Show of Hands....

[Tim Steelersfan]

because the largest fraction of these guns are made for one thing.

killing humans.

So what you're saying is you want to re-write the Constitution or repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Your answer shows your ignorance. The 2nd isn't about and never has been about hunting. You know this. You're just playing the Liberal game. Trying to redefine the 2nd so then you can destroy the 2nd.

So since you and the rest of the Liberal morons continue to try to change it's definition, let's go back to history class.

The 2nd reads: "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."

Weird, that part that says 'being necessary to the security of a free state' but no mention of hunting.

Since you apparently doubt the Founding Fathers' intent, read further.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

 

[Tibs]

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

the thing that sticks out to me the most in the 2nd amendment is the consistent use of term 'well regulated.' Seems evident the federal and state governments are well within their rights to decide exactly what type of weapons are allowable. 2nd amendment has never been a 'free for all' unbinding right for anyone to have whatever guns they please. Calling for tighter, more stringent gun laws is simply being true to the 2nd amendment in demanding a 'well-regulated' militia be just that, well regulated.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

the thing that sticks out to me the most in the 2nd amendment is the consistent use of term 'well regulated.' Seems evident the federal and state governments are well within their rights to decide exactly what type of weapons are allowable. 2nd amendment has never been a 'free for all' unbinding right for anyone to have whatever guns they please. Calling for tighter, more stringent gun laws is simply being true to the 2nd amendment in demanding a 'well-regulated' militia be just that, well regulated.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[DBS1970]

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Yes that's the thing people forget that we're dealing with words and phrases and their meanings in the context of two centuries ago. It's interesting how the socialists will go to the supporting documentation and the writings of the founders to support their interpretation of the Constitution and the amendments. Except the second amendment.

Also in an interesting sidenote the Miller decision was a case about possession of a short-barreled shotgun. They got it factually wrong when they said it had no use in a militia or military setting. Saddle Guns, which were short large bore shotguns were used before the advent a revolvers by cavalry.

 

[SteelerSask2]

The AR-15 is a gun like any other gun. Obviously, it is not a hunting gun. People can say they hunt with it, but it isn't in anyway a hunting gun. It a military weapon that is sold on the street for some people who get dick hard for that kinda thing. And that in itself I find no more douchy than the middle aged guy with the big powerful sports car who thinks he's just king ****. To each his own. The fact is that my deer rifle would blow a much larger hole through something then that particular caliber would. The issue here is magazine capacity. Period. Some people believe they will have to use their guns in a military style firefight. I personally cannot forsee myself ever needing to do that. In fact I cannot possibly forsee myself using my guns to kill another human. The belief that regular people will have to rise again against their government is beyond laughable. You can have any type of gun you want, you cannot fight a military trained person who is holding the same or better. Check insurgent casualties versus US military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in my mind have any type of gun that looks any way you want. You just don't need a magazine that shoots more than 7 shots before it has to be reloaded. Limp dicks can still get hard and when these ridiculous mass shootings happen, the people involved will have a fighting chance to take the terrorist or crazed maniac down with their hands.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

what's in place is a good start....and no, I don't have all the answers....but I'm sure there is some reasonable solution to be found.

like not including something in the bill that says you can't give Dad's .45 to the kid, for starters.

So, let me try and understand this. You want something, but don't have the answers and a reasonable solution is out there somewhere?

When this reasonable solution is found, what segment of the populace will abide by it?

 

[ark steel]

When this reasonable solution is found, what segment of the populace will abide by it?

The criminals?

 

[ark steel]

Yes that's the thing people forget that we're dealing with words and phrases and their meanings in the context of two centuries ago. It's interesting how the socialists will go to the supporting documentation and the writings of the founders to support their interpretation of the Constitution and the amendments. Except the second amendment.

Also in an interesting sidenote the Miller decision was a case about possession of a short-barreled shotgun. They got it factually wrong when they said it had no use in a militia or military setting. Saddle Guns, which were short large bore shotguns were used before the advent a revolvers by cavalry.

Not to mention that the other 9 parts of the Bill of Rights are obviously related to individual rights, it seems so very unlikely that the 2nd one refers to state militia or regulating an individual right.

