- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
gwynn said:I am fully aware of the inaccuracy of sprayed fire. This is why I would question why one needs a waepon capable of it. While aimed semi-automatic weapons fire is far more lethal to the intended target, it is also much less likely to result in unintended injuries or fatalities. Given the main uses a law abiding citizen has for firearms are hunting and self-defense, I would think accuracy would be something you would desire.
If someone wishes to assist the military, I suggest they enlist or join a law enforcement agency. Either one would be far more benificial. Times have obviously changed since the 2nd amendment was created. The likelihood of resisting the US military using firearms alone is nearly non-existent.
There are a number of weapons I would put in that category. Mainly those in the realm of say the M240 or M60 and above in terms of calibre and rate of fire.
You can suggest this all you want, but that doesnt really answer my question.If someone wishes to assist the military, I suggest they enlist or join a law enforcement agency.
But the principle remains timeless: for The People to retain actual power over their government, they must maintain a credible threat of force against it.Times have obviously changed since the 2nd amendment was created.
Time have changed.
Like in...oh...Iraq?The likelihood of resisting the US military using firearms alone is nearly non-existent.
Given the intent of the 2nd Amendment-There are a number of weapons I would put in that category. Mainly those in the realm of say the M240 or M60 and above in terms of calibre and rate of fire.
I am. We have every bit as much a right to own an M-60 as we do any other firearm.TurtleDude said:we aren't talking about crew served machine guns
Absolutely correct.There is no rational reason to ban those weapons.
Thats right - if the cops need them to protect themselves from criminals, then why dont I?If local governments have determined that a fully automatic carbine or submachine gun has use in such situations than it is equally useful to other civilians.
Just in time to the see his head turn into a fine red mist by the impact of a 140gr Berger VLD from my 6.5-06. =)If it came to that I wouldn't be shooting at a tank with my FAL, I would be lining up one of the dictators through the lens of my Generation IV nightscope on a 308 bolt action "long distance target interdiction rifle"
So the M249 counts but the M60 does not? You have to look at it in the slightly broader context of the militia unit rather than the individual - would a militia unit be effective at assisting or resting the standing army if all it had were M-16s?TurtleDude said:the only point where I differ with you is that I read arms to mean individual weapons carried by the average infantryman
my choice 168 graint BTHP sierra match king on a Federal Match cartridge (same that the HRT of the FBI uses) out of a Krieger barrelled Reminton 700 PSS with a leopold Mark IV or osprey Gen IV NVD
I've often made this point to people, one of comparing the "dreaded" assault rifle vs. your everyday 30-o6 bolt action hunting rifle with scope. The point is this: If I were about to walk out of a building and someone told me there was someone 100 yards away who was going to attempt to shoot at me, and I was hypothetically given the option of choosing which weapon they would use - I would chose the assault rifle. When I've made this claim to people unfamiliar with firearms, and who've bought into the whole assault weapons are bad rhetoric, they look at me like I'm crazy. Once I explain my rationale a lightbulb seems to come on. My explanation is that a reliable hunting rifle with a quality scope is a much more deadly weapon because of it's accuracy than your straight out of the box assault rifle.gwynn said:I am fully aware of the inaccuracy of sprayed fire. This is why I would question why one needs a waepon capable of it. While aimed semi-automatic weapons fire is far more lethal to the intended target, it is also much less likely to result in unintended injuries or fatalities. Given the main uses a law abiding citizen has for firearms are hunting and self-defense, I would think accuracy would be something you would desire.
M14 Shooter said:Like in...oh...Iraq?
TurtleDude said:I won't argue with you, you know the stuff and while I got DE many years ago it was with a feinwerkbau 300 Air rifle, I qualified Expert with an HBAR colt twenty years ago and sort of got out of rifle shooting save air rifle. I was mostly a skeet shooter (AA/Master american and international) and a A level IPSC shooter (back when that was Master-circa 1984). Now I just shoot sporting clays, airguns and pistols along with my main sport=olympic style archery
M14 Shooter said:I do a lot of skeet shooting, too. Its a lot of fun, especiually when you have a lot of people and three throwers.
I shoot 4-5 times a year at Camp Perry, including the nationals. I shoot service rifle, usually, with an AR, but I shoot long range with the M14 and the M700.
