The second amendment doesn't mention hunting, but it also doesn't mention mass shootings or semi-automatic weapons. But it does reference a "well regulated" militia... I'm still waiting for that part in quotes. And if these wanna me militia types are so gung ho on assault rifles, maybe they should actually join a militia like the national guard.
And depending on what your definition of short range is, I might argue the "far more destructive" part. That aside, I'd much rather have a situation where a guy gets off 7-8 shotgun shells and has to reload one by one, then a guy with quickly exchangeable 30 rd magazines.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.
If you accept that, it then becomes a question of where to draw the line. E.g., to oppose the US military, you'll probably want, say, tanks and bombers, too, but is it reasonable to allow any individual to have that sort of power (Bush and Obama have taken it upon themselves to use that kind of power, but that's another thread)? Probably not. Anti-gun folks love to make this argument and then but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.
And as I've said privately before, if it comes to the point where the US gov't is using tanks and bombers on its citizens, we're probably already so far gone as a society that you're gonna be wishing you had made nice with that armed "good ol' boy" down the street. The zombies are probably coming next!
I'll end by saying I can't believe no one has made a Wolverines reference yet, in all this assault rifle chatter.
To me the 2nd amendment is ridiculous and needs a serious update. But you are right, by those terms assault rifles by right should be legal to the common citizen (this is why the 2nd amendment in it's current form is insane in my opinion).
Any weapon that is capable of being converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
If someone can come up with a way to belt feed a Remington 30.06 hunting rifle to fire off 3 rounds a second... then, that gun will fall under that category, too... so, quit trying to convert your bolt action rifle to a deer migration slaughtering machine.
Wasn't looking for further clarification. Was responding to someone else who was implying this thread didn't have a point.
The point that I believe OP was trying to make is that it's easy enough to demand a ban on assault rifles, such that even moderate gun-control people would agree with it, particularly in light of the recent tragedy. But then you get down to defining what that means, as this thread has done fairly well, and you're left with the highly restrictive notions being put forth here. If you're going to call for bans (of anything -- guns, carburetors, potted plants), it's good to know specifically what you're signing up for.
It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.
The second amendment doesn't mention hunting, but it also doesn't mention mass shootings or semi-automatic weapons. But it does reference a "well regulated" militia... I'm still waiting for that part in quotes. And if these wanna me militia types are so gung ho on assault rifles, maybe they should actually join a militia like the national guard.
And depending on what your definition of short range is, I might argue the "far more destructive" part. That aside, I'd much rather have a situation where a guy gets off 7-8 shotgun shells and has to reload one by one, then a guy with quickly exchangeable 30 rd magazines.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, at the very least, the potential tyranny of an excessively powerful government. One could also argue it's intent was to allow citizens to protect themselves from ANY oppressive, violent force, whether gov't-sourced or not. Bolt-action rifles, which we've established are really just for hunting, are not reasonably sufficient to form this kind of militia around.
If you accept that, it then becomes a question of where to draw the line. E.g., to oppose the US military, you'll probably want, say, tanks and bombers, too, but is it reasonable to allow any individual to have that sort of power (Bush and Obama have taken it upon themselves to use that kind of power, but that's another thread)? Probably not. Anti-gun folks love to make this argument and then but then look at the arab spring. It doesn't take 100s of billions of dollars of military gear to effect change if you have a will and some form of a way. But you still need some kind of a way.
And as I've said privately before, if it comes to the point where the US gov't is using tanks and bombers on its citizens, we're probably already so far gone as a society that you're gonna be wishing you had made nice with that armed "good ol' boy" down the street. The zombies are probably coming next!
I'll end by saying I can't believe no one has made a Wolverines reference yet, in all this assault rifle chatter.
Why yes, the fine young Wolverines fended off the Russians without assault weapons (although i think they acquired some )
But like you eluded to, fighting off a tyrannical government isn't going to happen anyway in this age, with all the advance weapons at their disposal.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This discussion has made me realize that I technically own an assault rifle, although not in the traditional sense. I have a 30 round banana clip for my .22 rifle. The clips that came with the gun only hold ten rounds.
