-I come from a hunting family and if you used a AR 15 to hunt there would be nothing left of the animal worth eating. It is ridiculous that civilians can own them.
Printable View
-I come from a hunting family and if you used a AR 15 to hunt there would be nothing left of the animal worth eating. It is ridiculous that civilians can own them.
Really? What caliber AR15? They can be used to shoot different rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Also the second amendment is not just hunting. It is a right to have a defense against a tyrannical government.
Really? I think that may be true for small game such as a rabbit or squirrel, but for larger game such as deer? The other popular ammo for larger game is the 30.06 which is much more powerful and is probably a better choice because it will take down a larger target more efficiently. The other plus for 30.06 is that it isn't associated with a scary looking rifle like the .223 caliber (5.56mm) rounds are. But, to get back to your point, I think the perfectly acceptable 30.06 does more damage to the animal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
A 20 gauge pump shotgun can do a lot -- it can bring down some birds (even ducks with a magnum load). Put a slug barrel on it and you got a gun that can bring down the biggest deer. Throw a short barrel on it and you have an excellent home defense gun. You know all this, I am sure. You don't really need a 30.06, though a 30.06 deer rifle could come in handy way out west where you need to take longer shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Yep, just making a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
Your point is well-taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I gotta say, the gun rights issue is one that really has me torn. I love shooting sporting clays and have been a member of gun clubs. I have gone hunting and harvested dinner. I've also just plinked tin cans and such. All fun!
But I see gun culture in America as totally off any reasonable course.
I would much rather outlaw automobiles than guns!
Some people will be singing a different tune when it is your loved one or child that gets slaughtered for no good reason.
So I have a question for Alan and others who are gun owners
what is wrong with banning gun shows and internet sales?
what is wrong with background checks?
what is wrong with a waiting period?
what is wrong with guns having age and citizenship restrictions? Certainly you cannot think it is a good idea for an illegal citizen or non citizen who is active with ISIS getting a gun.
aren’t there enough guns to choose from that certain guns are not needed to be owned by normal citizens? I can even see exceptions made for those that demonstrate they know what they are doing, and have had more training.
i’m not Getting it. I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away but it seems reasonable that guns should only be in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens.
I can only speak for myself but when you say you don't want to take guns away, but do admit that you want to create a restrictive ownership environment, what I hear is "I want to limit the natural right to the means of self defense to those I approve of", and I don't trust people who may decide that I shouldn't have that right. Without natural rights, how can you have civil rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
No, that is silly to the point of being offensive. Children here in my city are slaughtered all the time. My number could be up next, or DH’s number, or my dog’s number. Every gun involved in these murders are held illegally. EVERY gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
so my point, should I need to speel it out, is that criminals will get guns.
So Alan, I feel like I got another implied response, but can I get a declarative sentence? What, in your opinion, is the acceptable civilian use for a semi-automatic weapon, such as the AR-15?
also, i don’t have an issue with gun shows, I do have an issue with allowing them as a legal way to get around background checks. I imagine they are probably fun for those with an interest in guns.
we repealed prohibition. You still need a liquor license to sell hard stuff and an ID that says you’re 21 to buy any. So to speak to your comparison - some people are still giving up some “rights” around alcohol “for the children” (or for whatever we based that on.)
also, I don’t think owning a gun is a natural right. Freedom of movement is a natural right. Driving a car comes with all kinds of regulations. I have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but my liberty is restricted in many ways, and my pursuit of happiness in many more. As a middle aged, middle class, healthy white female, I seem to be on pretty solid ground with regards to “life”. My uncle, however, has been removed from the transplant list, so I guess he no longer has an unfettered right to life.
I don't believe in natural rights. I believe you get and keep what you fight for or threaten meaningfully enough for.
Nasty short and brutish eh?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken lady
Declarative sentences are limiting, what you call my implied response encourages thoughtfulness, but if you insist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken lady
I think the acceptable civilian usage of any weapon include, but are not limited to, self defense, sport, hunting and any other legal purpose you might imagine. I can only imagine one unacceptable use of a weapon, that being the infliction of intentional harm on another, and we already have laws against that.
My son deer hunts with his. As Mentioned it’s a very small caliber. I bought a Smith and Weston MP-15 before the election. I took it to the range to try it out, but it doesn’t do much for me. When my 10 year old grandson comes to visit I’ll probably take him to the range and let him shoot it some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
It will be years before he will be big enough to shoot a 30-06, or something like a .7mm mag. Obviously your hunting family either hunts very small game like rabbits, or like many just exaggerating.
i do a lot of things that are an inconvenience because I feel they are for the greater good. I pay my taxes although I know a lot of it will be going towards illegal regligious or border wars, even though loopholes are used to make it seem OK. I know my luggage may be searched when I board a plane, even though I have never been even charged with a crime and I was born in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
There are are a lot of very liberal policies I don’t agree with, like sanctuary cities, paying medical and housing benefits for instance for able bodied people without young children who don’t want to work or even repeal of the second amendment. Also, abortion on demand I struggle with, which many gun rights people like to use as a defense for gun ownership. Who cares if some innocents are killed, look at abortion. It should certainly should be readily accessible to rape and incest victims or if the life of the mother or child is in danger. But in my sixties it certainly is not a decision I have to make, and I never had an unwanted pregnancy.
But I am trying hard hard to understand your viewpoint. I know that many very conservative people want prayers to Jesus Christ in school and the Ten Commandments displayed in federal buildings while clear violations of the commandments like adultery and lying to get what you want are ignored which makes for very murky interpretations. however as long as I see news reports that children are slaughtered by people with guns, that police, border patrol, first responders etc. are killed by people with guns, I just cannot understand why background checks, waiting periods and so on are so much of an inconvenience to your natural rights to not be put in place.
My Dad hunted small game and my ex's entire family deer and they used a regular rifle. It fired one shot at a time. I feel like people are purposely acting dim like having a AR-15 is needed for hunting instead of a regular rifle. We have all sorts of limits on our freedoms for the good of others. Everything in life comes with restrictions if we are going to live in a civilized society. Since our kids are dying from being killed at school it is common sense that the laws we have are not working. We need more protection. If I had grandchildren I would be afraid to see them go to school which is pretty sad. You don't want your rights restricted but what about the rights of all those kids who will never grow up because the adults can't make common sense decisions? IL: people do change their opinions when it hits close to home. Many anti-death penalty people start singing a different tune once their loved one is murdered. You don't have kids but the love you have for your child or grandchild is like no other love you will ever experience. You do not love another person on the planet the way you love your very own child. It is hard to explain if you have not experienced it.
Today at lunch I heard a guy claim that Americans have a greater chance of being killed by a lightning strike than a mass shooter.
I’m not sure where I could go to verify that claim with any confidence. It seems like one of those made-up memes that infest the internet. On the other hand, it could be weird enough to be true.
I think law gets confused with protection. Dueling and lynching went on long after they were outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
A AR-15 fires one shot at a time just like any other semi automatic. And I’ll bet the cartridge is much smaller than what your ex’s hunted deer with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Your basically wanting to ban something because it’s scary looking.
I can can understand wanting to do something, but we need to look more into what causes a kid to want to kill in the first place. I have grandkids also and worrying about a school shooting is way down on the list of concerns.
A single shot rifle or shotgun surely will get the job done for hunting, though it can mean the difference between three ducks in the bag or just one. For my money, a Browning Pump Shotgun in 20 gauge can do most anything. It is a gun for the generalist. A Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 is good too, but I am a lefty, so the Browning is better for me. I have one in 12 gauge -- it is a bit too beefy for my taste. But it was a gift, so I used it for clays and geese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
A person could hunt with an AR-15. But it is not really designed for that. When you say regular rifle, you probably mean a rifle designed for hunting. AR-15 are designed for combat and such. If you want to hunt get a Browning shotgun. If you want to be prepared to become a guerrilla defending your freedom from a tyrannical gubmint with all the black helicopters and stormtroopers and so forth, then an AR-15 is more for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
But an AR-15 does not make a person prepared to be a freedom fighter. The average American is not mentally, physically, or emotionally prepared for that sort of thing. 40% of Americans are obese. Most barely know how to set up a tent, let alone run a jug line, build a campfire, or butcher wild fish and game.
The idea that Americans would fight back in any real way against tyrannical gubmint is preposterous in my opinion. Clinging to assault rifles gives many Americans the false comfort that they can prevent dictatorship. But I think most would roll over for the tyranny if their bellies were kept full and they could still buy piles of cheap plastic crap and gadgets from China.
1600+ kids die each year from car accidents. Since 2012 about 400 people (adults and children) have died in school shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
If you are worried about your children, keep them out of cars and off the roads.
I want to ban cars because about 40,000 Americans die each year in car wrecks!Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
Cars look scary to me!
Further to the above comment from dmc, Nikolas Cruz exhibited threatening behavior and got into fights with other students, which resulted in his expulsion from the school he later returned to and fired at least 100 rounds, killing 17 people in a matter of minutes.
Before the school took action to expel Cruz, he was banned from bringing a backpack to school, because he had threatened students that he might bring weapons and attack them.
Local police had been called to the home of Nikolas Cruz 39 times to deal with "strange and violent behavior", although it has not been reported how many of these police visits occurred before January when Cruz bought the AR-15.
The store which sold the AR-15 to Cruz, Sunrise Tactical Supplies, has closed permanently. The owners released a statement through their attorney, stating that the store sold the rifle to Cruz in January. There was nothing about the transaction that raised any suspicions in the minds of the store owners or employees.
They performed the background check as required by law. They received all the proper clearances. They held the rifle for the required five-business-day waiting period. On the ATF paperwork Cruz answered "No" to questions asking if he suffered from mental health issues, or was he ever institutionalized for treatment. (According to some accounts, Cruz had been "in and out of treatment"... maybe he lied on the form.) The statement adds that his ties to white supremacy and his expulsion from school were not reason enough to withhold a firearm from him.