TurtleDude said:You might know a couple guys near Toledo-the Cleland Brothers. I know Matt best-he runs a junior archery club that competes against some of my kids-he was national compound champion in 98. His brother Chad is a legend in blackpowder rifle shooting. Chad used to work for TC arms with a good-sadly dead from ovarian cancer-friend of mine. They own a gun/archery shop near Toledo. Never been up to camp perry-I used to shoot at Prado Tiro-the 84 Olympics venue when the US trials and International Shooting championships were there and then at Wolf's Creek (Atlanta) site of the 96 games
This is the very same thing gun haters such as Sarah Brady chants. Gun haters claim they can limit the 2nd amend because of the Miller case. The gun haters use the Miller case and yet the gun haters banned 19 types of firearms that the Miller case would have protected. This is just more proof the gun haters want to ban the right to bear arms.gwynn said:That said I firmly believe in the right to own some types of guns and firmly believe there are some nobody outside the military should have access to.
DHard3006 said:This is the very same thing gun haters such as Sarah Brady chants. Gun haters claim they can limit the 2nd amend because of the Miller case. The gun haters use the Miller case and yet the gun haters banned 19 types of firearms that the Miller case would have protected. This is just more proof the gun haters want to ban the right to bear arms.
The one thing the gun haters cannot prove is that a person must be in a militia to bear arms. There is no rule or law that states this.
One thing some people that claim to be pro gun and chant the militia lie do not understand is militias can be regulated. The 2nd amend states this very simple fact. This means a militia unit can be regulated to whatever status the people in charge of that militia wants to regulate them to. This means militia could be regulated to just a few if not one type of firearm. Which means that a militia could be regulated to an unarmed duty.
The one thing the 2nd amend does state is a well regulated militia, not a well regulated people.
People that chant the this gun is better then that gun bs are just as bad. I can think of no military that would accept an inaccurate firearm into their inventory. Military requirements for marksmanship are not as tight as civilians. Nowhere will you hear a military range instructor telling you to place all of your rounds in the same hole. The military simply requires soldiers to hit a target at set ranges. Civilian marksman simply prefer to place their rounds in tight groups.
As for the spray shooting chant. When has this ever happened?
The LA bank robbery? I watched the news footage of this. It appears the robbers are aiming their shoots. I seen no crazed spraying of shots.
Columbine? Everything I read about this shooting the shooters walked up and fired point blank at their victims.
The subway shooting? Again this shooter walked up and shot point blank at his victims.
Any of the other school shootings? If I recall the shooters in these incidents took their time and aimed.
Spray fire is just another gun hater catch phrase
Pretty clever, but the ninth amendment can be use to defend any right.Turtledude said:if the second amendment merely applies to those in the militia then the 9th Amendment recognizes the rights of non militia members to keep and bear arms
The 2nd amend states well regulated militia, not well regulated people.TurtleDude said:the Second amendment's term well regulated militia empowers no federal or state government to regulate the militia.
Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!TurtleDude said:A well regulated (as opposed to an unorganized militia) was one that regularly trained and drilled. IT
The 2nd amend states militia can be regulated. No where does the 2nd amend state a person is required to be in a militia to bear arms.TurtleDude said:if the second amendment merely applies to those in the militia
Read the rest of the amendment buddy.Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!
-Demosthenes- said:Pretty clever, but the ninth amendment can be use to defend any right.
The ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The ninth amendment just means that the rights of the people are not limited to what is listed in the Constitution.
The second can defend itself:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The People's right shall not be infringed.
The word "militia" is sometimes used the try twist the meaning of the amendment, but the second part clearly states: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The "militia" was the people in Colonial times anyway.
-Demosthenes- said:Read the rest of the amendment buddy.
Vandeervecken said:Gun Control Logic:
People are breaking laws. Therefore we need more laws.
DUH
TurtleDude said:as well as the fact that people who obey gun laws don't disobey laws against robbery and murder
people who murder and rob don't obey gun laws
Do you think that preventing crime is the motivation behind additional gun laws?
Vandeervecken said:I think it is the main motivation behind the vast majority of anti-gun sheep. I do not for a moment think it is even a tertiary concern of the people in positions of power who guide those sheep.
TurtleDude said:Astute Thinking, I agree 100% with you on that:agree
DHard3006 said:The 2nd amend states well regulated militia, not well regulated people.
Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!
The 2nd amend states militia can be regulated. No where does the 2nd amend state a person is required to be in a militia to bear arms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?