Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2012-12-28 10:35 AM
in reply to: #4551601

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 5:25 PM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.

Ever ? So you're pleased with the current state of US fiscal imbalances, tax rates, health care, immigration, entitlements, bank solvency, quality of education, cost of higher education, to name a few ?



2012-12-28 10:37 AM
in reply to: #4551594

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I only feel that way when I read Tony's posts

2012-12-28 10:38 AM
in reply to: #4551630

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:35 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-28 5:25 PM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.

Ever ? So you're pleased with the current state of US fiscal imbalances, tax rates, health care, immigration, entitlements, bank solvency, quality of education, cost of higher education, to name a few ?



I'm not pleased, but I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. You take the bad with the good no matter where you live.
2012-12-28 10:44 AM
in reply to: #4551452

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

A few few years back, before I sold most of them, I collected vintage classic American double barrel shotguns, mostly 16 and 20 ga.  Lets just say I had a little north of your high number just in those firearms.  I also shot 300 and 600 yd bench rest competitively and had firearms tied up in that aspect of shooting.  It is quite easy to accumulate a number of firearms if you are into shooting sports, hunting, collecting, self defense, or just plinking.

Cruisevegas, the minimum for elephant is 375 H&H, although most prefer 475 nitro express or 416 Rigby.

2012-12-28 10:44 AM
in reply to: #4551627

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
jobaxas - 2012-12-28 10:34 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-29 3:23 AMInteresting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.
so everyone leaving in droves then? I don't see it


You are the king of the non-sequitur.
2012-12-28 10:44 AM
in reply to: #4551646

User image

Regular
1023
1000
Madrid
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 5:38 PM
gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:35 AM
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 5:25 PM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.

Ever ? So you're pleased with the current state of US fiscal imbalances, tax rates, health care, immigration, entitlements, bank solvency, quality of education, cost of higher education, to name a few ?

I'm not pleased, but I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. You take the bad with the good no matter where you live.

Yep very true. Maybe the view from afar is different. Don't know. Through my eyes its the trend that is disconcerting. Anyhow being 6 hours ahead of EST its time to go. Thanks all for helping pass a slow day and wish you all a good weekend....



2012-12-28 10:44 AM
in reply to: #4551646

User image

Elite
4435
2000200010010010010025
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-29 3:38 AM
gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:35 AM
Left Brain - 2012-12-28 5:25 PM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM Interesting. Thanks to all for the answers. I feel like I've learned something about a subject I obviously knew very little about. I've lived out of the country since 1987. FWIW (which I know is nothing) what I've noticed from afar over the years is the US has grown increasingly polarized on many issues and the problems/issues the country faces have become increasingly unsolvable. Its actually kind of sad that in more and more ways the US appears to be an increasingly disfunctional broken place.

I don't ever feel that way.

Ever ? So you're pleased with the current state of US fiscal imbalances, tax rates, health care, immigration, entitlements, bank solvency, quality of education, cost of higher education, to name a few ?

I'm not pleased, but I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. You take the bad with the good no matter where you live.
I live in Australia and same far from perfect but is anywhere?
2012-12-28 11:01 AM
in reply to: #4551569

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 11:15 AM
Brock Samson - 2012-12-28 9:53 AM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 10:23 AM
Puppetmaster - 2012-12-27 4:23 PM

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

 I am the NRA!

What about England, which isn't under any sort of totalitarian regime, yet restricts gun ownership? Or Germany post-WWII? What about Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Italy post-WWII, Finland or one of a hundred other countries that have strong governments and freedom but restrict gun ownership? Those countries have very strict gun-control laws yet the people aren't being oppressed by their governments. Heck even the oft-mentioned Israel has much stricter gun control laws than the U.S. What Hitler failed to understand, and what you fail to understand, apparently, is that conquerors aren't overthrown because they allow the conquered to have weapons, they're overthrown because conquerors are, by definition, oppressive. And people will not stand for oppression, regardless of whether they're allowed to own guns or not.

This is a red herring, because any discussion of "gun control" or "gun restrictions" or "gun laws" Must, start with the idea that there is a Constitutional Right, a personal right to own and possess firearms in the United States.  Like it or not, that is the law.  Thus, you're not comparing apples to apples, unless those countries with stricter gun control laws also have some sort of "right" to own and posses firearms.

Again, if you don't like the fact that there is a right to own and posses firearms, change the Constitution. 