My intention was only to assault pop cans and I bought it so I wouldn't have to reload as often.
...
A Ruger 10-22? A fun gun to shoot for target practice.
But, yeah, I can see it capable of doing significant damage when you decide to flip the silicone switch and take out your frustrations at the local mall. A couple of banana clips duct taped to flip-clips... you can see how it can go from 10 to 60 rounds with no gunsmithing skills other than knowing which is the sticky side of duct tape, right?
Also, does you gun fire standard .22 caliber rounds... or .223 long rifle rounds? That makes a difference, too.
Yeah, it's a Ruger 10-22.
It doesn't fire .223 rounds ... a substantial conversion would be required.
Wasn't looking for further clarification. Was responding to someone else who was implying this thread didn't have a point.
The point that I believe OP was trying to make is that it's easy enough to demand a ban on assault rifles, such that even moderate gun-control people would agree with it, particularly in light of the recent tragedy. But then you get down to defining what that means, as this thread has done fairly well, and you're left with the highly restrictive notions being put forth here. If you're going to call for bans (of anything -- guns, carburetors, potted plants), it's good to know specifically what you're signing up for.
..
Oh, I understand... i just wanted people to get a mental image of a hunting team with a belt fed Remington rifle, mowing down a herd of migrating deer in the beautiful plains of our nation.
I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).
Home defense... yes. a .357, .38, .44 and 9mm has plenty of stopping power. The sound of a shotgun gun shell being loaded into the breach should scare the shit out of 99% of burglars... the sound of it firing will convince the remainder.
Along with ownership, the responsibility of ownership. That includes training for everyone in the household. And if you have a kid with emotional problems... it is your responsibility to do everything it take to keep those weapons out of his hands... up to and including removing either the kid or the weapons from your home.
I believe the time for rhetoric and bumber sticker slogans has ended and the time for reasoned debate has come. Too bad it took the murders of 20 five and six year olds to get there, but we really need to sit down... put the hysteria on both sides down... quit being children and come up with a reasonable, adult solution to resovle this thing. It won't mean ALL gun violence end... I'm just sick of it becoming a normal and defining aspect of who we are.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.
For the most part at this point, I agree, but I would offer that this particular forum does not necessarily reflect the views of the populace at large, whether left OR right.
Yeah, it's a Ruger 10-22.
It doesn't fire .223 rounds ... a substantial conversion would be required.
A - .22
B - .223
...
Yeah. I know the Ruger 10-22... it is fun because it is light and accurate. Real fun to target practice from a fairly good distance.
and it IS capable of creating harm, just as a lot of weapons are. But, me... personally, I don't believe a Ruger 10-22 falls into the same category as an AR-15 (that fires a .223 caliber load). The .223 packs a wallop that will rip your innerds apart.
That is part of the 'reasonable' debate that America MUST take. Don't ban the Ruger 10-22 by lumping it in with the AR-15.... and don't argue that if the Ruger 10-22 is leagal, the AR-15 should be legal, too. Reasonable debate... something like, 'Would you take a Ruger 10-22 into the Afghani battlefield wth you?'
I think we can all come to a resonable conclusion... not necessarily everything we want... but, that's what happens when we decide to live in a society of civil people. We don't get everything we want.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).
I respect your opinion, Cosmo, and generally enjoy how you express yourself on this site -- can't say that about everyone I read. However, I don't understand how you can claim that you believe in second amendment rights and then continue with your semi tongue-in-cheek hunting hyperbole.
I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).
I respect your opinion, Cosmo, and generally enjoy how you express yourself on this site -- can't say that about everyone I read. However, I don't understand how you can claim that you believe in second amendment rights and then continue with your semi tongue-in-cheek hunting hyperbole.
...
No. i'm for hunting as sport. It's just that 'Hunting' has taken a odd term.
Hunting... as most of us think... is gong out in the brush and pretty much thinking like our ancent ancestors... or the natural predators of the forests and plains. Except for the part where the wolves work in packs and run down the weakest prey, instead of shooting them from a distance. But, i understand, we are not wolves. It seems like sport and the reward is red meat for the Winter.
But, hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head, execution style. It's funny to me... not very sporting... which explains why I see a loyt of fat, out of shape hunters out there. you don't burn many calories, sitting around, waiting to ambush an unsuspecting, horny deer.
...
Also... where in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned? I must have missed that part.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.
For the most part at this point, I agree, but I would offer that this particular forum does not necessarily reflect the views of the populace at large, whether left OR right.
I agree, very small sample size and mostly left leaning folks here, this being a PJ forum and all. Curious as to what the OP was looking for though.
No. i'm for hunting as sport. It's just that 'Hunting' has taken a odd term.
Hunting... as most of us think... is gong out in the brush and pretty much thinking like our ancent ancestors... or the natural predators of the forests and plains. Except for the part where the wolves work in packs and run down the weakest prey, instead of shooting them from a distance. But, i understand, we are not wolves. It seems like sport and the reward is red meat for the Winter.
But, hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head, execution style. It's funny to me... not very sporting... which explains why I see a loyt of fat, out of shape hunters out there. you don't burn many calories, sitting around, waiting to ambush an unsuspecting, horny deer.
...
Also... where in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned? I must have missed that part.
This is a small part of what I was talking about in my post you quoted. Crack my shit up dude, even while I'm disagreeing with you.
Anyhow, maybe we're just having a communication problem because you made my point in your last sentence. The 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting, so the argument that "you don't need to fire 30 rounds in 7 seconds to kill a deer" is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment debate.
hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head
wrong...wouldn't shoot it in the head. If so, then after gutting, & while you were peeling the skin off the bone of the torso/head & you would discover that there would be a gaping bullet wound in the skull & that would ruin the majestic, lifeless deer mount that would normally be proudly displayed on a wall...& then your friends would complain
hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head
wrong...wouldn't shoot it in the head. If so, then after gutting, & while you were peeling the skin off the bone of the torso/head & you would discover that there would be a gaping bullet wound in the skull & that would ruin the majestic, lifeless deer mount that would normally be proudly displayed on a wall...& then your friends would complain
So the hole in its head would ruin the majesticity of the animal, not the actual ending of its life?
hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head
wrong...wouldn't shoot it in the head. If so, then after gutting, & while you were peeling the skin off the bone of the torso/head & you would discover that there would be a gaping bullet wound in the skull & that would ruin the majestic, lifeless deer mount that would normally be proudly displayed on a wall...& then your friends would complain
So the hole in its head would ruin the majesticity of the animal, not the actual ending of its life?
the mob's weapon of choice back in the day was a .22, it was quiet and it had enough power to break the skull but not break out so it would just rattle around in your head turning your brain to mush.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
wrong...wouldn't shoot it in the head. If so, then after gutting, & while you were peeling the skin off the bone of the torso/head & you would discover that there would be a gaping bullet wound in the skull & that would ruin the majestic, lifeless deer mount that would normally be proudly displayed on a wall...& then your friends would complain
So the hole in its head would ruin the majesticity of the animal, not the actual ending of its life?
the mob's weapon of choice back in the day was a .22, it was quiet and it had enough power to break the skull but not break out so it would just rattle around in your head turning your brain to mush.
...
Key note being... "back in the day".
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
the mob's weapon of choice back in the day was a .22, it was quiet and it had enough power to break the skull but not break out so it would just rattle around in your head turning your brain to mush.
the mob's weapon of choice back in the day was a .22, it was quiet and it had enough power to break the skull but not break out so it would just rattle around in your head turning your brain to mush.
...
Key note being... "back in the day".
like the Bill of Rights
...
Sort of... I guess.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
...
The mob used to use .22 caliber pistols... mostly in executions type murders, to the head.
Probably a bit different from the Right to own weapons.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
i think our government considers most of our militias terrorists. can't say i blame them, seems like it's mostly hateful, ignorant angry people. which is a shame, because i would love to join a good militia as like a shooting club or something. meet once a week to hit the range and shoot the shit.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I assume the reason no one had previously answered your question is because no one believe you didn't actually know the answer.