The survivors of Parkland are saying there needs to be a ban on civilians owning the AR-15. They know that Cruz obtained the weapon legally, and he passed the background check, even though there were "red flags" in his behavior. Cruz might be described as obsessed with weapons, and he threatened people. I believe it trivializes their trauma, not to mention those who died in that shooting incident, to say they want the AR-15 to be banned "because it's scary looking".
I am actually not opposed to any assault rifle ban. But how could we be sure it would stop there? What about pump shotguns? What about Glocks with high capacity clips?
Except that there are dozens of other weapons of the same or greater caliber, semi-automatic functionality, range and accuracy as the AR-15. It is singled out for it's looks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dado potato
I've always been perplexed by the AR-15's popularity. I had the opportunity to use its full automatic cousin, the M-16 at the range and in the field. I think many veterans may prefer the AR due to its familiarity and rugged dependability and perhaps that's what carries over to their children and grandchildren. At the end of the day it's just a semi-automatic rifle, no different than many others with perhaps a more traditional look. If it is banned, there's plenty of others to take its place, I think the fixation on this weapon is silly.
I really don’t have a problem with a AR ban. If it’s like the last one it will only mean the prices of the ones in circulation will go up. There are thousands of them out there. I only bought one on a whim, I shot it a few times and would have no problem selling it if the price was right. But for what they sell for now I might as well keep it.
And where does it stop from there? Some are terrified of anything that even looks like a gun.
“I think the fixation on this weapon is silly.”
me too. Alan. Except i’d Like to see a ban on any thing that fires more than the two barrels of a double barrel shotgun with a single trigger pull. If that means you miss your deer, go to the range and practice. If you end up short on ducks, come see me at the food bank.
So there is the rub, you actually want to ban the majority of guns. And what about the millions that are in circulation? Am I suppose to turn in my ancestors Winchester lever action 1873, 1886, 1892, 1894, among many others that have been passed down in my family. Those are capable of firing more than two shots, I’d like my son to have a couple of my old bolt action guns also, they are also capable of firing multiple rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken lady
I havnt hunted in 15yrs after my old bird dog died, but I still like to shoot at targets, both fixed and moving. And many of my friends and family do enjoy going hunting. And I may decide to go again.
What do you think will happen if they were to ban certain guns? Last time it just meant they could not sell to the general public. There were none taken out of circulation.
And properly cared for they can last for generations.
Should this guy have been able to buy a gun?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/30...ir-report.html
26 yearold with a non immigrant visa, college student in Florida. does He have second amendment rights?
by the way, I Am not anti second amendment. Just looking for clarification.
Yes, I think he had second amendment rights as a legal visitor to this country. In my view, the second amendment doesn't give us rights, it codifies natural rights and limits the government's ability to restrict or take away. Anyone considering the Bill of Rights as something the government has given them is missing the point and accepting the government as their master rather than their servant.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
This fellow is facing deportation not because he bought a gun, but because he failed to meet the requirements of his visa by not attending classes. The "sniper rifle" comments and change in behaviors accelerated the process.
in the context of natural rights, you are referring to what is covered in the constitution? Interesting that in China it would have not been legal for him to own these weapons yet he can come here as a legal visitor and own them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
He cannot get get a job off campus, cannot vote, has no representative in Congress yet can buy whatever firearm he wants. I see it says that applicants for this visa are fingerprinted. Do you know what type of background checks are done in their home country? I could not find that info. Very interesting.
No, natural rights are not limited to a specific number, the Constitution simply affirms that some of the more important ones are beyond the scope of governments reach.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
The fact that China doesn't trust its citizens doesn't mean that the US should follow suit, even if the US had the authority to do so. As a communist country, the Chinese people are not individuals with free will and natural rights, they are part of the collective that only enjoys whatever human rights the governing party allows. I find it remarkable that so many in the US would like to emulate that reality.
My understanding was that natural law theory posits certain rights that exist independently of government's power to create or confer. That doesn't mean that governments can't abridge or violate them, however. I think the great advantage a republic such as ours enjoys over a more direct form of democracy is that such rights are difficult enough to abridge that the fleeting emotions of the moment are insufficient to drive permanent change. It's like the Framers put together a list of rights that were too important to capriciously vote, re-interpret or regulate away. That's a good thing in my opinion.
While the frustrated autocrat in all of us might sometimes long for the power to "get things done", I'm glad things are the way they are.
I don’t want to take away or limit responsible citizens guns. I just see no value to society if Mentally Ill people have guns. I see no value if non citizens have guns. I see no value in Felons being able to buy guns at shows or over the internet. Explain to me what the value is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
To completely change tack, If we can stop your iPhone from working without your fingerprint, why can’t we stop your gun from firing?
It’s against the law now for felons to buy a gun, also mentally ill. I’ve also purchased guns at a gun show, but still had to go thru a background check, same as with buying over the internet. Guns must be shipped to a FFL holder and he runs the background check.
There are plenty of laws now on the books, why not enforce them. Who do more laws impact? Just the law abiding.
I’m guessing gun and ammo sales will start going up again. Time for me to start stocking up on powder and primers.