So, you don't have a problem with a Hitler quote that doesn't mention the second amendment, yet you have a problem with my rebuttal that also doesn't mention the second amendment? I am trying to make a point that there's no correlation between what Hitler said and the success of conquerors in winning over their conquered subjects. Where did I say to ban guns in the U.S.??? This is why there's no way to have a civil discussion because you turn `Hitler was a conqueror and conquerors aren't successful because people don't like to be conquered.' into `BAN ALL GUNS IN THE U.S.!!!'

On, sorry, yeah Hitler quotes simply aren't worth responding to so I agree with you there.  Actually in the Heller majority opinion there's a really good discription of the historical perspective of the fears of why the founders felt they needed the 2nd Amendment.  Dealing with tyranny, and monarchies and the like.  Fear of the government was certainly a factor in the passage of the 2nd Amendment, and in deed all of the Bill of Rights.

But, yeah I don't typically respond to Hitler arguments, I just tend to let them go, because they really aren't worth responding to.

2012-12-28 11:28 AM
in reply to: #4551671

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Central Mass
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
NXS - 2012-12-28 8:44 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

A few few years back, before I sold most of them, I collected vintage classic American double barrel shotguns, mostly 16 and 20 ga.  Lets just say I had a little north of your high number just in those firearms.  I also shot 300 and 600 yd bench rest competitively and had firearms tied up in that aspect of shooting.  It is quite easy to accumulate a number of firearms if you are into shooting sports, hunting, collecting, self defense, or just plinking.

Cruisevegas, the minimum for elephant is 375 H&H, although most prefer 475 nitro express or 416 Rigby.

H&H also made/makes 500NE, 600NE, and 700NE.  The 500NE was used all over the English colonies to hunt big and/or dangerous game.

Most deer hunters can't afford to outfit a 700NE hunt - the rifles start in the $260,000 range, and rounds cost about $100 each.

Holland and Holland are also the only arms manufacturer with a Royal Warrant.  If you ever see an English royal using a gun while not wearing a uniform, its a H&H

2012-12-28 11:37 AM
in reply to: #4551294

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Brock Samson - 2012-12-28 7:15 AM

Sorry (1) I have a life away from this board so didn't see the post and (2) I was re-reading Heller.


Based on all of this my answer is and emphatic and overwhelming....I don't know, if an "assault weapons" ban would be Constitutional.    The Supreme COurt doesn't seem to like total bans on weapons or types of weapons that were "in existance" at the time of the drafting.  But they also concede that the 2nd Amendment protects things that are modern as does all of the Amendments.  So, it seems that it would come down to  are semi-automatic weapons with large magazines an "unusual and dangerous" weapon and not one "in existance at the time."  I'm not really sure how the Court would come down on that.

So, how's that for an anwer.

Thanks. Ya, it moved along sort of quick.

 

Not that I'm an expert, but that is sort of how I thought too. Nobody can say exactly how the Court would rule on something.

On one hand, it is super funny... most 2A idealists think all gun laws are unconstitutional and take "shall not infringe" rather literal. That simply isn't the case and I do not agree with them.

Seems to me arms can be regulated, and States have more leeway than the Feds. But this new push for an AWB  is trying to stop dancing around the point and want to ban all semi-auto guns capable of a high (read NORMAL) rate of fire... that leaves single shot guns and neutered semi-autos. To me that seems contrary to the intent of the 2A... that a federal ban allowing citizens to keep inferior normal arms does not satisfy the intent of the 2A.

In Miller... that set precedence that a "sawed off shotgun" was unusual and not normal for war... even thought they got there name "trench gun" for a reason.... but that also meant the opposite that weapons that were considered normal for militia use, are allowed... which most certainly would include semi-auto weapons we are discussing. Common pistols and rifles.

2012-12-28 11:50 AM
in reply to: #4551582

User image

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 8:19 AM
crusevegas - 2012-12-28 10:00 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 7:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

Forget home defense and lets just focus on hunting.

22 rifle for small game

Shotgun for birds, and there certainly can be a justification for more than one shotgun depending on the bird you are hunting.

Small caliber rifle for varmint hunting something like the feared and soon to be banned .223 in a variety of styles aka the AR15. While it can be configured in a variety of calibers the .223/5.56 is the most common.

30x06 or 308 for larger game such as deer.

300 Magnum for large bears.

I'm unfamiliar with what you would use for Elephants and I doubt many people actually hunt them but I don't think a 300 Magnum would be adequate for the job.