 

[ark steel]

The AR-15 is a gun like any other gun. Obviously, it is not a hunting gun. People can say they hunt with it, but it isn't in anyway a hunting gun. It a military weapon that is sold on the street for some people who get dick hard for that kinda thing. And that in itself I find no more douchy than the middle aged guy with the big powerful sports car who thinks he's just king ****. To each his own. The fact is that my deer rifle would blow a much larger hole through something then that particular caliber would. The issue here is magazine capacity. Period. Some people believe they will have to use their guns in a military style firefight. I personally cannot forsee myself ever needing to do that. In fact I cannot possibly forsee myself using my guns to kill another human. The belief that regular people will have to rise again against their government is beyond laughable. You can have any type of gun you want, you cannot fight a military trained person who is holding the same or better. Check insurgent casualties versus US military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in my mind have any type of gun that looks any way you want. You just don't need a magazine that shoots more than 7 shots before it has to be reloaded. Limp dicks can still get hard and when these ridiculous mass shootings happen, the people involved will have a fighting chance to take the terrorist or crazed maniac down with their hands.

Lol. What a fuckhead post. You sound like that ***** whose shoulder was bruised from shooting an AR 15. "Har, har, you guys need an ar15 to get your dicks hard, har, har. Does it take a gun to make you feel like a man, har, har".

Weak.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

the thing that sticks out to me the most in the 2nd amendment is the consistent use of term 'well regulated.' Seems evident the federal and state governments are well within their rights to decide exactly what type of weapons are allowable. 2nd amendment has never been a 'free for all' unbinding right for anyone to have whatever guns they please. Calling for tighter, more stringent gun laws is simply being true to the 2nd amendment in demanding a 'well-regulated' militia be just that, well regulated.

And it doesn't work. It's always more regulation for you Libs. That's your solution. And it doesn't work. Yet like ignorant birds that continue to fly into a window, you Liberals keep pushing for the same measures over and over again.

I want you to pay attention to some facts in this article (hard for you Liberals to do, I know, but please try to focus ok?):

• The assault weapons ban went from 1994 to 2002
• ARs accounted for 2% of crimes prior to the ban. In 2014 they account for - wait for it - 2% of crimes.
  [*]In the last year of the ban (2002) ARs accounted for 3% of all murders. In 2014, ARs account for 2% of all murders - a decrease.
• Studies found zero link to the AR ban and gun crime.
• Today the gun homicide rate is 3.8 deaths per 100,000 people; in the early 1990s, the rate was 7 deaths per 100,000 people.
• Gun violence has been and continues to DROP. Which is bad for Libtards. Which is why Libs so heavily politicize these "flash point incidents" because facts aren't on their side and they must play on immediate raw emotions to try to get the changes they want.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-assault-rifle-education-1466033212

An Assault Rifle Education
Hillary’s ban wouldn’t work any better than her husband’s did.

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist massacre, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have called for reinstating Bill Clinton’s ban on “assault weapons.” If her version works as well as her husband’s did, the terrorists will have won.

From 1994 to 2002 Congress barred the sale of 18 types of rifles and shotguns that had “military style” attributes. This definition was purely political because the difference between a regular rifle and what Washington calls an assault weapon is mostly cosmetic.

This is one reason the ban had a negligible impact on gun crime. So-called assault rifles accounted for about 2% of gun crimes prior to the ban, and the percentage of murders committed with rifles today (2% in 2014) is less than the 3% in the last year of the ban. Overall gun crime fell after 1994, though numerous studies, including one commissioned by the Department of Justice, attribute this to better background checks and other measures. The studies found no link to the ban and reduced crime.

The rifle ban also didn’t matter when it ended. The gun homicide rate remains about half (3.8 deaths per 100,000 people) of what it was prior to the seven deaths per 100,000 in the early 1990s. The media this week are full of stories about gun-death rates, without bothering to note that most of the surge is occurring in cities like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws. Heather Mac Donald nearby has a better explanation for the crime resurgence.

As for stopping terrorism, California is among the states that continued to ban assault weapons after the federal version expired. But that didn’t stop the San Bernardino killers, who used modified rifles that violated the law. France’s strict gun laws also didn’t stop the Paris assailants.

There are some 350 million guns in America, including as many as 10 million AR-15 rifles like the one used in Orlando. If Democrats want a ban to have any chance of working, they will have to vote for and enforce a nationwide program of confiscation. The ban Democrats are pushing would be meaningless.

