2nd Amendment limitations...

louti

louti

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234389
What I define as 'gun fanatics' would disagree with you. Some owners of assault weapons justify ownership by stating they collect them, or use them for target practice. Others just say they don't really care to own one, but if they did want one, they could buy it because the 2nd Amendment says they can. There's a lot of things I can buy if I want to, but I don't base that decision on some Amendment in the Constitution.
I actually owned a Colt AR-15 back in the days when I was an avid deer hunter. It was lightweight, very accurate within 200 yards, small caliber (.223), and could hold a clip for multiple rounds. When I went hunting for large Mule deer, there were a couple of times whereby if I couldn't have popped off two consecutive rounds, the deer wouldn't have gone down. If I would've had a bolt-action rifle, I wouldn't have had enough time to reload before the deer ran off. When deer hunting got too expensive and inconvenient, I sold it to someone I knew who could use it for that purpose. Bottom line, I don't keep weapons I don't use for the sole purpose of owning one because the 2nd Amendment allows me to.
Off topic, but you probably wouldn't have needed consecutive rounds if you weren't shooting large game with a .223.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
The definition of AWs as someone here already pointed out, is muddy. By the earlier defintion, every pistol I own is considered an AW. Should they be? My neighbor owns an AR-15 and an AR-22 (the latter is a really fun gun). He uses the 15 for hunting, and the 22 for plinking. Both would be considered AWs, but he uses both for legal, legitimate purposes.
Ultimately, it comes down to another instance of someone who doesn't see a "need" having no problem with something being taken away. So many of the guns I own I use for no other purpose than recreation, but I'll fight to the death to protect the principle that someone has no right to take my property away or diminish my rights simply because they do not see a need.
Of your various examples, nuclear weapon is pretty ridulous. There is no practical way to "use" a nuclear weapon without depriving someone innocent of life, liberty, or property. The other examples? Absolutely. You can check out my flaming ball of gas about a half hour after I eat at Taco Bell.
Guns do not have to have some utility purpose. "Because it's fun" or "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason as long as I am not depriving your life, liberty, or property.
I can use golf clubs to kill someone easily. I don't golf, so let's ban those. Can you use golf clubs:
To get to work? No
To wax the car? No
To wear to the beach? No
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by louti
http:///forum/post/3234447
Off topic, but you probably wouldn't have needed consecutive rounds if you weren't shooting large game with a .223.

.223 55g bullet at 200 yds about 2400 ft lbs
30.06 150g bullet at 200 yds about 2100 ft lbs
Assuming the bullets impart the same percent of their energy to the target, the .223 has a bit more punch at these generic loads.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3234467
The definition of AWs as someone here already pointed out, is muddy. By the earlier defintion, every pistol I own is considered an AW. Should they be? My neighbor owns an AR-15 and an AR-22 (the latter is a really fun gun). He uses the 15 for hunting, and the 22 for plinking. Both would be considered AWs, but he uses both for legal, legitimate purposes.
Ultimately, it comes down to another instance of someone who doesn't see a "need" having no problem with something being taken away. So many of the guns I own I use for no other purpose than recreation, but I'll fight to the death to protect the principle that someone has no right to take my property away or diminish my rights simply because they do not see a need.
Of your various examples, nuclear weapon is pretty ridulous. There is no practical way to "use" a nuclear weapon without depriving someone innocent of life, liberty, or property. The other examples? Absolutely. You can check out my flaming ball of gas about a half hour after I eat at Taco Bell.
Guns do not have to have some utility purpose. "Because it's fun" or "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason as long as I am not depriving your life, liberty, or property.
I can use golf clubs to kill someone easily. I don't golf, so let's ban those. Can you use golf clubs:
To get to work? No
To wax the car? No
To wear to the beach? No
The definition IS clear
Select fire
"cut down" rifle cartridge (7.92 kurz round prototype in the STG 44/MP-44)
Magazine fed
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234386
and that is why most of your posts make about as much sense as a football bat...
meh, I gotta disagree there.
For one thing, the OP points are food for thought. I've said before and I'll say again: There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
If one can dismiss an opinion out of hand without so much as a logical counterpoint, then one has either lived too long or not long enough.
W/ regard to the OP, my thoughts on the points are these:
1) The point of the 2nd is not related to type of weapon (and in the end, the term "assault weapon" is redundant.) It's intent is to instill fear of the people in government. I.e., weapon type is immaterial - what's important is that the government respect We the People's authority outside the curtains of the ballot box. It's a reminder that they serve us, not the reverse. That's the primary difference between our system and all others.
2) I absolutely consider the Constitution to be a living document. That said, it is not to be taken lightly. The amendment process was both designed and called for, for a reason. The founders realized times would change and designed the document to be modifiable as such. They also made it deliberately difficult to do so, and rightly so.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3234423
Ha....
after your Bobby Jinal post you say this!
The Jindal comment was a sarcastic hit at this Governor from Louisiana that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win the Presidency. I thought it pretty hilarious myself. The Air Force actually outsourced one of their Call Centers to a bunch in India. I can attest the conversation I posted pretty much is how they sound when you talk to them.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3234421
Float to freedom from Cuba, lose you mom in the process, get sent back to communism by gunpoint.
HMMM, not the Brits knocking......
I bet they wish they had an AR or two.

