-- Not yet, its not.


    Exactly! Let the MGA and dopes like him continue down their path to ruin and then 'let's see what happens next'.
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Sarbanes’ opinion of which type of gun I should own (or worse which type he thinks I need) is irrelevant except for the fact that he holds political office.

    I own an AR-15 in case I need to kill someone. Sometimes people need to be killed; that is the stark reality of life. People should embrace that and not pretend they own it for target practice or hunting.

    This whole quote is retarded. But, so is he. The right to bear arm has nothing to do with hunting. And, weapons take rounds or bullets, not numbers.

    Your wrong.

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes" Last time I checked hunting was a lawful purpose for a firearm. I believe what you want to say is that it is not limited to hunting.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,191
    Your wrong.

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes" Last time I checked hunting was a lawful purpose for a firearm. I believe what you want to say is that it is not limited to hunting.

    Actually I believe what I want to say is that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

    The full quote you referenced is
    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
    from District of Columbia vs. Heller.

    Besides that, there is no legal hunting in DC so hunting is irrelevant to the argument.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,393
    Messages
    7,279,873
    Members
    33,445
    Latest member
    ESM07

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom