Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So tell me. Where do you guys draw the line? Assault type weapons, fully automatic weapons, grenades, RPG's? What is infringemen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gary Devine
    replied
    The tv evening news has their own news reporters calling these school killing guns full automatics. The average Joe public, is being duped by the misinformed media. I had the spoon-feed my own sister in law, and explain that the guns were not automatics.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Speaking of the First Amendment, Sen. Charles Schumer likes to tell us that the our constitutional rights are subject to limitations, even the right to free speech under the First Amendment. We cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
    He compares that to restrictions on the Second amendment, such as gun bans, which makes it appear reasonable.
    That is a false analogy, because there is no prior restraint on yelling "fire!" That is something to be dealt with after the fact.
    Gun bans fall in the category of a prior restraint.
    A comparable restriction on the right to free speech would be placing duct tape on the mouths of theater-goers.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1ojolsen
    replied
    I do understand the 2A, I'm not saying toy news background checka for your militias (although if were my militia I'd want em) and I only brought up the cars thing cause earlier someone said more people die from cars than from guns, so should we ban cars. You do have to take a test to drive cars, why because they can be very dangerous to the surrounding people if not driven properly. I am also aware that the constitution is not the bible, nothing In it is god breathed and it should not be treated as such. I firmly support my right to bear arms and yours, if your sane and stable which any of us are not. I also so not want the nut jobs behind the wheel. Now some of you will say I hate the constitution of some other nonsense. Check out 1A.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sourdough Dave
    replied
    Amen Explorer! And while we are at it how about some technical advisors for the East Coast Urban New York, know absolutely nothing about firearms, never held one, never shot one, never served in the military, don't know a cartridge from a clip, talking heads of the network news. Maybe some of us could explain not only the accurate nomenclature, but put private gun ownership in perspective for that vast expanse of land west of the Hudson River and east of Interstate 5 that we call America and they refer to as fly-over country.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    I think that a ban on the volume of news media stories about school shootings would do more to reduce the incidence of such shootings than any gun ban under consideration.
    If there had never been any previous school shootings before the Newtown massacre, what are the chances that it would have happened there for the first time?
    If the previous school shootings had not been reported on a national scale, would the Newtown shooter have shown the creativity to have joined the club of deranged school shooters without knowing it?
    And now we have the news media standing on the sidelines as disinterested parties who had not played a role in the rash of shootings, with even more to come.
    God help us!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dcast
    replied
    10jolsen, Doesn't understand what the 2A is. So a quick simple explanation is. The 2A was created to protect the people of the newly formed America against tyranny by government. Which is what the American Revolution was fought for.

    "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."

    To answer your question. I personally believe anything our millitary can use against us shall also be allowed to be used against them. Notice it uses the word "ARMS", which opens the door to various means of protection, which include those you stated. It doesn't say muskets, bayonets, semi-autos, etc... I know that sounds scary, but ask the Jews, Czecks, Pols, Chinese, Russians, or any other oppressed peoples.

    Do you realize more people have died at the hands of tyrannical governments than by crazy SOB's with guns?

    I know it sounds unbelieveable to think our government would be capable of doing such things, but I'm sure the people I mentioned above thought the same. In the end it doesn't matter because the Elites rule and us mere citizens obey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Devine
    replied
    Explorer, I understand, but an early post stated a comparison between cars that kill people, and alluding to the fact, that guns kill people. Don't paint all guns with the same brush.
    That wording in the earlier post stating guns kill people is what Joe Biden, Diane Feidstein and the New York Governor andrew Cuomo would say.
    Remember the saying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people".

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Gary - Even if we concede the point that firearms are made to kill people, there is a valid reason for that.
    Some people need to be shot and killed.
    Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 servicemen and wounded 29 others, comes to mind.
    He was wounded by gunfire but survived and is awaiting trial. He has grown a beard to hinder eyewitness identification, and the Army is debating the merits of allowing him to keep it. He claims it was grown for religious reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sourdough Dave
    replied
    UK has some of the most oppressive anti-bun laws and yet a higher per-capita homicide rate than the USA. Evidently they compensate for a lack of firearms with golf clubs and cricket bats. Where there is a will there is a way. It is that evil that is the real problem. Obviously, the problem is with the human that wields the weapon and the inanimate object used as a weapon cannot be held responsible for the crime.

    Jolsen, I reject the idea that I need the parental guidance of a Nanny State Big Government. It is high time that those in that big government get a refresher training in the founding documents to remind them that they work for us, We The People, not the other way around. The governments role in my pursuit of happiness is to stay the heck out of my way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Devine
    replied
    Why should a car be invented to kill people be a comparison?
    Are you saying firearms are made to kill people?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1ojolsen
    replied
    OK I guess I was thinking 1st world countries. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    10jolsen - There are many countries with higher gun-related homicides than the U.S.
    Mexico, Panama, Columbia and Brazil are much higher.
    I think the U.S. is ranked about number 14.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1ojolsen
    replied
    Amflier I think that the answer to your question is Wasichu.
    SourdoughDave Cars kill more people for sure, but the comparison that you need to make would be if there were a car that was invented for killing people, maybe a Bradly fighting vehicle. Should Bradley's be allowed on the streets, especially if several times a year some nut job ran down everything in sight and took out 8 to 18 people? That type of argument won't win it.
    I'll never own an AR or AK or anything close to it, no desire, I like bows and lever actions. I think that with the proper background checks people should be able to possess them, but I in no way think that they should be readily and easily available. People in general are just not trust worthy enough and that is demonstrated every day in this nation with the roughly 45 homicides per day (not all gun related).
    Think about it. If there were 45 people murdered in any other country today it would be headline news, here its just another day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chewylouie
    replied
    First Bubba- I have said before "it wouldn't be the end of the world". That said, I was pricing some on the internet a couple of days ago. I would also agree that we shouldn't give up anything. I some people act like it is literally the end of the world. I will also agree on a gun being a good tool to an honest citizen, just like a hammer, a knife, a crow bar, anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Clay - Based on the reasoning in the Miller case that a sawed-off shotgun was not well-recognized a military weapon, it seems that Miller would have been okay if he has been found with a Thompson submachinegun in his possession.
    Just sayin.'

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X