Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

perhaps you should reread that second amendment and tell mw where you see the word guns written.

Perhaps you need to read some context into the document to understand what the founders were writing.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

Perhaps you need to read some context into the document to understand what the founders were writing.

which is precisely what im talking about. it guarantees arms to citizens in order to maintain a well-ordered militia. the context implies it's a hedge against government misfeasance. nothing to do with hunting or protecting your home from a mean robber-man. and for that matter, arms is not limited to guns. do you also think private citizens should have the right to possess heavy artillery, tanks, or nuclear weapons? cos if not, then you're admitting that the constitution might be a little out of touch with reality on that score and some regulation is necessary, reasonable, and constitutional. if the government starts a monarchy-style takeover, the NRA isn't going to save it. that's the only right to keep and bear arms recognized by the constitution. so either you support the citizens' right to have enough weapons to fight off the us army, or you dont. and if you dont, all your arguments about your second amendment right to use machine guns to take down deer or the petty thief who tried to lift your wallet are for naught.

inmytree

guns don't kill careers...

calling those who have to use an automatic weapon to shoot the dangerous prairie dog terrorists does...

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

which is precisely what im talking about. it guarantees arms to citizens in order to maintain a well-ordered militia. the context implies it's a hedge against government misfeasance. nothing to do with hunting or protecting your home from a mean robber-man. and for that matter, arms is not limited to guns. do you also think private citizens should have the right to possess heavy artillery, tanks, or nuclear weapons? cos if not, then you're admitting that the constitution might be a little out of touch with reality on that score and some regulation is necessary, reasonable, and constitutional. if the government starts a monarchy-style takeover, the NRA isn't going to save it. that's the only right to keep and bear arms recognized by the constitution. so either you support the citizens' right to have enough weapons to fight off the us army, or you dont. and if you dont, all your arguments about your second amendment right to use machine guns to take down deer or the petty thief who tried to lift your wallet are for naught.

If that is what you got from reading the original texts, from your con law class, and from existing case law and court decisions, you're fooling yourself. It is pretty well accepted that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Arms = guns, make no mistake. But as with other rights (like speech) the court has created limits. So none of our rights is without some limits. Why you'd think the 2nd ammendment would be an all-or-nothing proposition is beyond me.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

If that is what you got from reading the original texts, from your con law class, and from existing case law and court decisions, you're fooling yourself. It is pretty well accepted that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Arms = guns, make no mistake. But as with other rights (like speech) the court has created limits. So none of our rights is without some limits. Why you'd think the 2nd ammendment would be an all-or-nothing proposition is beyond me.

my point is that it's not an all-or-nothing proposition and never has been. we've agreed the 2nd amendment is not to be literally interpreted and has some limitiations, thus my argument is sound in theory and we're only quibbling about the extent of such limitations. so dont go crying about your 2nd amendment rights in a gun control debate. they're not as relevant as the NRA wants to believe. thus why i dont understand why you're getting your panties in a twist about some regulation. the government decided heavy artillery was not protected by the second amendment, now it's deciding machine guns and assault rifles aren't either. what are you so upset about?

also, we haven't covered the bill of rights in con law yet... give me a few weeks and ill tell you what my professor thinks. this is from my own freelance work and classes i took in undergrad. you're an attorney yourself? or did you just read the NRA "how to sound smart in a gun control debate" handbook?

finally, my original point had nothing to do with one's right to own such a weapon. my point was that anyone who feels they have a NEED to own one is a little irrational.

hippiemom

Anyone who runs around blasting away at prairie dogs with a military-style assault rifle isn't quite right in the head, as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not surprised that they're flipping out over an off-hand remark. I mean, WTF?! Prairie dogs?!

It's crap like this that makes me reluctant to admit to being a gun owner. Reasonable people see this sort of nonsense and think we're all nuts.

Collin

hippiemom wrote:

It's crap like this that makes me reluctant to admit to being a gun owner. Reasonable people see this sort of nonsense and think we're all nuts.

Well then they wouldn't be reasonable.

But when more idiots get there hands on guns, reasonable people feel that something has to change.

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

my point is that it's not an all-or-nothing proposition and never has been. we've agreed the 2nd amendment is not to be literally interpreted and has some limitiations, thus my argument is sound in theory and we're only quibbling about the extent of such limitations. so dont go crying about your 2nd amendment rights in a gun control debate. they're not as relevant as the NRA wants to believe. thus why i dont understand why you're getting your panties in a twist about some regulation. the government decided heavy artillery was not protected by the second amendment, now it's deciding machine guns and assault rifles aren't either. what are you so upset about?