What has reduced gun deaths are better background checks, but Democrats are now politicizing this success. They are insisting that anyone whose name appears on the FBI’s terror watch list should be banned from buying guns. But we know that names are mistakenly on the list. The GOP alternative would alert Justice if someone on the list tries to buy a gun, triggering a special court proceeding and 72-hour investigation. Democrats say that’s not enough, no doubt because it doesn’t provide the gun-control wedge issue they want.

By the way, how about enforcing existing law? Handguns account for more than 80% of gun crime, and the primary way felons obtain firearms is through “straw purchasing”—that is, using friends or relatives without criminal records to buy the guns for them. The Justice Department prefers not to prosecute straw purchasers on grounds that they aren’t the main problem. But surely the deterrent signal would get around if Justice began to prosecute some of these gun gophers.

We’re sorry to have to devote space to this remedial gun-control education, but most of the press corps takes this assault-weapon ban seriously. No one else should.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

In fact I cannot possibly forsee myself using my guns to kill another human. The belief that regular people will have to rise again against their government is beyond laughable.

You find it laughable? You need to read R.J. Rummel's book, Death by Government, and this article by JFPO (Jews For the Protection of Firearms Ownership): http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by non-democratic governments (8,500,000 killed by their democratic governments). The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Why is it laughable? Are the numbers too big to digest?

Here is what I laugh at. The sheer # of people, like you, that walk around in this bubble - "I live in Disney World, nothing bad will happen." Let's repeat: In 100 years, Governments - not wars - killed 170,000,000 people. Let that # sink in. 70Million of those (41%) were murdered by their governments where gun control measures had been implemented.

There's a world (literally) of ample evidence for any of us to be concerned about gun control. There's a world-wide precedent in the past 100 years that is horrifyingly scary. To think that it couldn't happen here or in Canada is naivety.

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

not allowed to use rifles to hunt in ohio.

 

[SteelerSask2]

You find it laughable? You need to read R.J. Rummel's book, Death by Government, and this article by JFPO (Jews For the Protection of Firearms Ownership): http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by non-democratic governments (8,500,000 killed by their democratic governments). The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Why is it laughable? Are the numbers too big to digest?

Here is what I laugh at. The sheer # of people, like you, that walk around in this bubble - "I live in Disney World, nothing bad will happen." Let's repeat: In 100 years, Governments - not wars - killed 170,000,000 people. Let that # sink in. 70Million of those (41%) were murdered by their governments where gun control measures had been implemented.

There's a world (literally) of ample evidence for any of us to be concerned about gun control. There's a world-wide precedent in the past 100 years that is horrifyingly scary. To think that it couldn't happen here or in Canada is naivety.

WOLVERINE. Was Red Dawn on HBO 6 last night. **** dude you can have an AR-15. You can have virtually what ever you like. If you are actually talking about someone standing up to the US government with use of force you aren't even dreaming or hallucinating. I don't know what that is. Not only to they have technology and weapons they have training and know how. You might as well say you and your buddies who play flag football on the weekend are going to take on the Pittsburgh Steelers in a game of tackle. I'm not disputing the fact that governments kill people. I'm saying if your government actually turned on you, you are dead as **** anyhow. So what is the point in actually considering that.

 

[Spike]

An SKS/AK 7,62x39 with expanding bullets is comparable to a 30/30 in energy - good enough for the small deer we have here.

Yes, hunting with an AK is legal in FL with use of a 5 rd magazine.

Bullets heavy enough at 123 gr, good up to at least 100-150 yards which around here I'm guessing is the limit your gonna shoot anyway. Good enough for deer and hogs.



Ballistics Information:
Muzzle Velocity: 2365 fps
Muzzle Energy: 1527 ft. lbs.

SKS

AK

 

[SteelerSask2]

And I would fully support the idea of using that type of a rifle to hunt with a 5 shot magazine. It is comparable to a 30/30 which is about the least useful rifle for large game with the exception of shorter distance heavily wooded areas. Who gives a **** what something looks like. Its all the same there. I wouldn't hunt with one, to paraphrase what you are saying, because it just isn't that good. But to each his own. You just don't need a mag that doesn't require reloading for anything but a military style fire fight.