If you do hunt for bear or in an area where bears are, a lot of people will carry a 357 Mag or a 44 as a backup gun.

I didn't count those up, but I hope this gives you an idea on why some people have multiple weapons.

This was just an exercise on some hunting, not all, not any self defense, not any recreational shooting, just tools for putting meat in the freezer.

Most police I think and LB can speak to this better than I but I believe an officer in a cruiser has access to an M16 or similar, a shotgun, service side arm and a backup weapon. That's what I've seen in my local community anyway.

Basically as of now anyway with the 2nd amendment, we don't need a "reason", just the ability to clear the hurdles that are currently in place.

So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

Actually after reading your reply, I did take a deep breath.

Small game would be like a squirrel or rabbit.

Varmints would be a little bigger, ground hog, coyote or similar animals.

The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a rabbit with a .223 is if you didn't hit it in the head you would ruin a lot of the meat. The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a coyote with a 22 is that you would likely just wound it rather than kill it. It's quite possible depending on the wound that the coyote may not be able to catch wild animals and be forced to venture closer to civilization for something like cats or chickens to eat.

The .223 round which is the most common caliber for the AR15 is also a very common round for hunting rifles for varmints. The AR15 generally would not be as good of a weapon for varmint hunting as say a Remington 700 due to the barrel length. Longer the barrel the more accurate a greater range. Generally the AR will have a 16inch barrel where the hunting version will have one around 20 inches. Sorry if that part on the .223 was a little confusing.

Hope this helps clear things up for you. If not feel free to ask.



2012-12-28 11:54 AM
in reply to: #4551784

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
scorpio516 - 2012-12-28 11:28 AM
NXS - 2012-12-28 8:44 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 9:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

A few few years back, before I sold most of them, I collected vintage classic American double barrel shotguns, mostly 16 and 20 ga.  Lets just say I had a little north of your high number just in those firearms.  I also shot 300 and 600 yd bench rest competitively and had firearms tied up in that aspect of shooting.  It is quite easy to accumulate a number of firearms if you are into shooting sports, hunting, collecting, self defense, or just plinking.

Cruisevegas, the minimum for elephant is 375 H&H, although most prefer 475 nitro express or 416 Rigby.

H&H also made/makes 500NE, 600NE, and 700NE.  The 500NE was used all over the English colonies to hunt big and/or dangerous game.

Most deer hunters can't afford to outfit a 700NE hunt - the rifles start in the $260,000 range, and rounds cost about $100 each.

Holland and Holland are also the only arms manufacturer with a Royal Warrant.  If you ever see an English royal using a gun while not wearing a uniform, its a H&H

Yep, beautiful and pricy.  Was addressing the caliber mostly as you can find "manufactured" rifles in those calibers and they are still relatively cheap to shoot. 

I have a friend with a Holland and Holland made double in 500 NE.  It is absolutely beautiful, a true work of art and kicks worse than a mule.  He also has a couple of Purdey shotguns.  After I leave he has to clean my drool off of them!

2012-12-28 11:55 AM
in reply to: #4551582

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 9:19 AM  So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

JMK... let's discuss the 900 lb elephant in the room.

There is tons of documentation covering the reasons for the 2A in the BORs. The Founders put them there because they just gained their freedom from a tyrannical government with them. Period. They understood that arms were the teeth to a free people, and ensured they would always be armed to protect them selves from an over reaching tyrannical government.

That is not an opinion, that is a fact. And it is just as valid today as it was then, as it will be 500 years from now. The 2A does not say one single solitary thing about hunting... nor does it say one single thing about sport shooting. It says the right for the people to bare arms shall not be infringed... and in addition... that is in order to maintain a militia. Does not say you have to be in one, but the intent is perfectly clear that the people were to maintain common personal arms in order to be ready to fight.

Obviously today, if one mentions overthrowing the government, they are a kook and conspiracy nut and out comes the tin foil jokes.... WHY? The Founders were not joking. The founders specifically talked about and guarded against that very thing limiting the Federal governments power. Now me personally, I have better things to do. And no I do not think we are there today. Nor do I expect to get there now even if this new AWB passed in it's current version.

