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.
Of course the government should have guns and ammo. Nobody is saying they shouldn't. Police NEED guns because it is their job to confront and subdue violent criminals. Is that part of YOUR job? If not, you don't need a gun or bullets.
The military's job is to provide a national defense against foreign enemies. Is that part of YOUR job? If not, you don't need a gun.
I frankly don't see why hunting is necessary in this modern day & age. We no longer boil water over a wood fire in order to bathe. We turn on the hot water for that. But for those who insist on hunting, as another poster who's a gun expert pointed out, hunting can be readily carried out with a muzzle-style loader.
How about you kill your own food instead of having someone else do it for you.
No cop is going to be standing around in your house when someone breaks into it now are they. They'll be to your house in 15 min to take a report. What happens in that 15 min is up to you and you only.
Of course the government should have guns and ammo. Nobody is saying they shouldn't. Police NEED guns because it is their job to confront and subdue violent criminals. Is that part of YOUR job? If not, you don't need a gun or bullets.
The military's job is to provide a national defense against foreign enemies. Is that part of YOUR job? If not, you don't need a gun.
I frankly don't see why hunting is necessary in this modern day & age. We no longer boil water over a wood fire in order to bathe. We turn on the hot water for that. But for those who insist on hunting, as another poster who's a gun expert pointed out, hunting can be readily carried out with a muzzle-style loader.
Oh dear. There is no point in even discussing anything resembling freedom with you. Have a wonderful day.
I didn't know that. But I have a feeling that those who don't belong to those organizations won't be destroying or turning them in either? Whether this survives any challenges in the lower courts is anyone's guess? If not it will probably make its way back to the Supreme Court for a final decision or they may just let it stand depending on the facts of these lawsuits.
At any rate it has not been settled as of yet. My guess is that the law may be overturned based on the fact that it's up to congress to make federal laws not any one individual, the ATF, attorney general or Department of Justice. If that were the case then why do we even need congress? It may even be overturned as it could be in violation of ex post facto statutes that are written into the Constitution.
One thing it did accomplish was to force a North Texas retailer to destroy 60,000 bump stocks and the manufacturer to cease making them without any just compensation or due process rights.
Myself, I've never owned a bump stock or ever had any desire to own one. I oppose the ban based on the principle alone of turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals based on the actions of others. Not to mention the erosion of due process rights. Something I would think should outrage every freedom loving American? If they can do this with bump stocks they can do this with anything. For those that are in favor of this they'd better be careful for what they wish for, one day they will wake up and realize that it is now their ox that is being gored. But by then it will be too late. Once we are willing to relinquish our civil liberties, we will never get them back.
And all these liberals here are all like...
Millennials will be the most progressive anti gun bunch yet!
And I've been arguing... who's buying suppressors? Who's form 1ing short barreled rifles? Damn near everyone 25-35 is at the range, rocking at least 1 NFA item of some sort, be it SBS, SBR, Suppressors, Machine Guns... if anything it will be us who gets machine guns unbanned. Just need to oust Fudds and rinos that parade about as freedom loving Americans
Looking at various manufacturers, and trying to be fair to dumbarsed journalists, I am thinking maybe they went for muzzle velocity and energy charts to decide 357 is large caliber?
357Mag is in the >1000 fps and >400 ft/lb club, where the only other members are all .40SW or higher? It's about the only reason I can see for 357mag being considered large caliber over the nearly identical .38. he muzzle velocity on 357 is a good bit higher and as a result, so is ballistic energy.
In fairness. And the NYT was quoting the research article which I read in full, and they didn't say why 357 was added to large caliber, they just broke it down exactly as the NYT article quoted.
There is also .357 SIG for semi-auto pistols. It's a necked .40 case with a 9mm bullet.
There are over 300 million guns in the US. Guns last a long time. if we banned gun sales tomorrow, it would be literally centuries before they were eliminated.
Bullets, on the other hand, are used only once. Without bullets, he gun becomes a useless hunk of steel. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D,FL) has taken the lead on this. As she says:
Read the Second Amendment all you wish, it's not in their. Sorry, NRA. I think that is fairly brilliant by DWS.