This makes no sense. Anytime the govt limits rights we should worry and be upset. When the patriot act was passed, did you tell people to quit bitching about their 4th ammendment rights? At least be consistent.

soulsinging wrote:

also, we haven't covered the bill of rights in con law yet... give me a few weeks and ill tell you what my professor thinks. this is from my own freelance work and classes i took in undergrad. you're an attorney yourself? or did you just read the NRA "how to sound smart in a gun control debate" handbook?
[/quote

I would not stoop to the depths to become an attorney. I was a political science graduate before you were born, and am a constitutional hobbiest. I have read con law books, and sat in on con law classes for fun. I have also read the NRA "how to sound smart in a gun control debate" which can make any 1st year law student look like a fool.

soulsinging wrote:

finally, my original point had nothing to do with one's right to own such a weapon. my point was that anyone who feels they have a NEED to own one is a little irrational.

As I said, I don't own one. But who are you to decide what someone else should own just because you don't like the way it looks?

jeffbr

hippiemom wrote:

Anyone who runs around blasting away at prairie dogs with a military-style assault rifle isn't quite right in the head, as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not surprised that they're flipping out over an off-hand remark. I mean, WTF?! Prairie dogs?!

It's crap like this that makes me reluctant to admit to being a gun owner. Reasonable people see this sort of nonsense and think we're all nuts.

I agree with you. I think it is over the top. I haven't hunted in years, and I've never owned an "assault weapon". My reponses were about why this guy lost his sponsors. He may have been perfectly correct and reasonable, but he should have considered his audience.

But like any thread remotely having to do with firearms, this has turned into a gun control debate.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

my point was that anyone who feels they have a NEED to own one is a little irrational.

As I said, I don't own one. But who are you to decide what someone else should own just because you don't like the way it looks?

I don't see soulsinging deciding anything. I'm not sure where you get the idea he is.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

This makes no sense. Anytime the govt limits rights we should worry and be upset. When the patriot act was passed, did you tell people to quit bitching about their 4th ammendment rights? At least be consistent.

yes, we should show some skepticism. but i fail to see a very compelling reason to fear for my rights when assault weapons are banned. not to say i agree with it, i think there are better ways to regulate weapons which i have gone over elsewhere. but on the scale of frightening government infringement of rights, this one doesn't even make the top 50.

jeffbr wrote:

I would not stoop to the depths to become an attorney. I was a political science graduate before you were born, and am a constitutional hobbiest. I have read con law books, and sat in on con law classes for fun. I have also read the NRA "how to sound smart in a gun control debate" which can make any 1st year law student look like a fool.

wouldnt stoop the the depths eh? ive got it now... you're one of those angry phd's who is starting to realize nobody listens to your "expert" opinion? funny thing was i was going to give you a little credit for your knowledge until you gave credence to the nra handbook... cos charlton heston and his ilk are clearly such renowned constitutional scholars. that's like saying jerry jenkins' interpretation of the establishment clause is probly as good as it gets.

jeffbr wrote:

As I said, I don't own one. But who are you to decide what someone else should own just because you don't like the way it looks?

i dont own one either. and im pretty apathetic to assault weapons bans. not strongly for or against them. i just happen to see the small purpose it is supposed to serve and think the "constitutional" fears it stokes are greatly exaggerated.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

I agree with you. I think it is over the top. I haven't hunted in years, and I've never owned an "assault weapon". My reponses were about why this guy lost his sponsors. He may have been perfectly correct and reasonable, but he should have considered his audience.

But like any thread remotely having to do with firearms, this has turned into a gun control debate.

YOU made it a gun control debate. my first post said almost exactly the same thing hippiemom just said... and you started spouting off about violent crime statistics and the stupidity of assault weapons bans.

know1

I agree with Mr. Zumbo that hunting with an assault weapon is just plain wrong. That being said, he should be smart enough to realize where his bread is buttered before he opens his mouth and jeopardizes his income.

onelongsong

here; prairie dogs are hunted not only to control the population; but because they carry plague. assult type rifles use small bullets with a long range. these are perfect but only available in assult type weapons.
we should also take note at the number of assult rifle owners. this clearly shows that a good number of americans own assult rifles.

baraka

Where do we draw the line? I mean, I grew up in the southeast and owning a gun is like a rite of passage. Hell, I didn't know they even made trucks without a gun rack until I moved away. I have no problem with responsible folks owning guns. But, where do we draw the line? At assault weapons, tanks, what? I just can't wrap my brain around the necessity of assault weapons. If one is a hunter, I think an assault weapon would diminish the 'sport'. If there are rodents that need to be extinguished due to spreading contagious diseases, it seems like a bunch of folks hunting them with assault weapons is an accident waiting to happen. Shouldn't the handling of nasty rodents be in the hands of professionals opposed to a bunch of assault weapon wielding yahoos?