But I'm going to tell you straight up... I want a semi-auto rifle because they are the best weapons I can have if society breaks down. Period. A bolt action single shot .30-06 does not cut it, when everyone else has semi-autos. Me personally, I have never needed a gun. Mine sits in my drawer, and I fully expect it to sit there the rest of it's life and put holes in paper occasionally. If I have a semi-auto rifle with 30 rnd mags, I fully expect it to collect a lot of dust. But they are there "in case"... because if "in case" ever happens... then it is too late. People have back up generators in case... because when you need a back up generator... well you can't get one.... the rest of the time the sit in the garage and cause a tripping hazard.

It isn't paranoia, and I do not have a tin foil hat, nor need one. The 2A specifically protects (IMO) the very type of weapon they are trying to ban... and it does not have a darn thing to do with hunting or sport shooting. I do believe they can be regulated, but I do not think they can be banned outright. MPHO

2012-12-28 12:02 PM
in reply to: #4551831

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
crusevegas - 2012-12-28 10:50 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 8:19 AM
crusevegas - 2012-12-28 10:00 AM

gr33n - 2012-12-28 7:34 AM I think like LB says guns are clearly here to stay. Here's a question though- Is a limit on the number of guns per owner possible ? I can totally understand the reasons for wanting to own a gun. Maybe even 2. Beyond 2 I start to lose the plot a little. Second question if anbyone chooses- Whats the reason for wanting to own more than 2 or 10 or 50 guns ? 

Forget home defense and lets just focus on hunting.

22 rifle for small game

Shotgun for birds, and there certainly can be a justification for more than one shotgun depending on the bird you are hunting.

Small caliber rifle for varmint hunting something like the feared and soon to be banned .223 in a variety of styles aka the AR15. While it can be configured in a variety of calibers the .223/5.56 is the most common.

30x06 or 308 for larger game such as deer.

300 Magnum for large bears.

I'm unfamiliar with what you would use for Elephants and I doubt many people actually hunt them but I don't think a 300 Magnum would be adequate for the job.

If you do hunt for bear or in an area where bears are, a lot of people will carry a 357 Mag or a 44 as a backup gun.

I didn't count those up, but I hope this gives you an idea on why some people have multiple weapons.

This was just an exercise on some hunting, not all, not any self defense, not any recreational shooting, just tools for putting meat in the freezer.

Most police I think and LB can speak to this better than I but I believe an officer in a cruiser has access to an M16 or similar, a shotgun, service side arm and a backup weapon. That's what I've seen in my local community anyway.

Basically as of now anyway with the 2nd amendment, we don't need a "reason", just the ability to clear the hurdles that are currently in place.

So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

Actually after reading your reply, I did take a deep breath.

Small game would be like a squirrel or rabbit.

Varmints would be a little bigger, ground hog, coyote or similar animals.

The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a rabbit with a .223 is if you didn't hit it in the head you would ruin a lot of the meat. The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a coyote with a 22 is that you would likely just wound it rather than kill it. It's quite possible depending on the wound that the coyote may not be able to catch wild animals and be forced to venture closer to civilization for something like cats or chickens to eat.

The .223 round which is the most common caliber for the AR15 is also a very common round for hunting rifles for varmints. The AR15 generally would not be as good of a weapon for varmint hunting as say a Remington 700 due to the barrel length. Longer the barrel the more accurate a greater range. Generally the AR will have a 16inch barrel where the hunting version will have one around 20 inches. Sorry if that part on the .223 was a little confusing.

Hope this helps clear things up for you. If not feel free to ask.

And just for a bit more info... the 16" barrel is more than ample for short to medium range targets... a few 100 yards. Yes longer range needs longer barrels... but you are no where close to having an ineffective varmint rifle with a 16" barrel in .223. Especially since most of that hunting is going to be less than 300 yards.... more likely a 100.

So my point... barrel length has different uses... but if you want a self-defense, target, and varmint rifle.. a 16" barrel on a .223 is more than capable of filing those roles and is a reasonable compromise. If all you want to do is punch holes at 600 yds... well ya, get a 24"

2012-12-28 12:05 PM
in reply to: #4551848

User image

Champion
10668
500050005001002525
Tacoma, Washington
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
powerman - 2012-12-28 9:55 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 9:19 AM  So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

JMK... let's discuss the 900 lb elephant in the room.

There is tons of documentation covering the reasons for the 2A in the BORs. The Founders put them there because they just gained their freedom from a tyrannical government with them. Period. They understood that arms were the teeth to a free people, and ensured they would always be armed to protect them selves from an over reaching tyrannical government.

