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 3:41 PM
in reply to: #4552213

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM

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.



Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.


2012-12-28 3:51 PM
in reply to: #4552228

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 2:41 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM
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.

Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.

They use it to remove tree stumps too. It's already regulated. I'm not sure what your point is.

2012-12-28 4:00 PM
in reply to: #4552245

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:51 PM

mr2tony - 2012-12-28 2:41 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM
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.

Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.

They use it to remove tree stumps too. It's already regulated. I'm not sure what your point is.



Well if Wile E. can use it then everybody should be able to! Roadrunners are hard to catch without TNT. And he's not the only one with a varmint problem. I hear his neighbor, Yosemite Sam, also has a problem with varmints. And rascals, too.
2012-12-28 4:06 PM
in reply to: #4552214

User image

Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-28 1:33 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.

I absolutely was saying that it "could" be used for varmint hunting. It's not specifically designed as a hunting rifle, it's designed as a combat weapon. That's what the rails are for, lights, scopes, lazer sighting devices, lugs for bayonets and I'm there are other options you could attach that I'm not thinking of. I know a guy who hunts Ferrel Hogs at night and in fact does use an AR15 platform (I'm not positive what caliber he uses) with a  light, night scope and lazer attached...... He's a real gun  enthusiast.

Hunting Rifle .223

Ruger No. 1 Varmint rifle in .223 Remington. Note the heavy barrel, bipod rest, large telescopic sight, and "dope" sheet on the stock for windage

File:VarmintCartridges.png

Typical varmint rifle cartridges on a 0.25-inch (6 mm) grid (from left to right): .22 long rifle for very small animals at ranges less than 100 meters, .22-250 represents the high velocity .22 calibers for longer range shooting, and .25-06 for larger animals at ranges up to 400 meters.

Here is some good info on different calibers and how they progressed.

Here is Bushmasters new .223 Varmint Rife. Bushmaster Varminter Semi Auto Rifle .223Rem/5.56 NATO 24 Fluted Barrel 5 Rounds A2 Buttstock Black Anodized Finish and what you thought of it.

Bushmaster Varminter Semi Auto Rifle .223Rem/5.56 NATO 24 Fluted Barrel 5 Rounds A2 Buttstock Black Anodized Finish

I hope if you get the opportunity to go hog hunting in TX you let us know how it goes. I think you'll have a blast,,,,, pun intended.

2012-12-28 4:10 PM
in reply to: #4552262

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 3:00 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:51 PM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 2:41 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM
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.

Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.

They use it to remove tree stumps too. It's already regulated. I'm not sure what your point is.

Well if Wile E. can use it then everybody should be able to! Roadrunners are hard to catch without TNT. And he's not the only one with a varmint problem. I hear his neighbor, Yosemite Sam, also has a problem with varmints. And rascals, too.

Acme Dynamite company is already under investigation by the ATF. If they are providing TNT to coyotes that should not have it, then they should be prosecuted. But it does not matter... because if you outlaw TNT, then he will just use a anvil... then where does it stop? Should we outlaw pianos too? Although personally, I see no reason for anyone to have a grand piano in the desert.

2012-12-28 4:18 PM
in reply to: #4552283

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
powerman - 2012-12-28 4:10 PM

mr2tony - 2012-12-28 3:00 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:51 PM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 2:41 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM
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.

Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.

They use it to remove tree stumps too. It's already regulated. I'm not sure what your point is.

Well if Wile E. can use it then everybody should be able to! Roadrunners are hard to catch without TNT. And he's not the only one with a varmint problem. I hear his neighbor, Yosemite Sam, also has a problem with varmints. And rascals, too.

Acme Dynamite company is already under investigation by the ATF. If they are providing TNT to coyotes that should not have it, then they should be prosecuted. But it does not matter... because if you outlaw TNT, then he will just use a anvil... then where does it stop? Should we outlaw pianos too? Although personally, I see no reason for anyone to have a grand piano in the desert.



He obviously has some mental illness issues. The guy runs around naked and often ties himself to rockets while wearing roller skates. And don't get me started on where he keeps his cutlery and napkin. OWWWWWW!


2012-12-28 4:27 PM
in reply to: #4552292

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 3:18 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 4:10 PM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 3:00 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:51 PM
mr2tony - 2012-12-28 2:41 PM
powerman - 2012-12-28 3:33 PM
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.

Some people use TNT for hunting. I've seen Wile E. Coyote. I know what's going on out there.

They use it to remove tree stumps too. It's already regulated. I'm not sure what your point is.

Well if Wile E. can use it then everybody should be able to! Roadrunners are hard to catch without TNT. And he's not the only one with a varmint problem. I hear his neighbor, Yosemite Sam, also has a problem with varmints. And rascals, too.

Acme Dynamite company is already under investigation by the ATF. If they are providing TNT to coyotes that should not have it, then they should be prosecuted. But it does not matter... because if you outlaw TNT, then he will just use a anvil... then where does it stop? Should we outlaw pianos too? Although personally, I see no reason for anyone to have a grand piano in the desert.

He obviously has some mental illness issues. The guy runs around naked and often ties himself to rockets while wearing roller skates. And don't get me started on where he keeps his cutlery and napkin. OWWWWWW!

I have to agree. He certainly is not the poster child for "responsible user". Perhaps licensing or more training would work?

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