Actually, there's quite a bit of firearm ignorance on this site. It's not unreasonable to think that people don't know what in the fuck they're talking about when it comes to the details of firearms, which could lead someone to the conclusion that many people here are just knee jerk reactionaries.
Look at this thread you're in. We're down to assualt rifles being pretty much anything other than a 3-round bolt-action hunting rifle. One person was willing to concede that handguns were not assualt rifles/weapons, but you wouldn't get that agreement from everyone on this site/thread.
The point is that it's easy and feels good and self-fulfilling to scream "BAN ASSAULT RIFLES" because everyone who does is so cock-sure they're in the right, especially in light of the recent tragedy. But when you get past the fervor, it becomes clear we're not just talking about banning those "scary" AR-15s that look like what we see in movies about US Navy SEALs -- which I realize it feels very good and warm and fuzzy to ban -- we're talking about an across-the-board ban on everything that doesn't look like something that John Wayne would have strapped to his saddle in an old Western.
Finally. Thank you. Everyone wants to ban something that they can't even accurately define.
I'm pretty sure there are some militias groups or whatever title we might want to use,
that are intelligent thoughtful people.
They are regular people, prepared, they do not trust the powers that be. Can't blame them.
Who would possibly trust our political system ... well maybe sheep might.
I look at them as boy scouts. Ready to help all those who need it
if or when the time comes.
And damn a cold beer and conversation with a few of them is a good old time
Interesting thread.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
But the 2nd amendment was also written at a time when its authors could imagine no weapon more powerful than a cannon. And if a citizen set up a cannon on his property, either the town fathers or the local militia would come calling sooner rather than later. And they would be asking the logical question, "Why do you need this?" before hauling said cannon away.
That's funny, you must've lived in the times.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
In your words, not wiki's. I've asked numerous times for a definition but still haven't received one.
Many on here want "assault weapons" banned, I want to know what they are.
...
A civilian derivative of a military styled, long barreled gun that is capable of firing multiple rounds from a high capacity magazine. Examples of such a weapon is an AR-15, AK-47, AK-74, etc...
This also includes short weapons, such as the Uzi, Mac-10 and Tec 9 automatic pistol. Pretty much any weapon that is magazine or drum fed that is capable of being converted from a semi-automatic state to fully automatic.
...
Weapons such as the .50 caliber sniper rifle should fall into the banned from civilian use because we really don't want anyone outside of our military and/or law enforcement listing 'Sniper' as their occupation.... do we?
...
Weapons that do not fall under this classification. Bolt or lever action rifles up to .30 caliber. Non-drum loaded shotguns. Revolvers and semi-automatic pistols (with no greater capacity than 13 rounds, or the nominal length of the grip). A .357 or .38 caliber is sufficient for home defense... as is a 9mm or .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun. .30 caliber hunting rifles and shotguns are capable sporting rifles.
Good reply. Although I don't necessarily agree it was obviously thought out.
are those damn things kill people????are those fuckin things used to kill 20 innocent children 2 days ago??
YES...
i dont fuckin need to know any other details for not like them..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Comments
To me the 2nd amendment is ridiculous and needs a serious update. But you are right, by those terms assault rifles by right should be legal to the common citizen (this is why the 2nd amendment in it's current form is insane in my opinion).
It seems there is a consensus here, most have the same idea of what they are calling to ban.
Why yes, the fine young Wolverines fended off the Russians without assault weapons (although i think they acquired some
But like you eluded to, fighting off a tyrannical government isn't going to happen anyway in this age, with all the advance weapons at their disposal.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It doesn't fire .223 rounds ... a substantial conversion would be required.
A - .22
B - .223
Oh, I understand... i just wanted people to get a mental image of a hunting team with a belt fed Remington rifle, mowing down a herd of migrating deer in the beautiful plains of our nation.
I also strongly believe in the Constitution of our land and the 2nd Amendment rights of our people.
BUT... I believe that right does not include every weapon created. No 30 caliber machine guns... no .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of Ford F150s... no M-16 or AK-47s or .50 caliber sniper rifles (because, if you need to shoot that deer driving a HMMWV from a mile away... you suck at hunting and should probably take up fishing, instead).
