Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’ve missed it!

The only thing that the “AG” label does is render the tobacco industry clear to continue to push their deadly product only society.

That is the same thing your proposal would do, ‘guns kill; use then wisely.’

People who abuse the instrument of death do not care how many “government instructional programs about how to use guns properly” would be offered!

Suggesting that that’s the answer is like the child moving all of the water of the oceans into his/her little hole by the sea shore.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
40.png
Inisfallen:
You’re cool with the tens of thousands of gun deaths each year in this country.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument.
 
=“jcrichton, post:770, topic:452415, full:true”]

I fully concur!

Target the manufacturing and distribution–makers and vendors are profiting regardless who gets killed and where the killing is being done!
Click to expand...
Actually, this is a back door attack on the law abiding. It is a sneak attack on the constitutionally protected right, by trying to destroy the availability for the law abiding gun owners.
Again, commonsense is quite clear: 'how many guns/machineguns does it take to put bambi on the table.
Click to expand...
First, hunting is not the primary reason given for the protection of the right. Second, machine guns are rare, hard to get, require a class 3 license ( also difficult to get), and new ones banned since 1986.
So automatic weapons are not an issue, but a red herring.
As for bump stocks or any other modifications that convert a semi-automatic civilian firearm such as an AR-15 to essentially automatic function should be covered by the 1934 and 1986 acts.
 
Jon, you keep mixing in values and missing my exaggerated posting.

It does not take a machinegun to render game eatable; it does not take rapid fire to catch the meal of the day; militia is a dream; romanticism of guns is NRA’s and the manufacturers and distributers cash cow–finally, the right to own a gun is not a right to own stock piles.

How ridiculous you guys are… a perpetrator faces you and you will ask ‘let me check to see which weapon I can use to defend against this immediate and pending threat to my life’ or ‘please, let me check to see which is the coolest weapon I have so that when the pics are taken I can post the best shots on the net!’

One gun is enough to defend yourself from an aggressor.

1000 guns are not enough to bring down the US military prowess if it is wheeled against its citizens.

Bambi, can be shot dead even with 1950’s rifles!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Roseeurekacross said:
What do you think a culture is that leads to mass murder? Describe that culture.
Click to expand...
a loner culture, one that is individualistic. where people have nowhere to turn for help. they end up striking out. you can be mugged in downtown anytown and people will walk by and not get involved.
 
jcrichton said:
One gun is enough to defend yourself from an aggressor.
Click to expand...
what is your hang up with numbers. so i have a 1000 guns i can only shoot 1 at a time. yes i can bring multiple guns to a killing but it is just as easy to change mags. ban big mags and i still can change out smaller mags.

it won’t stop someone intent on killing.

ban semi autos and i can still speed load a revolver. there are ways around all of the bans.

ban bump stocks and i can rig a rubber band. google it.
 
Absolutely not a strawman argument.

We have an insane level of gun violence in this nation. That is the price we pay for our Second Amendment freedoms.

It’s not a strawman argument, or any kind of argument at all. It’s just a fact.
 
Interesting, and I would agree.

But this is a curious stat. Melbourne is far more violent then NY. We always hear about muggings in NY, but it’s safer to walk down the street there at night, then in Melbourne.
 
Sigh… people equate AR-15’s, AK-47’s (semi-autos), etc. with “assault weapons.” If the weapon doesn’t have a functional full-auto select fire switch, it’s not an assault rifle. Based on photos, there wasn’t a single “automatic” weapon in the bunch, unless he had made internal modifications.

Here’s the thing… if people are going to commit murder, another felony charge really doesn’t matter.

As far as civilians never needing such things… hmm. We don’t have many home invasions. Many of the ones I have seen involved multiple assailants. A single shot weapon isn’t going to do much for you in that situation. Also have ranchers and coyote packs, etc.

Who is supposed to determine whether I “need,” or somebody else “needs” a firearm?

Who gets to set what isn’t “spur of the moment” and how long is long enough to wait? Putting a waiting period in won’t stop suicides (.357Mag to the temple is a much faster way to punch your own ticket than cutting one’s throat… if somebody’s going to kill themselves, they’re going to do it however they can). Putting in a waiting period won’t stop things like Las Vegas, as they are planned events anyway.