A friend of mine used to say, the gun is really just a dispenser. You wouldn't expect to control cigarettes by banning high-tech, electronic, push-button cigarette machines. Going back to the old-fashioned spring-controlled mechanical machines wouldn't help. The problem lies in the actual cigarette. Same with guns--the problem lies in the BULLET.
DWS wants to apply the same background checks for guns, to ammunitions. Even the NRA supported background checks; how could they now possibly object to the same for bullets?
This would also allow restrictions on certain, extra-deadly types of bullets. New Jersey actually passed a law banning rapid-fire ammunition that was struck down by an ignorant Trump-appointed judge.
What do you think?
I think that the people who want to steal this country from the people, and hand it to the statists will not stop trying, under whatever scheme and/or pretense they can get to "stick". It is SOP for tyrants through history, gun control now, blade control before that. Same story, different era.
It is obvious what side of freedom (the "tyranny side") you subscribe to.
Your infantile mischaracterization of the Judge as "ignorant" speaks volumes, all of it negative, about "someone", but it isn't the Judge.
As does your idiotic comparisons of guns and ammo with cigarettes and vending machines.
Did you think you were being clever, or witty, or, heavens-forbid, wise? Obviously, your post was None of the Above.
And all these liberals here are all like...
Millennials will be the most progressive anti gun bunch yet!
And I've been arguing... who's buying suppressors? Who's form 1ing short barreled rifles? Damn near everyone 25-35 is at the range, rocking at least 1 NFA item of some sort, be it SBS, SBR, Suppressors, Machine Guns... if anything it will be us who gets machine guns unbanned. Just need to oust Fudds and rinos that parade about as freedom loving Americans
I think that they are in the minority. It's the Democrats that are the biggest threat to our Constitutional Republic and it's not just about guns, it's their entire platform and agenda. They're authoritarian statists to the core, that's the underlying reason why they wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law. They are the very reason why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So it stands to reason why they're so hell bent on eliminating it. They're just using the illusion of crime and public safety as a means to that end.
As for the Fudd's and Rino's? They're all a bunch of self righteous hypocrites, probably not too bright either? I doubt we could ever win them over, that is until they come for Uncle Elmer's bolt action rifle and over/under shotgun. But by then it will be too late. Besides the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 04-01-2019 at 02:40 PM..
I frankly don't see why hunting is necessary in this modern day & age. We no longer boil water over a wood fire in order to bathe. We turn on the hot water for that. But for those who insist on hunting, as another poster who's a gun expert pointed out, hunting can be readily carried out with a muzzle-style loader.
You need to get out of the city more often. There's a very different world outside the city and people live very differently around this very large country. Head up to a bush village in Alaska and tell the residents they don't need guns or the ability to hunt. I dare you. Or go to a working ranch in Montana or Wyoming or somewhere and tell them the same.
I think that they are in the minority. It's the Democrats that are the biggest threat to our Constitutional Republic and it's not just about guns, it's their entire platform and agenda. They're authoritarian statists to the core, that's the underlying reason why they wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law. They are the very reason why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. So it stands to reason why they're so hell bent on eliminating it. They're just using the illusion of crime and public safety as a means to that end.
As for the Fudd's and Rino's? They're all a bunch of self righteous hypocrites, probably not too bright either? I doubt we could ever win them over, that is until they come for Uncle Elmer's bolt action rifle and over/under shotgun. But by then it will be too late.
You need to get out of the city more often. There's a very different world outside the city and people live very differently around this very large country. Head up to a bush village in Alaska and tell the residents they don't need guns or the ability to hunt. I dare you. Or go to a working ranch in Montana or Wyoming or somewhere and tell them the same.
To add on to this...I'd like travis to point out the word "need" appearing anywhere in the 2nd, 9th or 10th Amendment?
2) 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.
9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Don't see hunting or need anywhere. It isn't the Bill of Needs, and it doesn't grant rights anyway. It lists specific rights that are explicitly protected from government meddling, and includes two amendments that cover anything NOT MENTIONED. If the government is not given enumerated power over it, the people and states retain that power, and just because the right isn't mentioned does not mean that those rights do not exist and are further retained by the people.
In every possible way, the Founders covered the simple fact that the people have the absolute, inherent right to keep and bear arms...and not one thing has changed since those amendments and all the trimmings were added to the US Constitution. Nothing.
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.
