You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
Rusty Carr
Guest
What difference?
Mr. D. you and I know the difference, but does the average, non shooting citizen? When the last "assault weapon" ban was enacted, the way it was written, many popular hunting guns could have been included. Does a bayonet stud or a pistol grip make it more dangerous? How about the ban on cop killer bullets, does it not make sense to ban armor piercing pistol bullets? Actually, the way it was written, any bullet possesing a ceertain energy level, and capeable of being fired in a pistol was the criteria. Have you not seen the specialty pistols which fire everything from .22 LR to .308 and more. It would have effectively bannesd most any cartridge commonly used for deer hunting. Show me how you would write the ban forbiding guns you don't like, and I believe I can show you how it can be used to ban hunting guns. I believe that it is not the hard core anti gunners who are the problem, rather the people who believe that those people will be satisfied with anything less than total confiscation of all guns. As always, just my opinion, Rusty Carr
Mr. D. you and I know the difference, but does the average, non shooting citizen? When the last "assault weapon" ban was enacted, the way it was written, many popular hunting guns could have been included. Does a bayonet stud or a pistol grip make it more dangerous? How about the ban on cop killer bullets, does it not make sense to ban armor piercing pistol bullets? Actually, the way it was written, any bullet possesing a ceertain energy level, and capeable of being fired in a pistol was the criteria. Have you not seen the specialty pistols which fire everything from .22 LR to .308 and more. It would have effectively bannesd most any cartridge commonly used for deer hunting. Show me how you would write the ban forbiding guns you don't like, and I believe I can show you how it can be used to ban hunting guns. I believe that it is not the hard core anti gunners who are the problem, rather the people who believe that those people will be satisfied with anything less than total confiscation of all guns. As always, just my opinion, Rusty Carr
C
cntryboy1289
Guest
Mr D, Mr D, Mr D
I may not have to hunt deer with a thirty shot clip, but I do own them and can hunt deer with one just as legally as you can without one. I can afford the bolt action rifle, but maybe not every one can own as many guns as I do and might only be able to buy just one and the 2nd was put in place to not limit anyone as to buy just one particular gun or what makes you smile inside!!
How to you justify it being only a sporting arm that is legal when the 2nd amendment strictly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed???
No where did it ever mention that only a sporting arm is legal. Arms are guns and all guns should be legal according to the 2nd. No where does it give your meaning of what should be legal, that is an abomination given to us by Congress when it violated the 2nd amendment to do so.
So please go back to school and learn what is meant by a Free State, you have been told numerous times and you still interject your way of thinking when it is simply spelled out for us in black and white and in plain English that Congress shall passs no law to infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms.
Arms meaning guns, guns that are designed with one purpose in mind, to kill what it is aimed at. Of course we have different uses that we love to partake in with our arms, but arms were meant to be used for protection and no where does it give any of the interpetations that you love to give us when you try to explain it to us. No gun is designed strictly as a sporting arm. You can of course use it in that capacity, but a gun is designed to fire a bullet and bullets are designed to hit and destroy what they are aimed at.
I may not have to hunt deer with a thirty shot clip, but I do own them and can hunt deer with one just as legally as you can without one. I can afford the bolt action rifle, but maybe not every one can own as many guns as I do and might only be able to buy just one and the 2nd was put in place to not limit anyone as to buy just one particular gun or what makes you smile inside!!
How to you justify it being only a sporting arm that is legal when the 2nd amendment strictly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed???
No where did it ever mention that only a sporting arm is legal. Arms are guns and all guns should be legal according to the 2nd. No where does it give your meaning of what should be legal, that is an abomination given to us by Congress when it violated the 2nd amendment to do so.
So please go back to school and learn what is meant by a Free State, you have been told numerous times and you still interject your way of thinking when it is simply spelled out for us in black and white and in plain English that Congress shall passs no law to infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms.
Arms meaning guns, guns that are designed with one purpose in mind, to kill what it is aimed at. Of course we have different uses that we love to partake in with our arms, but arms were meant to be used for protection and no where does it give any of the interpetations that you love to give us when you try to explain it to us. No gun is designed strictly as a sporting arm. You can of course use it in that capacity, but a gun is designed to fire a bullet and bullets are designed to hit and destroy what they are aimed at.