onelongsong

baraka wrote:

Where do we draw the line? I mean, I grew up in the southeast and owning a gun is like a rite of passage. Hell, I didn't know they even made trucks without a gun rack until I moved away. I have no problem with responsible folks owning guns. But, where do we draw the line? At assault weapons, tanks, what? I just can't wrap my brain around the necessity of assault weapons. If one is a hunter, I think an assault weapon would diminish the 'sport'. If there are rodents that need to be extinguished due to spreading contagious diseases, it seems like a bunch of folks hunting them with assault weapons is an accident waiting to happen. Shouldn't the handling of nasty rodents be in the hands of professionals opposed to a bunch of assault weapon wielding yahoos?

and who will pay these professionals? and what makes assult weapons any more dangerous than any other rifle? it can't be the 30 round magazines because you can buy those for many rifles not designated as assult weapons. if i put a 50 round magazine on my .22 semi-auto does that make it an assult weapon?

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

...assult type rifles use small bullets with a long range. these are perfect but only available in assult type weapons...

which calibers are you referring to?

baraka

onelongsong wrote:

and who will pay these professionals?

It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.

onelongsong wrote:

and what makes assult weapons any more dangerous than any other rifle? it can't be the 30 round magazines because you can buy those for many rifles not designated as assult weapons. if i put a 50 round magazine on my .22 semi-auto does that make it an assult weapon?

a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Pacomc79

baraka wrote:

It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.




a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.

a .22 is a very small cartridge. That's probably where you are missing. No one would intentionally assault anything with the exception of rodents with 50 22 rounds. Can you kill people certainly, but it's not a military weapon in the least even with a 100 round drum.

any and all weapons can be dangerous even a BB/pellet rifle, BB guns can hold 300 BB's all of which can be fatal, but it's not an assault rifle.

Essentially you could have 5 .22 10 round clips and it wouldn't take you but about 30 seconds longer to shoot all of those rounds than with the 50 round clip if you knew what you were doing.

when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's) and the 7.62mm's and .45's cartriges and you put on plastic folding stocks and grenade launchers....that's more of an assault weapon.

you can't even really hunt with 50 rounds in a .22. I mean you can but it's a little silly bulky and heavy. The most useful it would be is at the gun range. I don't really care to kill anything but shooting clay pigeons and shooting targets is great fun.

Handguns are by far the most dangerous weapons available to the public, after that, legal weapons aren't really the issue.

I'm pretty consistant though from drugs to guns etc. I don't think laws do a thing to stop someone from buying a gun or drug if they really want one.

It's kind of a classic case of a certain group completely hating another and wanting rules imposed to fit thier particular ideal.

stupid and or violent people owning guns is a problem, but the same is true of the automobile. Enacting legislation, dosen't really do much to keep criminals away from killing machines.

baraka

Pacomc79 wrote:

a .22 is a very small cartridge. That's probably where you are missing. No one would intentionally assault anything with the exception of rodents with 50 22 rounds. Can you kill people certainly, but it's not a military weapon in the least even with a 100 round drum.

any and all weapons can be dangerous even a BB/pellet rifle, BB guns can hold 300 BB's all of which can be fatal, but it's not an assault rifle.

Essentially you could have 5 .22 10 round clips and it wouldn't take you but about 30 seconds longer to shoot all of those rounds than with the 50 round clip if you knew what you were doing.

when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's) and the 7.62mm's and .45's cartriges and you put on plastic folding stocks and grenade launchers....that's more of an assault weapon.

you can't even really hunt with 50 rounds in a .22. I mean you can but it's a little silly bulky and heavy. The most useful it would be is at the gun range. I don't really care to kill anything but shooting clay pigeons and shooting targets is great fun.

Handguns are by far the most dangerous weapons available to the public, after that, legal weapons aren't really the issue.

I'm pretty consistant though from drugs to guns etc. I don't think laws do a thing to stop someone from buying a gun or drug if they really want one.

It's kind of a classic case of a certain group completely hating another and wanting rules imposed to fit thier particular ideal.

stupid and or violent people owning guns is a problem, but the same is true of the automobile. Enacting legislation, dosen't really do much to keep criminals away from killing machines.

Hey, I appreciate the info! Although they were all around me growing up, I really know very little about guns. And you might have the right logic concerning drugs and guns. Ill have to shelve that one and think about it awhile.