That is not an opinion, that is a fact. And it is just as valid today as it was then, as it will be 500 years from now. The 2A does not say one single solitary thing about hunting... nor does it say one single thing about sport shooting. It says the right for the people to bare arms shall not be infringed... and in addition... that is in order to maintain a militia. Does not say you have to be in one, but the intent is perfectly clear that the people were to maintain common personal arms in order to be ready to fight.

Obviously today, if one mentions overthrowing the government, they are a kook and conspiracy nut and out comes the tin foil jokes.... WHY? The Founders were not joking. The founders specifically talked about and guarded against that very thing limiting the Federal governments power. Now me personally, I have better things to do. And no I do not think we are there today. Nor do I expect to get there now even if this new AWB passed in it's current version.

But I'm going to tell you straight up... I want a semi-auto rifle because they are the best weapons I can have if society breaks down. Period. A bolt action single shot .30-06 does not cut it, when everyone else has semi-autos. Me personally, I have never needed a gun. Mine sits in my drawer, and I fully expect it to sit there the rest of it's life and put holes in paper occasionally. If I have a semi-auto rifle with 30 rnd mags, I fully expect it to collect a lot of dust. But they are there "in case"... because if "in case" ever happens... then it is too late. People have back up generators in case... because when you need a back up generator... well you can't get one.... the rest of the time the sit in the garage and cause a tripping hazard.

It isn't paranoia, and I do not have a tin foil hat, nor need one. The 2A specifically protects (IMO) the very type of weapon they are trying to ban... and it does not have a darn thing to do with hunting or sport shooting. I do believe they can be regulated, but I do not think they can be banned outright. MPHO

THANK YOU! Totally agree.

2012-12-28 12:53 PM
in reply to: #4551831

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Central Mass
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
crusevegas - 2012-12-28 9:50 AM 

The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a rabbit with a .223 is if you didn't hit it in the head you would ruin a lot of the meat. The reason you wouldn't want to shoot a coyote with a 22 is that you would likely just wound it rather than kill it. It's quite possible depending on the wound that the coyote may not be able to catch wild animals and be forced to venture closer to civilization for something like cats or chickens to eat.

This reminds me of a story my wife tells.  The first time she went rabbit hunting, at like 10 or 12, they went with shotguns - 20ga w/ birdshot.  She got one, square in the middle.  From about 5 feet.

Her dad has a picture of her holding the rear legs, and him holding the ears and forelegs...



2012-12-28 2:14 PM
in reply to: #4551848

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
powerman - 2012-12-28 11:55 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 9:19 AM  So the AR-15 is used for hunting? Take a deep breath-- I'm not advocating taking them away, I'm just asking. I didn't think that those types of guns were commonly used for hunting. What's the difference between varmints and small game?

JMK... let's discuss the 900 lb elephant in the room.

There is tons of documentation covering the reasons for the 2A in the BORs. The Founders put them there because they just gained their freedom from a tyrannical government with them. Period. They understood that arms were the teeth to a free people, and ensured they would always be armed to protect them selves from an over reaching tyrannical government.

That is not an opinion, that is a fact. And it is just as valid today as it was then, as it will be 500 years from now. The 2A does not say one single solitary thing about hunting... nor does it say one single thing about sport shooting. It says the right for the people to bare arms shall not be infringed... and in addition... that is in order to maintain a militia. Does not say you have to be in one, but the intent is perfectly clear that the people were to maintain common personal arms in order to be ready to fight.

Obviously today, if one mentions overthrowing the government, they are a kook and conspiracy nut and out comes the tin foil jokes.... WHY? The Founders were not joking. The founders specifically talked about and guarded against that very thing limiting the Federal governments power. Now me personally, I have better things to do. And no I do not think we are there today. Nor do I expect to get there now even if this new AWB passed in it's current version.

But I'm going to tell you straight up... I want a semi-auto rifle because they are the best weapons I can have if society breaks down. Period. A bolt action single shot .30-06 does not cut it, when everyone else has semi-autos. Me personally, I have never needed a gun. Mine sits in my drawer, and I fully expect it to sit there the rest of it's life and put holes in paper occasionally. If I have a semi-auto rifle with 30 rnd mags, I fully expect it to collect a lot of dust. But they are there "in case"... because if "in case" ever happens... then it is too late. People have back up generators in case... because when you need a back up generator... well you can't get one.... the rest of the time the sit in the garage and cause a tripping hazard.

