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.
This old argument does not hold water. I am amazed at the people that make gun control their primary mission, and yet actually know so little about the guns themselves.
Not only guns but the principles of which this country was founded on which should scare the hell out of any American that believes in Constitutional law. After all we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy or Monarchy.
Well for that matter do you think that there will be any advancements in technology than from what we have today? If you answer yes to that question, then why would that be any different from they way people thought back then?
I dare you to answer no unless you don't and making a complete fool out of yourself.
Well, someone is a complete fool...but it's not for me to say. As I said before, slavery was endorsed but the people evolved and slavery ended. Women did not have the right to vote, but people evolved, and women were finally allowed the right to vote as it should have been in the first place. With a Amendment, liquor sales were outlawed, then with another Amendment, liquor sale were legal again. The point is that the Constitution is in fact a fluid document. Made to change when the people feel that the ideas do not reflect the will of the populous. I find it hard to believe that the will of the populous is to allow the slaughter of children in exchange for boys to have their toys.
My dad gave me a Remington 870 as a gift when I was in College, and sold it. I don't need guns, I don't hunt. I just call 911 if I need the police.
Maybe in the 1700s, it made sense. To have a gun to protect your family. Today is not necessary. Our police departments are funded with tax dollars to buy the most modern equipment and guns available in the market to protect us.
Well that's great and while you're at it remind them to bring a body bag(s) depending on how many are in your household.
Criminals are not as stupid as you may think. When was the last time they that they held up or attacked a police station?
Well, someone is a complete fool...but it's not for me to say. As I said before, slavery was endorsed but the people evolved and slavery ended. Women did not have the right to vote, but people evolved, and women were finally allowed the right to vote as it should have been in the first place. With a Amendment, liquor sales were outlawed, then with another Amendment, liquor sale were legal again. The point is that the Constitution is in fact a fluid document. Made to change when the people feel that the ideas do not reflect the will of the populous. I find it hard to believe that the will of the populous is to allow the slaughter of children in exchange for boys to have their toys.
I don't ever remember reading in the Bill of Rights that the right to consume alcoholic beverages shall not be infringed.
As for women or any American citizen having the right to vote I agree with you. Same for slavery but the government allowed it and the people are to blame for letting them get away with it. But the point is that the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are endowed to us by "our creator" and not by the will of the populous. They are basic civil liberties that only "our creator" can rescind regardless of the will of the populous. Or tyranny by a majority. If that were the case then the populous could, if they so decided enact laws that discriminate against other groups of people for whatever reason they deem necessary. Just like what happened in Nazi Germany. You'd better be careful for what you wish for as the populace may one day target you. Especially as the political pendulum swings back and forth. That's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect individual civil liberties regardless of which political party is in power.
If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were as fluid as you say than you might as well tear up the whole God damn thing and have no Constitution or Bill of Rights at all as it would be just as worthless as the paper it's printed on.
There is a procedure for amending the Constitution. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Good luck with that. If you look at a map of the United States showing "Red" and "Blue" counties you'll see that the overwhelming majority of them are "Red". Our system of government was designed so that the major population centers can not dictate public policy throughout the entire country. That's why we have an electoral college.
The Ar-15 is not a common hunting gun in the true sense of the word hunting. The Ar-15 has been adapted to what might be called hunting by owners desperate to shoot their new toy at something. Once again playing soldier.
What's the source of your claim that the AR is not a common hunting gun?
Please explain the "true sense of the word 'hunting'."
RIFLES
Sporting ARs
| September 23rd, 2010 0 Comments
Stoner’s brilliant battle design is following tradition by heading into the woods.
By Dick Metcalf
(“The following article was prepared for press prior to the current controversy concerning AR rifles used in hunting, and will appear in the May/June issue of Petersen’s Hunting.”)
Virtually every type of centerfire sporting rifle in existence started off as a military weapon. The classic lever-action deer gun, long the most popular type of hunting rifle in America, began as the Henry Rifle of the Civil War era, designed to bring rapid fire against the enemy. The lever-action was succeeded in universal popularity by the bolt-action–the standard hunting rifle of today–which we owe to Paul Mauser’s classic battle-rifle design.
Sporterized military guns have always found their way into the hunting fields–and always with resistance from traditionalists.
Now another rifle of military origin is moving rapidly into prominence in the hunting and sport shooting world: the AR15 .223 and AR10 .308. And, like its predecessors, the AR platform is meeting resistance, even outright opposition, from many hunters who are personally wedded to earlier gun designs. No surprise there; when the lever action was first used for hunting, traditionalists, whose idea of a “real” hunting gun was a single-shot muzzleloader, distained the need for a repeat-fire tool.
First-generation bolt-action military surplus rifles were also disparaged by many sportsmen as “inappropriate” for hunting. But the AR design’s proven capability has already made it the rifle of choice for top-level civilian high-power rifle competition. It is also increasingly the rifle of choice for serious long-range varmint and predator shooters, and it’s appearing in increasing numbers in the big-game hunting arena, as well.
It should. ARs are not all just .223 caliber. In fact, most people are probably not aware that the AR design originated as a .308 (7.62mm), not as a .223 (5.56mm).