L
Larry Elliott
Guest
This is where the left gets their undies all in a twist about the 2d Amendment. It's not about hunting deer or ducks or shooting benchrest or high power it's about self defense and other defense that the "militia" deems necessary. Saying that someone doesn't need a high capacity magazine for his self shucker is like saying that the journalist doesn't need a word processor or the internet to, uh, communicate.
The size of the magazine in an AR, M1A, AK, or whatever has nothing to do with the lawfulness of its use. If someone wants to have a magazine that might or might not be legal for hunting it's up to them. Most of my rifles have their magazines deactivated with single shot adapters of some kind, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have a high capacity magazine if I want one. It's all about FREEDOM. As long as someone is not robbing people, murdering people, or committing another crime against persons or property they should be able to own whatever personal firearm they choose with whatever magazine size they choose. An AR, AK, or whatever else with the largest magazine available for it won't turn a person into a murderer or robber. It's like saying that fast cars for a quick getaway turn people into criminals.
The same sort of argument is used by the gun banners to try to outlaw highpowered rifles with scopes as "sniper rifles". Does the desire to own and shoot a scope sighted high powered rifle that might be of no use for deer hunting make it wicked and evil? Hardly!
The size of the magazine in an AR, M1A, AK, or whatever has nothing to do with the lawfulness of its use. If someone wants to have a magazine that might or might not be legal for hunting it's up to them. Most of my rifles have their magazines deactivated with single shot adapters of some kind, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have a high capacity magazine if I want one. It's all about FREEDOM. As long as someone is not robbing people, murdering people, or committing another crime against persons or property they should be able to own whatever personal firearm they choose with whatever magazine size they choose. An AR, AK, or whatever else with the largest magazine available for it won't turn a person into a murderer or robber. It's like saying that fast cars for a quick getaway turn people into criminals.
The same sort of argument is used by the gun banners to try to outlaw highpowered rifles with scopes as "sniper rifles". Does the desire to own and shoot a scope sighted high powered rifle that might be of no use for deer hunting make it wicked and evil? Hardly!
B
ballistic64
Guest
If they are going to be defended as permissible to own we have to face that fact. You don't need a 30 shot clip to hunt deer.
You really sound like the yahoos on HCI's forum.
V
Vibe
Guest
Mechanically? Almost none.Is there not a difference between a semi automatic hunting arm with a five shot capacity and a military arm with a 30 shot capacity?
BS. They are all "designed" to launch a projectile, nothing more - what the target at the time happens to be has almost no impact upon the functionality. Other than the degree of reliability required and expected. Besides - the 2nd Amendment was - as it turns out - precisely for the case where shooting humans is required.Some firearms are designed to shoot humans and not for hunting use.
If it were indeed a "fact" you might have a shot at being right there. And even then only maybe. As it is not a fact, but an opinion, there is no chance whatsoever.If they are going to be defended as permissible to own we have to face that fact.
No. And you apparently do not "need" a 5 round magazine tube to hunt duck either, and are limited to only 2 in the magazine - yet most all pump and semi-auto shotguns have 4 to 7 round magazine capacities. What's your point?You don't need a 30 shot clip to hunt deer.
F
Flash The Cash
Guest
Justice Scalia’s Activist Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation
In the excerpt below, from the opinion authored by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in the case of Heller v. D. C., the right wing activist justice announces an intention to follow the rule of construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used. He then ignores the rule and goes to an obscure treatise, written seventy five years after the Second Amendment was ratified, as the primary source of the meaning of the words in the Amendment.
The Court has become a joke!
Justice Scalia’s Activist Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation
In the excerpt below, from the opinion authored by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in the case of Heller v. D. C., the right wing activist justice announces an intention to follow the rule of construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used. He then ignores the rule and goes to an obscure treatise, written seventy five years after the Second Amendment was ratified, as the primary source of the meaning of the words in the Amendment.
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867);
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867);
The Court has become a joke!