It isn't paranoia, and I do not have a tin foil hat, nor need one. The 2A specifically protects (IMO) the very type of weapon they are trying to ban... and it does not have a darn thing to do with hunting or sport shooting. I do believe they can be regulated, but I do not think they can be banned outright. MPHO



I am not in favor of, nor have I ever, EVER on this board or anywhere else, advocated repealing the 2A or banning firearms. I am part of that segment of our culture who has had little to no exposure to them my whole life. I grew up in an urban environment and live in one still and no one that I know in NYC, other than people who are cops or HS agents owns guns. I have many friends who live outside NYC who hunt and who own guns, but I've never been hunting myself, mostly because I've never had the opportunity. I'm not opposed to it by any means. I took a rifle and pistol shooting class in college, which was taught by the ROTC firearms instructor who was a Marine gunney because I thought it was something I should learn, and, as I've said more than once, I think gun safety and basic shooting technique is something that everyone should know, just like swimming or driving a car.

My buddy in Texas (the one who hunts hogs from his tree stand) invited me to go with him the next time I'm there. I'm hoping I have the opportunity to take him up on his offer.

You and I have had several discussions, via PM and on here about the 2A. I admit that I understood it poorly before,and I think understand it better now, thanks to you and Brock and others. I asked the question a while back (I think it was before Sandy Hook, actually) about the “militia” portion of the 2A and Brock (and you, I think) introduced me to Heller, with which I was unfamiliar and which was enlightening. I said in another post yesterday that often, when I talk about guns with my friends, I end up arguing on behalf of gun owners, because, as was the case with me before these threads, many people are uninformed or misinformed about the 2A and don’t understand all the issues.

I’ll say it again, because I don’t know how much clearer I have to make it. I am not in favor of repealing the 2A. I’m not in favor of banning guns.

I have said, and I will continue to say that I think we could do more to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them. And I think that most gun owners (most of the gun owners on here anyway) would agree with many of the same kinds of things that I have said over and over again that I would support. Many have said so explicitly themselves.

I don’t think that the US government trying to oppress its own people is something that’s likely to happen, nor do I envision a scenario where society breaks down to the extent that we need to fight for our lives against our fellow Americans, I just don’t. You and others are entitled to your opinion, certainly, and, to the extent that it’s entirely hypothetical, who’s to say who’s right?

I am not in favor of repealing the 2A nor am I in favor of banning guns. I do think, and I’m not alone, both in terms of gun-owners and non-gun owners, that it’s not unreasonable to have a dialogue about what steps can be taken to, as I said before, do a better job of preventing guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them . But that dialogue will never happen as long as every person who so much as raises a question about guns or the 2A gets compared to Hitler and accused of trying to strip the constitution.

There are people who feel that way-- you are not paranoid to think so, and I understand your frustration with those people. I am not among them. I am not the enemy. Please focus your vitriol on someone who is not as interested in trying to see your side as I am.


Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-12-28 2:43 PM
2012-12-28 2:49 PM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

^Well put JMK.

My question, which I asked a while back, but didn't see a reply too, was about the second amendment.  This is a serious question.  What "arms" were they referring to?  As the decades rolled by, were more and more powerful weapons okay to bear?  Were machine guns okay?  Bazookas?  Bombs?  It seems to me, in the late 18th century, allowing citizens to carry their own muskets may have been enough to help fight off an invading army.  It made sense.  

Am I out of bounds to put forth there should be a limit on the firepower one person can wield?  If I am out of bounds, does that mean folks should be allowed to possess anti-aircraft missiles?  Nukes?  If you possessed these items, no government would be crazy enough to try and dilute your 2nd amendment rights, that's for sure. 

 

2012-12-28 3:00 PM
in reply to: #4552149

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-28 2:49 PM

^Well put JMK.

My question, which I asked a while back, but didn't see a reply too, was about the second amendment.  This is a serious question.  What "arms" were they referring to?  As the decades rolled by, were more and more powerful weapons okay to bear?  Were machine guns okay?  Bazookas?  Bombs?  It seems to me, in the late 18th century, allowing citizens to carry their own muskets may have been enough to help fight off an invading army.  It made sense.  

Am I out of bounds to put forth there should be a limit on the firepower one person can wield?  If I am out of bounds, does that mean folks should be allowed to possess anti-aircraft missiles?  Nukes?  If you possessed these items, no government would be crazy enough to try and dilute your 2nd amendment rights, that's for sure. 