Was the AR first marketed to civilians?
Posted June 21, 2016 in Legal Issues, Opinion by Russ Chastain with 1 Comment
ar-15-ad
I recently saw the image above on Facebook and thought it was interesting. It’s called “The very first AR15 sales ad,” but since I haven’t seen any proof of that, let’s take that part with a grain of salt. But it’s safe to say that it’s a fairly old advertisement from a magazine.
ADVERTISING
The photo was posted with the following blurb:
Follow the All Outdoor Hunting Channel
The very first AR15 sales ad ever, marketed to the public as a sporting and hunting rifle. Note this was before the military adopted the full auto version, the actual assault rifle, the M16. People are trying to rewrite history and claim the inventor never intended it for civilian use.
Well, it was sold for civilian use first!
Well, not so much.
In 1959, Colt bought the rights to these guns from Armalite, and before the end of the year they had sold the first of them to the military of Malaya. But it wasn’t until 1963 that Colt created the semi-auto-only version, labeled it the AR-15, and began trying to sell it to civilians.
Clearly, military marketing came first. But whether it was first “sold” to civilians is beside the point.
And to me the point is that the AR-15 (like each of its many clones) is merely a tool, neither military nor civilian until it is owned by one or the other. But I did find it interesting to recall that just a few years ago (February 2007), fellow outdoor writer Jim Zumbo decried the use of AR and AK rifles for hunting. He was fired for his trouble and learned a lot about “black rifles” in a very short time. The offending post is quoted below, in part:
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, [AK and AR rifles] have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods.
This well-known gun writer had been blissfully ignorant of the sporting use of such firearms and had swallowed the government/media bias against them, so much so that he called for a ban on their use by hunters! He and those who agreed with him apparently believed that the sporting use of these guns was somehow new or weird, but this ad shows that decades earlier (I’m guessing 1960s), Colt was marketing the AR-15 to hunters.
I never claimed it was an efficient gun, only that the technology of a repeating gun existed 73 years before the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. Why did I bring it up? Because many anti 2nd amendment types commonly make the false claim that the firearm technology in 1791 was only limited to the clumsy, slow muzzleloaders that were most common at the time, and so that the founding fathers could have no idea about the possibilty of the modern firearms we have today. That argument doesnt hold water.
There were other firearm tweaks that were made in the revolutionary war, that the founding fathers were surely aware of, they were not stupid men. To argue that they could not have envisioned change and progress in the technology, so the 2nd amendment is no longer valid is pure nonsense.
This thread is about if the 2nd amendment is necessary. I am stating it is indeed still necessary, and was written with the intent that is valid today.
It is indeed, because the evil in men's hearts has never gone away and it will not until the end of time.
The point is that the Constitution is in fact a fluid document. Made to change when the people feel that the ideas do not reflect the will of the populous.
Then the proper thing to do is to take the legal action to repeal the second amendment, according to the will of the populous. Good luck with that.
The mere fact that there are many millions of legal gun owners in America shows that there is a big segment that believes the second amendment is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomC23
I find it hard to believe that the will of the populous is to allow the slaughter of children in exchange for boys to have their toys.
Straw man.
Nobody wants the slaughter of children. Nobody. The actions of a relatively few number of psychopaths do not reflect the will of the populous.
When was the last time they held up and attacked a police station? It was the same time they held up and attack me. That would be never.
So I guess by your logic no one has ever been a victim of a crime just because you haven't? I'm glad we've got that straight. Then by your logic then why do we even need a police force, criminal justice system, prisons and jails? Can you really be that ignorant?
Lol, Again, if the mythical tyrannical abusive government decides to oppress you as a citizen. Please feel free to stand up to it's war machine with your AR15. Good luck with that.
I've argued this point many times to those who think the military and police would slaughter their own family, friends and neighbors. Destroying their homes and neighborhoods in the process. There would be absolutely nothing for them to come home to. It is more than likely that they would turn against the government that ordered them to do so. A lot of gun owning Americans are both active duty and retired law enforcement and military personnel who firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". Add to that the millions of us who know how to use firearms. Not to mention the quantity of guns and ammunition that are currently in private hands. We would indeed be a force to be reckoned with. The government could never win.
Not only would it be impossible for the feds to do it. It would be impossible for state and local governments to accomplish this monumental task. There simply is not enough manpower, not to mention the overwhelming burden on our criminal justice system bringing all of those who refuse to surrender their lawfully owned property to trial. There's just not enough jail space to incarcerate all of these newly minted criminals.
Good luck with all of that.
Quote:
Do you really think that if the government somehow flip flopped from what we are today, to attacking its citizens, you would be able to hold the government off with your AR15? If so, you are delusional my friend.
Well that's great and while you're at it remind them to bring a body bag(s) depending on how many are in your household.
Criminals are not as stupid as you may think. When was the last time they that they held up or attacked a police station?
We have Neighbor's Watch, every neighbor is watching and taking care for every neighbor. If we see something weird, we call the cops. I don't need an arsenal of guns in my house. We trust our local police and the sheriff.
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.