Home defense... yes. a .357, .38, .44 and 9mm has plenty of stopping power. The sound of a shotgun gun shell being loaded into the breach should scare the shit out of 99% of burglars... the sound of it firing will convince the remainder.
Along with ownership, the responsibility of ownership. That includes training for everyone in the household. And if you have a kid with emotional problems... it is your responsibility to do everything it take to keep those weapons out of his hands... up to and including removing either the kid or the weapons from your home.
I believe the time for rhetoric and bumber sticker slogans has ended and the time for reasoned debate has come. Too bad it took the murders of 20 five and six year olds to get there, but we really need to sit down... put the hysteria on both sides down... quit being children and come up with a reasonable, adult solution to resovle this thing. It won't mean ALL gun violence end... I'm just sick of it becoming a normal and defining aspect of who we are.
Hail, Hail!!!
The silence is deafening.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yeah. I know the Ruger 10-22... it is fun because it is light and accurate. Real fun to target practice from a fairly good distance.
and it IS capable of creating harm, just as a lot of weapons are. But, me... personally, I don't believe a Ruger 10-22 falls into the same category as an AR-15 (that fires a .223 caliber load). The .223 packs a wallop that will rip your innerds apart.
That is part of the 'reasonable' debate that America MUST take. Don't ban the Ruger 10-22 by lumping it in with the AR-15.... and don't argue that if the Ruger 10-22 is leagal, the AR-15 should be legal, too. Reasonable debate... something like, 'Would you take a Ruger 10-22 into the Afghani battlefield wth you?'
I think we can all come to a resonable conclusion... not necessarily everything we want... but, that's what happens when we decide to live in a society of civil people. We don't get everything we want.
Hail, Hail!!!
No. i'm for hunting as sport. It's just that 'Hunting' has taken a odd term.
Hunting... as most of us think... is gong out in the brush and pretty much thinking like our ancent ancestors... or the natural predators of the forests and plains. Except for the part where the wolves work in packs and run down the weakest prey, instead of shooting them from a distance. But, i understand, we are not wolves. It seems like sport and the reward is red meat for the Winter.
But, hunting has become... sit in a tree... spray deer bait (canned deer pussy smell) and shoot the male deer, who thinks he is going to get laid, in the head, execution style. It's funny to me... not very sporting... which explains why I see a loyt of fat, out of shape hunters out there. you don't burn many calories, sitting around, waiting to ambush an unsuspecting, horny deer.
...
Also... where in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned? I must have missed that part.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree, very small sample size and mostly left leaning folks here, this being a PJ forum and all. Curious as to what the OP was looking for though.
Anyhow, maybe we're just having a communication problem because you made my point in your last sentence. The 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting, so the argument that "you don't need to fire 30 rounds in 7 seconds to kill a deer" is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment debate.
wrong...wouldn't shoot it in the head. If so, then after gutting, & while you were peeling the skin off the bone of the torso/head & you would discover that there would be a gaping bullet wound in the skull & that would ruin the majestic, lifeless deer mount that would normally be proudly displayed on a wall...& then your friends would complain
So the hole in its head would ruin the majesticity of the animal, not the actual ending of its life?
Key note being... "back in the day".
Hail, Hail!!!
touche'...well played...didn't notice the
Sort of... I guess.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
...
The mob used to use .22 caliber pistols... mostly in executions type murders, to the head.
Probably a bit different from the Right to own weapons.
Hail, Hail!!!
I have a job junior.
Finally. Thank you. Everyone wants to ban something that they can't even accurately define.
That job did not prevent you from posting in other threads since you started this one, did it?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
that are intelligent thoughtful people.
They are regular people, prepared, they do not trust the powers that be. Can't blame them.
Who would possibly trust our political system ... well maybe sheep might.
I look at them as boy scouts. Ready to help all those who need it
if or when the time comes.
And damn a cold beer and conversation with a few of them is a good old time
Interesting thread.
That's funny, you must've lived in the times.
Ever heard of a break period?
Good reply. Although I don't necessarily agree it was obviously thought out.
YES...
i dont fuckin need to know any other details for not like them..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”