 



I'll leave it to the experts, but I think that's where Heller vs District of Columbia, which I referred to above, comes in. It protects the 2A and says that citizens need not be part of a militia in order to bear arms, but that the weapons protected must be “in common use at the time”, IOW, no mini-guns, no 50-Caliber sniper rifles, no anti-aircraft guns.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-12-28 3:06 PM
2012-12-28 3:22 PM
in reply to: #4552102

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 1:14 PM  I am not in favor of, nor have I ever, EVER on this board or anywhere else, advocated repealing the 2A or banning firearms. I am part of that segment of our culture who has had little to no exposure to them my whole life. I grew up in an urban environment and live in one still and no one that I know in NYC, other than people who are cops or HS agents owns guns. I have many friends who live outside NYC who hunt and who own guns, but I've never been hunting myself, mostly because I've never had the opportunity. I'm not opposed to it by any means. I took a rifle and pistol shooting class in college, which was taught by the ROTC firearms instructor who was a Marine gunney because I thought it was something I should learn, and, as I've said more than once, I think gun safety and basic shooting technique is something that everyone should know, just like swimming or driving a car. My buddy in Texas (the one who hunts hogs from his tree stand) invited me to go with him the next time I'm there. I'm hoping I have the opportunity to take him up on his offer. You and I have had several discussions, via PM and on here about the 2A. I admit that I understood it poorly before,and I think understand it better now, thanks to you and Brock and others. I asked the question a while back (I think it was before Sandy Hook, actually) about the “militia” portion of the 2A and Brock (and you, I think) introduced me to Heller, with which I was unfamiliar and which was enlightening. I said in another post yesterday that often, when I talk about guns with my friends, I end up arguing on behalf of gun owners, because, as was the case with me before these threads, many people are uninformed or misinformed about the 2A and don’t understand all the issues. I’ll say it again, because I don’t know how much clearer I have to make it. I am not in favor of repealing the 2A. I’m not in favor of banning guns. I have said, and I will continue to say that I think we could do more to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them. And I think that most gun owners (most of the gun owners on here anyway) would agree with many of the same kinds of things that I have said over and over again that I would support. Many have said so explicitly themselves. I don’t think that the US government trying to oppress its own people is something that’s likely to happen, nor do I envision a scenario where society breaks down to the extent that we need to fight for our lives against our fellow Americans, I just don’t. You and others are entitled to your opinion, certainly, and, to the extent that it’s entirely hypothetical, who’s to say who’s right? I am not in favor of repealing the 2A nor am I in favor of banning guns. I do think, and I’m not alone, both in terms of gun-owners and non-gun owners, that it’s not unreasonable to have a dialogue about what steps can be taken to, as I said before, do a better job of preventing guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them . But that dialogue will never happen as long as every person who so much as raises a question about guns or the 2A gets compared to Hitler and accused of trying to strip the constitution. There are people who feel that way-- you are not paranoid to think so, and I understand your frustration with those people. I am not among them. I am not the enemy. Please focus your vitriol on someone who is not as interested in trying to see your side as I am.

I understand. I understand you do not want to repeal the 2A. But you did mention hunting and how that is OK.... in all these discussions and even this thread and proposed AWB, they specifically mention hunting will be OK... Why, who cares... the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.

In all of these discussions, it comes up over and over again... maybe not specifically by you, but I was addressing it... why does anyone need semi-auto rifles. Why does anyone need semi-auto pistols... why does anyone need more than 10 rounds... I just told you why and the 2A is there to protect that. 

In the Heller decision, as Brock pointed out.. it is ridiculous to say the Founders did not consider semi-autos... they said it is just as ridiculous to think the founders envisioned porn and the internet and hate groups... they did.. they gave no conditions on speech, press, or religion... they meant EVERYTHING, not the printing press in 1700.

Semi-autos with 15-20-30 round mags are the overwhelming choice for personal weapons as demonstrated for over 100 years. They are most certainly the type of arms the founders expected the people to have... what ever was the common personal arms.

As of today, I do not need a reason to own a semi auto rifle with 30 rnd mags. I can think of a few REMOTE possibilities where I might. The Founders said that was a reasonable reason to have them... in case.

2012-12-28 3:33 PM
in reply to: #4552149

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-28 1:49 PM

^Well put JMK.