Banning semi-automatic weapons won’t stop suicides. A 22-250 to the mouth makes a mess, as does a .308Win, a 30-06 Sprg., or even a .50 black powder. Banning semi-automatics won’t stop “gun crime,” as gangs are moving toward revolvers at times because they can take the casings with them.

What is up with the anti-law enforcement and anti-prosecution stance? The talk about presenting “false” evidence, etc.? The times that I see false material, it almost always comes from the defense side. Stuff like “My client is a good little Christian boy/girl who is God fearing, etc…” Or, “My client says he didn’t do it” when there’s video surveillance, etc. that makes it blatantly obvious that he did. Or, “those aren’t my… pants, shirt, underwear, bodily orifice…” Or, “I didn’t know it was in my bodily orifice.”
 
Okay. When I say “assault weapons”, regardless of the incorrect termonology, what I am referring any weapon that is designed to kill a mass about of people in a short amount of time. Civilians do not need these types of weapons.
 
Not just squirrel hunting.

You need several semi-automatic rifles if you want to make a dent in the feral hog population.
 
=“jcrichton, post:779, topic:452415, full:true”]
Jon, you keep mixing in values and missing my exaggerated posting.

It does not take a machinegun to render game eatable; it does not take rapid fire to catch the meal of the day; militia is a dream; romanticism of guns is NRA’s and the manufacturers and distributers cash cow–finally, the right to own a gun is not a right to own stock piles.
Click to expand...
Of course I don’t miss your exaggerated posting. I just don’t think hyperbole is an effective argument here.
You are correct, it doesn’t take a machine gun to hunt. And preperly, the NRA has not defended the use of bump stocks and other modifications to civilian semi automatic firearms such as AR-15.
As for the citizen militia is not a dream, not according to the Supreme Court.

How ridiculous you guys are… a perpetrator faces you and you will ask ‘let me check to see which weapon I can use to defend against this immediate and pending threat to my life’ or ‘please, let me check to see which is the coolest weapon I have so that when the pics are taken I can post the best shots on the net!’

Well, this is simple nonsense. A straw man. People who know about firearms know what tool for what circumstance.

One gun is enough to defend yourself from an aggressor.

1000 guns are not enough to bring down the US military prowess if it is wheeled against its citizens.

Bambi, can be shot dead even with 1950’s rifles!

Maran atha!

Angel
[/quote]
 
Here is a woman using a semi-automatic rifle killing feral hogs.


Very interesting.
 
jcrichton said:
Suggesting that that’s the answer is like the child moving all of the water of the oceans into his/her little hole by the sea shore.
Click to expand...
I wanted to point out this sentence as it demonstrates a tactic used by the arms dealer lobby in the US. There is no “the answer,” yet every proposal is met with an argument that it will not “solve the problem.” It is not just with guns but with a lot of issues this same argument is used to stagnate any progress or improvement. Statements like, “You can’t stop criminals from getting guns,” or “You can also be killed by a brick,” ignores that life is never about perfection.

If people really thought this way, they would abandon their faith. But I never hear, “No point going to Mass. It won’t stop sin.”

To be fair, its opposite is just as ludicrous; “If you can save just one life,” and such, may be okay when there is zero cost (not just monetary), but any measure has to weigh what it costs. Maybe this explains why America is now stagnated.

(edited) I just finish reading above and there are some excellent examples of this type of thinking.
 
Last edited:
You can go fishing with dynamite. That doesn’t mean it should be legal. I had this same talk about hunting with semi-automatic rifles with someone the other day. He said these rifles are needed because people hunt with them. Seems a shallow argument to me, and not very sporting.
 
pnewton said:
You can go fishing with dynamite. That doesn’t mean it should be legal. I had this same talk about hunting with semi-automatic rifles with someone the other day. He said these rifles are needed because people hunt with them. Seems a shallow argument to me, and not very sporting.
Click to expand...
See my comment above about squirrel hunting. It takes a good dozen or so to fill a stew pot. And once you start shooting at one, the rest scatter, so you need to get several shots off in a short period of time.

What is ‘unsporting’ about that?
 
Oh and one other one, when I instruct a class on how to shoot Skeet or Sporting Clays, I generally outfit smaller framed individuals, including women, with semi-autos.

The process of cycling the action uses some of the energy of the shot, so it lessens the over all felt recoil.

They are also generally lighter than the Over-Under double barrel shotguns, as they do not have the mass of a second barrel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top