" My cold, dead hands!"
Give me a break. And you chastise me about the Jindal post?

Do you even remember the circumstances behind that kid?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by louti
http:///forum/post/3234447
Off topic, but you probably wouldn't have needed consecutive rounds if you weren't shooting large game with a .223.
I've taken a medium-sized White Tail down with one shot several times. The Mule Deer I've bagged ranged in weight from 200 - 250 pounds. I've knocked down a couple in one shot, but the 250 pounder was about 220 out, and I didn't get him under his front quarters to take out the heart. He stayed up and was turning to run when I hit him in the neck. Wouldn't have had to time to do that with a bolt-action.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3234467
The definition of AWs as someone here already pointed out, is muddy. By the earlier defintion, every pistol I own is considered an AW. Should they be? My neighbor owns an AR-15 and an AR-22 (the latter is a really fun gun). He uses the 15 for hunting, and the 22 for plinking. Both would be considered AWs, but he uses both for legal, legitimate purposes.
Ultimately, it comes down to another instance of someone who doesn't see a "need" having no problem with something being taken away. So many of the guns I own I use for no other purpose than recreation, but I'll fight to the death to protect the principle that someone has no right to take my property away or diminish my rights simply because they do not see a need.
Of your various examples, nuclear weapon is pretty ridulous. There is no practical way to "use" a nuclear weapon without depriving someone innocent of life, liberty, or property. The other examples? Absolutely. You can check out my flaming ball of gas about a half hour after I eat at Taco Bell.
Guns do not have to have some utility purpose. "Because it's fun" or "Because I can" is a perfectly valid reason as long as I am not depriving your life, liberty, or property.
I can use golf clubs to kill someone easily. I don't golf, so let's ban those. Can you use golf clubs:
To get to work? No
To wax the car? No
To wear to the beach? No
Please. Not the golf club, stick, baseball bat analogy for justifying owning an assault weapon. Which of those 'weapons' could cut someone down 100 yards away with 50 'hits' in 10 seconds?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234526
Please. Not the golf club, stick, baseball bat analogy for justifying owning an assault weapon. Which of those 'weapons' could cut someone down 100 yards away with 50 'hits' in 10 seconds?
You can't possible be that ignorant of the subject at hand.
Don't feed the troll folks, he knows you cant walk in off the streets and buy an automatic.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234526
Please. Not the golf club, stick, baseball bat analogy for justifying owning an assault weapon. Which of those 'weapons' could cut someone down 100 yards away with 50 'hits' in 10 seconds?
If you think you are going to get 50 hits in 10 seconds at 100 yards, I think your a bit off. Even with a 30 rd magazine and reloading, reaquiring target that's 5 AIMED/ shots/second WITHOUT reloading.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234515
Give me a break. And you chastise me about the Jindal post?

Do you even remember the circumstances behind that kid?
Yeah, I remember well, his mom dies trying to get to freedom. He made it and our gov't returned him to communism from liberty.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234533
You can't possible be that ignorant of the subject at hand.
Don't feed the troll folks, he knows you cant walk in off the streets and buy an automatic.
Someboy somewhere just may believe him. Gotta keep the TRUTH out there
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
"Assault weapon" / "defense weapon." The former term is redundant, the latter oxymoronic.
The real question is: What's a Militia?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234548
What does it matter?
Therein lies the core of the debate. It isn't about what type of weapon, as I stated upthread.
The 2nd does, however, call for a "well regulated militia." What that means is a matter of discussion on some level, no?
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234526
Please. Not the golf club, stick, baseball bat analogy for justifying owning an assault weapon. Which of those 'weapons' could cut someone down 100 yards away with 50 'hits' in 10 seconds?
You're talking about fully automatic weapons, which are already illegal to own in most circumstances.
Anyhow, my point was that just because you don't see a need for it, that does not consitute a reason why a ban is acceptable. I don't owe you or anyone else justification or rationale. As long as I do not deprive you of life liberty, or property, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top