My question, which I asked a while back, but didn't see a reply too, was about the second amendment.  This is a serious question.  What "arms" were they referring to?  As the decades rolled by, were more and more powerful weapons okay to bear?  Were machine guns okay?  Bazookas?  Bombs?  It seems to me, in the late 18th century, allowing citizens to carry their own muskets may have been enough to help fight off an invading army.  It made sense.  

Am I out of bounds to put forth there should be a limit on the firepower one person can wield?  If I am out of bounds, does that mean folks should be allowed to possess anti-aircraft missiles?  Nukes?  If you possessed these items, no government would be crazy enough to try and dilute your 2nd amendment rights, that's for sure. 

 

You need to understand weaponry... edged weapons stood as the dominate weapon for thousands of years. The Samurai were around for 2000 years. Gun powered was introduced and it stood relatively ineffective for 500 years. Finally rifles came to be... they were the most deadly instrument of their day. In a couple of decade they made weapons that stood for thousands of years obsolete. They were devastating on the battle field, no matter how crude you think they were by todays standards... The Founders understood completely the power they held... and they PROTECTED that power for future generations.

The SCOTU has already ruled we do not need full auto... but even those were not illegal up until recently. In 2010 they were effectively killed.. those that have them can keep them, but no more can be manufactured and none can be transfered... so when the people that have them now die.. that will be the last. And not many people care to have full auto... where are the protests to buy bazookas, anti tank mines, and rocket launchers. It's a straw man, a red herring. Nobody is demanding those... and very few can afford shooting off $100K shoulder fired missiles.

You are way out of bounds if you are trying to argue that me having an AR-15 is in the same league as me being able to posses a nuclear weapons. Frankly...it's ridiculous. A nuclear war head is not a personal arm any more than a frigate was in the 1800s. The Constitution did not protect the right for me to have weapons used by standing armies... they protected the right for me to have personal arms of the type used in battle... AR-15s. A musket was most certainly the AR-15 of the day.. they understood that perfectly.



2012-12-28 3:33 PM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Gotcha. It sounded, in cruse's comment above, as though he was saying that the AR15 could be used for "varmint hunting". I wasn't aware that the AR15 was ever really used for hunting (and wasn't aware of the specifics of what a varmint is), so I was looking for clarification of both. Sounds like what he was saying is tha the cartridge size is what's used for hunting, not so much the rifle itself, which is intended for home defense, as you said above.
2012-12-28 3:37 PM
in reply to: #4552149

User image

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-28 12:49 PM

^Well put JMK.

My question, which I asked a while back, but didn't see a reply too, was about the second amendment.  This is a serious question.  What "arms" were they referring to?  As the decades rolled by, were more and more powerful weapons okay to bear?  Were machine guns okay?  Bazookas?  Bombs?  It seems to me, in the late 18th century, allowing citizens to carry their own muskets may have been enough to help fight off an invading army.  It made sense.  

Am I out of bounds to put forth there should be a limit on the firepower one person can wield?  If I am out of bounds, does that mean folks should be allowed to possess anti-aircraft missiles?  Nukes?  If you possessed these items, no government would be crazy enough to try and dilute your 2nd amendment rights, that's for sure. 

 

This is not a legal opinion but just mine and I'll do my best to define it.

I think the average citizen should be allowed to have similar personal self defense firearms as to what the military, police and what criminals possess. I think it's fair to exclude and rightfully so automatic weapons. The system in place now for those who are willing to go through the process to own "automatic weapons" is adequate. Nothing bigger than a 50 caliber.

I'm sure in the above example there is something I've overlooked.

Weapons that explode should be excluded.

2012-12-28 3:37 PM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Maybe we can get a Gun Thread Ban introduced...

2012-12-28 3:37 PM
in reply to: #4552214

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 2:33 PM Gotcha. It sounded, in cruse's comment above, as though he was saying that the AR15 could be used for "varmint hunting". I wasn't aware that the AR15 was ever really used for hunting (and wasn't aware of the specifics of what a varmint is), so I was looking for clarification of both. Sounds like what he was saying is tha the cartridge size is what's used for hunting, not so much the rifle itself, which is intended for home defense, as you said above.

The gun folks have sort of shot themselves in the foot with that one... they have pushed "sport" and "hunting" as much as anyone to dance around what is an "acceptable" use. I don't hunt. Never have. My meat comes in cellophane. I do not sport shoot. Don't really have the money for that. But that has nothing to do with the 2A.. and the gun lobby clouds the issue tying the two together.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8