Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (abortion, constitutional, best, country)

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Personally, I think owning an assault rifle is silly. I put it in the same classification as people that have to have huge tires on their 4x4's that never leave pavement, or smoke cigars.

I cannot think of any practical reason for owning one. I can think of no use for the civilian in which it is the best tool for the job. Someone said they used it for hunting. Right. What hunting does one do where multiple rapid rifle shots are needed? Personal protection? Joe Biden agrees with me, a shotgun is a vastly better weapon.

At the ranch I was at the other day there were guys shooting ground squirrels with .223's. I wanted to ask them if they killed flies in their homes with hammers.

All this ranting about owning assault rifles is done, in my opinion by guys that really need to get a life.

How wonderfully patrician of you.

Signed,

Humble Plebe.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Looks like an interesting book. The review doesn't explain what's so important about owning a gun to those of us who don't own one...but possibly the book itself will.

If the question "Who needs an assault rifle?" seems entirely rational to his liberal friends, to most American gun owners it sounds like a direct attack. For Angelenos, the equivalent might be "Who needs a car?" If technically we don't need one, the question seems like a threat to our core way of living.
"Gun guys are not like camera buffs; they're not like fly fishermen, not like car buffs. It's deep, it's really deep," he explains. "I was really trying to figure out why these things move us, why they are so important to us."
One of the 'Gun Guys' - latimes.com

Kind of hard to have a conversation with someone about this topic if they don't even know what an assault rifle is. Even that writer?



FOR THE RECORD:
Update 3:45 p.m. Feb. 14, 2013: An earlier version of this article said that the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle." Although it is commonly understood in that regard, the initials derive from the company ArmaLite, which first manufactured the AR-15 in the 1950s.

"It's the only gun anybody wants," Baum says. And what is an AR-15? An assault rifle.

"Far from being some kind of bizarre anomaly of the gun business, it is the absolute heart of the gun business: the most popular gun and the most profitable gun," Baum says. "So if you're wondering why even Barack Obama has backed off from the assault-rifle ban, that's why."

If the question "Who needs an assault rifle?" seems entirely rational to his liberal friends, to most American gun owners it sounds like a direct attack. For Angelenos, the equivalent might be "Who needs a car?" If technically we don't need one, the question seems like a threat to our core way of living.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Personally, I think owning an assault rifle is silly. I put it in the same classification as people that have to have huge tires on their 4x4's that never leave pavement, or smoke cigars.

I cannot think of any practical reason for owning one. I can think of no use for the civilian in which it is the best tool for the job. Someone said they used it for hunting. Right. What hunting does one do where multiple rapid rifle shots are needed? Personal protection? Joe Biden agrees with me, a shotgun is a vastly better weapon.

At the ranch I was at the other day there were guys shooting ground squirrels with .223's. I wanted to ask them if they killed flies in their homes with hammers.

All this ranting about owning assault rifles is done, in my opinion by guys that really need to get a life.

You can believe what you want to believe; however, gun ownership is not about needs or hunting. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, not needs, I did not see the word hunting mentioned anywhere.

People can carry on and on about their feelings or how they want to impose their mores on a group of people; but in the end our civil rights do not waiver to the feelings of the minority or even the majority. Our civil rights go beyond what is socially acceptable; they transcend the emotion of the day.

If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle, you don't have to have one; however, I will not let someone restrict my right to make that decision for myself. I am sure that you have some more labels for me, you can try to paint me in any way you like, you can tell me I need to get a life or that I am a gun nut. The difference between you and I is that I am not trying to tell you what to do or how to live your life, that is for you to determine. Let me make my own decision on what is best for me.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

You can believe what you want to believe; however, gun ownership is not about needs or hunting. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, not needs, I did not see the word hunting mentioned anywhere.

People can carry on and on about their feelings or how they want to impose their mores on a group of people; but in the end our civil rights do not waiver to the feelings of the minority or even the majority. Our civil rights go beyond what is socially acceptable; they transcend the emotion of the day.

If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle, you don't have to have one; however, I will not let someone restrict my right to make that decision for myself. I am sure that you have some more labels for me, you can try to paint me in any way you like, you can tell me I need to get a life or that I am a gun nut. The difference between you and I is that I am not trying to tell you what to do or how to live your life, that is for you to determine. Let me make my own decision on what is best for me.

Did you see "well regulated militia"?

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Did you see "well regulated militia"?

That was referring to a properly trained and disciplined adjunct to a standing army, ready to be called up for national emergencies. A now obsolete definition of the word "regulate" is "Of troops: Properly disciplined."

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

That was referring to a properly trained and disciplined adjunct to a standing army, ready to be called up for national emergencies. A now obsolete definition of the word "regulate" is "Of troops: Properly disciplined."

So you're saying the second amendment in today's world is not accurate?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

So you're saying the second amendment in today's world is not accurate?

What he is saying is the 2nd amendment, as defined by the founders, applies to the people. This was confirmed recently by SCOTUS and really a dead issue.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

What he is saying is the 2nd amendment, as defined by the founders, applies to the people. This was confirmed recently by SCOTUS and really a dead issue.

But the people are not organized into a well regulated militia. This would suggest that either the people are wrong for complaining or that the second amendment is invalid. Either way invalidating the second amendment argument relied on by most.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Who needs assault rifles with 20 round clips? Not I. I am a crack shot and I can assure that any home invasion person will get it either in the knee or eye with my bolt action rifle. Gads, no one has to have an assault rife. If you can't take out an intruder with a six shot revolver, you need to take lessons. Just sayin'.

Lets see,

Competitive shooters
There getting real big in hunting due to accuracy at long ranges
Great for close quarters (home defense)

Who cares what the mag holds? The criminals will still have hi-cap mags PERIOD. Why punish the law abiding?

PS "Assault Rifle" implies an automatic weapon. AR's and AK's are semi hence the make believe term "Assault Weapon" If you actually are a gun owner then respect others rights to own what they want and oppose these idiotic proposals as they come up.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

But the people are not organized into a well regulated militia. This would suggest that either the people are wrong for complaining or that the second amendment is invalid. Either way invalidating the second amendment argument relied on by most.

The Militia Act of 1792 stated that all able bodied men were part of the militia. SCOTUS has already determined that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right. You should read the Federalist papers #46 to get Madison's take, here is an exerpt

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.