 

[ark steel]

You just don't need a mag that doesn't require reloading for anything but a military style fire fight.

How's my dick going to get hard?

Bill of Rights. Not Bill of Needs. Shall not be infringed.

 

[Spike]

SKS Norinco "M" Paratrooper uses AK detachable mags, if you can find one

 

[SteelerSask2]

How's my dick going to get hard?

Bill of Rights. Not Bill of Needs. Shall not be infringed.

There is always Viagra if you need that type of thing. Hopefully, your right to live is never infringed upon like the people in Orlando and San Bernardino.

 

[ark steel]

There is always Viagra if you need that type of thing. Hopefully, your right to live is never infringed upon like the people in Orlando and San Bernardino.

It won't be, because I would be shooting back.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Locked and loaded at the grocery store. Hope you don't drop your eggs before you dispatch the terrorist. Team America, **** ya!!!

 

[Spike]

WATCH OUT FOR THE AR-47! It’s SUPER DANGEROUS!"


Dick Durbin Says No Self-Respecting Sportsman Uses an 'AR-47' to Hunt Deer in Illinois

Every word that left Dick Durbin’s mouth made him look like a complete jackass. He claimed that no self-respecting sportsman in his home state of Illinois would ever use an ‘AR-47’ to hunt deer.

Senator Durbin is actually correct for two major reasons.

First of all, there’s no such thing as an ‘AR-47.’ There’s an AR-15. There’s an AK-47. But nope, no AR-47’s. So clearly nobody could ever use a rifle to hunt deer that doesn’t even exist. Sorry Dick.

Secondly, under state law, it’s illegal to hunt deer in Illinois with any rifle. Let alone ‘Dick’s’ fictitious ‘AR-47.’ Illinois has a whitetail archery season, muzzle loader season and a shotgun season. But no rifle season. Sorry again Dick.

Finally, and perhaps the most important, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting!

http://buzzpo.com/dick-durbin-says-no-self-respecting-sportsman-uses-ar-47-hunt-deer-illinois/

 

[ark steel]

Locked and loaded at the grocery store. Hope you don't drop your eggs before you dispatch the terrorist. Team America, **** ya!!!

It will be pretty tough trying to hold off terrorists while I'm furiously masturbating over my gun, though.

 

[SteelerSask2]

The big choice will be Artroglide or Hoppe's 9

 

[diver]

We have to stop getting caught up in all this bullshit about having to defend ourselves.

The 2nd Amendment is a right that I have to own firearms. And own them I will.

I own an AR-15 because I have fun shooting it. Most other stuff is secondary to that. **** you if you don't like it.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

WOLVERINE. Was Red Dawn on HBO 6 last night. **** dude you can have an AR-15. You can have virtually what ever you like. If you are actually talking about someone standing up to the US government with use of force you aren't even dreaming or hallucinating. I don't know what that is. Not only to they have technology and weapons they have training and know how. You might as well say you and your buddies who play flag football on the weekend are going to take on the Pittsburgh Steelers in a game of tackle. I'm not disputing the fact that governments kill people. I'm saying if your government actually turned on you, you are dead as **** anyhow. So what is the point in actually considering that.

This notion is also laughable. MOST people in the military are AMERICANS. Americans, who love fellow Americans, the notion of America, Patriotism. Your post assumes the whole Government would turn on US Citizens. They would not. Some % might, yes. And some might operate incredible military fire power. A large % of these in the military would defect. Many would take or have access to these same weapons, if not set up ways to get access to them. So this notion that 100% of the Government would turn on all civilians is nonsense.

And in that scenario, weapons ownership does matter. I love the following piece:
====================================================================

WORLD’S LARGEST ARMY

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. At the time we had a 2 million man army and war ships - all fighting the Germans. So, why didn’t Japan invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer: They knew that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them. The world's largest army - America's hunters.

Recently, a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. This makes Wisconsin’s hunters the 8th largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran. More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

=======================================================================

This was printed a long time ago. I suspect the numbers to be greater now.

Then consider what happened in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded. Far greater military fire power was had by the Russians as they fought a severely under-weaponized Afghani force. They couldn't win. We, frankly, couldn't win. Look at Vietnam. Again, we have far greater fire power. We couldn't win.

You're foolish to think that millions of armed Americans couldn't put up resistance. Foolish.