Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stay away from automated car washes! My dealer has one... we've had 4 trucks come in go through it and the roller brushes grab ahold of the antenna and peel them down the fender like a sardine can.
And dont have an unsecured tool box or generator in the bed shift around a turn... Blew the bed apart!
The new aluminum superduties are not immune either...
No issues with mine so far....fretting over the aluminum is much ado about nothing IMO.
And the 2.7 eco boost is a frikkin rocket!
A pickup with a sport mode lol.....gotta love it!!
Is it really too much to ask of those who are advocating banning something to know the actual facts and details about what they are trying to ban?
Especially when you're attempting to basically gut the constitutional rights of millions of people who haven't done anything wrong based on the acts of a relatively few number of criminals?
REALLY?
With anti gun nuts it clearly is. They absolutely refuse to learn anything about the topic beyond regurgitating the same debunked talking points over and over. They're liberal Chatty Kathy dolls, someone pulls their string and the same old garbage spews out.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,345 posts, read 8,557,056 times
Reputation: 16679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930
An AR-15 is a hunting rifle??? LOL. Since when? Are these people afraid that a herd of angry deer or elk are going to come at them in groups armed with handguns?
This is one of the funniest posts I’ve seen. If this is what hunting has become the “sport” (psst, it’s not really a sport) has devolved into a bunch of “macho” men proving they can kill something. Let me guess...these “hunters” own pit bulls and wear their pants pulled half way down their butts.
Another person who makes a statement not knowing the facts but is just plain ignorant. Your post in which you tried to be witty instead proves you to be clueless. The ar15 is indeed used in hunting
I'd suggest you read this to start
but then you might actually know some facts and I'm sure it's better for you when you can just say things that you can't back up.
The ar15 can be chambered in multiple calibers besides the 5.56 the military uses. Several popular calibers or close equalivant can be used in bolt action hunting rifles can be used in an ar15
Every discussion about guns becomes a free-for-all, a battle royale.
Simply put the OP is closer to correct than not stating a full ban is the only way to get to the "end point" for those who advocate for increased restrictions.
Could I dispute that with relation to gun control legislation? Not really. Picking and choosing will drag on for centuries. And of course full banning legislation isn't the be all end all either. But sticking to the OP's point, I tend to agree.
OK, let's get back to the usual Gun University chatter that accompanies most if not all gun discussions.
The Constitution specifically protects well-trained militia - that's it. And even with the individual right to own a weapon expansion of the 2nd Amendment, it STILL does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want, or that a person's actions or mental health cannot preclude them from firearm ownership. All it means is that the government can't "take all the guns" - that's really it.
Anyone with any understanding of laws and freedoms would know that people can do things that remove their right to various freedoms, such as simply being free vs. being in prison or owning a firearm. There is also nobody who can, with a straight face, argue that the average person - or really, much of any citizen - should be allowed to own military grade weapons designed to simply murder lots of people quickly.
(sigh)
Once again a liberal tries to make arguments that have been refuted and debunked numerous times on this forum. I guess he figures that enough time has gone by since these "arguments" were last spanked, that he can start announcing them again as "fact", as though they had never been refuted at all.
So I guess it's time to refute them yet again, for the 1,396th time:
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
The text of the Second Amendment is, "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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:](3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:]To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since 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 abridged."
[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
ProfessorCopperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(C) 1991 by TheNew Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
Simply put the OP is closer to correct than not stating a full ban is the only way to get to the "end point" for those who advocate for increased restrictions.
I said it would reduce gun crimes more than any other method. Not that it would end them. Nothing will end them as long as we have a society of imperfect people.
My purpose was to point out that, since the anti-gun people know that perfectly well, we must take their "We only want a few reasonable regulations" as the lie it is.
If they want to reduce gun violence, they KNOW there's only one way. Clearly a complete ban, plus ruthless confiscation, is their intention. Their statements to the contrary no longer hold water.
I said it would reduce gun crimes more than any other method. Not that it would end them. Nothing will end them as long as we have a society of imperfect people.
My purpose was to point out that, since the anti-gun people know that perfectly well, we must take their "We only want a few reasonable regulations" as the lie it is.
If they want to reduce gun violence, they KNOW there's only one way. Clearly a complete ban, plus ruthless confiscation, is their intention. Their statements to the contrary no longer hold water.
With the ready availability of knowledge and materials that technology has brought us, banning just about anything these days is fast becoming an exercise in symbolic futility.
There are videos all over the web about how to make a homemade gun and it can be easily done by a pimply faced kid in a garage with materials from a local junkyard or hardware store.
And with 3-D printing becoming cheaper and more popular, the type of weapons just about anyone could make at home is fast becoming more advanced.
The horse has long since left the barn and is galloping across the neighbor's field as far as guns go.
Add in the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns and magazines for semi auto weapons already in the hands of millions of Americans, and you start to realize that banning things without actual door to door stormtrooper searches confiscating weapons is just not feasible.
Manufactures engineer workarounds for everything they try to ban faster than you can legislate anything.... (check out the California "bullet button" situation)
So what all this tells us is that you're wasting your time trying to get anything meaningful accomplished by trying to ban things.
Approaching it like the people problem that it is rather than this endless obsession with the hardware is the only way you're going to make a dent in your goal of less gun violence.
How would gun owners feel about a reduction in restrictions on gun ownership, mandatory registry, mandatory insurance, traceable bullets and strict civil liability for human injuries caused by those bullets (outside of pure self defense)?
How would gun owners feel about a reduction in restrictions on gun ownership, mandatory registry, mandatory insurance, traceable bullets and strict civil liability for human injuries caused by those bullets (outside of pure self defense)?
Not sure you worded that right, since you are talking more restrictions, not less, as to the questions; mandatory registry, Nope, mandatory insurance, Nope, traceable bullets, Nope, and strict civil liability for human injuries caused by those bullets, there are already laws covering this. I can assure you that most current gun owns would Not Comply, FYI not one of the suggestions would make us one bit safer.
Not sure you worded that right, since you are talking more restrictions, not less, as to the questions; mandatory registry, Nope, mandatory insurance, Nope, traceable bullets, Nope, and strict civil liability for human injuries caused by those bullets, there are already laws covering this. I can assure you that most current gun owns would Not Comply, FYI not one of the suggestions would make us one bit safer.
When I said "reduction," I meant a reduction in the categories of weapons that are currently banned in certain States done in conjunction with the imposition of certain regulatory requirements such as insurance and a registry for bullets, along with civil liability for misuse of or carelessness with the bullets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
