Our Gun Rights

[Canceled.2014.1]

There have been several comments about "huge arsenals" and the like. And several people have been amazed that someone would have bulk ammo.


So yes, there have been comments about how many guns we own and how much ammo we have. Odd that once I ask no one wants to answer.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about a limit on the number of guns or rounds of ammunition you can have.

Why do you all have so much trouble reading the 2nd Amendment?

Dixie, I never advocated any limits. I am asking those who seemed disgusted at "huge arsenals" and stockpiled ammunition.

 

[CanceledB]

There have been several comments about "huge arsenals" and the like. And several people have been amazed that someone would have bulk ammo.


So yes, there have been comments about how many guns we own and how much ammo we have. Odd that once I ask no one wants to answer.

How many do you *need*, WB? Do you need a shitload? Have at it. That's nuts. That's all that anyone's said about it.

 

[Socrtease]

Where is anyone saying there should be restrictions on the number of weapons/ammo? The only restrictions suggested were made regarding mentally unstable people.

Those restrictions already exist. If you have been found to be incompetent in a civil hearing your name goes on a list and you cannot purchase a firearm.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

How many do you *need*, WB? Do you need a shitload? Have at it. That's nuts. That's all that anyone's said about it.

So if I have 20+ guns, I am nuts? And haven't we been discussing ways to remove guns from nut cases?

That is what I am asking, how many guns do you have to have before its nuts?? The shooter in Aurora had how many? 5?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, I never advocated any limits. I am asking those who seemed disgusted at "huge arsenals" and stockpiled ammunition.

Well WB, don't know if you are aware of this, but the people who are objecting to 'huge arsenals' want to remove your right to bear arms. This is how they go about divorcing you from your inalienable rights, by chipping away incrementally. They get you to agree, maybe we should 'limit' this or that, and next thing you know, they have completely taken your rights. There is nothing in the Constitution about a limit on the amount of bullets you can own, or that government has a right to dictate how many guns or what kind. The 2nd is pretty straight-forward and clear. You have the right, and it's not to be abridged. PERIOD!

 

[CanceledB]

So if I have 20+ guns, I am nuts? And haven't we been discussing ways to remove guns from nut cases?

That is what I am asking, how many guns do you have to have before its nuts?? The shooter in Aurora had how many? 5?

I don't see why anyone needs more than one or two, if that. You obviously 'collect' guns. Lots of people 'collect' guns and other shit. Collecting shit doesn't interest me and never has. We're talking in terms of what is needed, gun-wise, by those who 'need' guns. One or two at the most, in my opinion.

 

[Lowaicue]

So if I have 20+ guns, I am nuts? And haven't we been discussing ways to remove guns from nut cases?

That is what I am asking, how many guns do you have to have before its nuts?? The shooter in Aurora had how many? 5?

You are nuts if you have one gun, unless your gun or guns are kept at a sporting gun club under lock and key and never taken home.Then you can stroll over every Saturday and pop Coke cans off tree stumps or whatever you do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

One or two at the most, in my opinion.

The Second Amendment doesn't say we have the right to bear how many arms Bijou thinks we should have.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are nuts if you have one gun, unless your gun or guns are kept at a sporting gun club under lock and key and never taken home.Then you can stroll over every Saturday and pop Coke cans off tree stumps or whatever you do.

Again... the Second Amendment doesn't say it's for the purpose of sportsmen to enjoy recreation.

 

[CanceledB]

The Second Amendment doesn't say we have the right to bear how many arms Bijou thinks we should have.

Quit whining, crybaby. No one's going to take your precious guns away.

 

[apple0154]

Christ on a Pink Unicorn are you serious?

There were two competing political philosophies at the time.

1. The King possessed a divine right to rule however he wished. His power was unquestionable.
2. Humans possess reason and have the inherent right to choose the mechanism of government and to define its powers.

So, which one are you arguing for?

Christ on a Pink Unicorn? I like that and I'm not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay.

I'm for number 2. However, the government does not ask the people every time they make a decision and if the government believes it's doing the right thing the government should not be prohibited from doing so, except in extreme cases.

Take health care. Government health care has been discussed since 1912! Today, we have 45,000 people dying every year due to being unable to afford care. Does any sane individual believe the government should do nothing? Some folks talk about discussions, compromises, etc. That's been tried for 100 years. I doubt anyone who was born at the time the talks started are alive today. How long is long enough?

Lastly, it was people who decided there are inherent rights. There is nothing inherent about people ruling themselves or Kings ruling them. In fact, those who claim the US is a Christian nation or based on Christianity then the inherent right of Kings to rule seems to be the accepted way of governing. If I recall there are numerous passages in the Bible instructing people to obey authority so I come back to the question, "Who is the Creator and where is it said/written we have inherent rights?"

But the discussion goes past that. If it's assumed we do have inherent rights do those rights include not helping others as in the case of medical need? Do inherent rights include either doing nothing or opposing those who are tryig to devise ways to prevent needless deaths as in the case of gun control?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Sane Gun Laws Indeed

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I don't see why anyone needs more than one or two, if that. You obviously 'collect' guns. Lots of people 'collect' guns and other shit. Collecting shit doesn't interest me and never has. We're talking in terms of what is needed, gun-wise, by those who 'need' guns. One or two at the most, in my opinion.

Ok, allow me to point outthe flaw in that. Then, perhaps, you will have a better understanding of gun collections.

I hunt deer. For that I use a rifle. It must a be a large enough caliber to quickly, and humanely kill a 150 to 200lb animal with one shot. I prefer a .270 for that. My daughter hunts as well. Not liking the recoil, she hunts with a .243 caliber rifle.

I also hunt coyote. They are an invasive species which is wrecking havoc on native species all over the southeast and cost farmers their livestock. They also kill pets. For this my .270 is only marginally effective. The fact that I have a semi-auto for this purpose has allowed me to double the number of animals killed on several occasions (quick second shot and all). This is pest removal.

I also hunt quail. For this I have an over/under shotgun in 12 ga. It is choked for quick wing shooting.

I also hunt turkey. The over/under 12 ga is not an ideal turkey gun. So I also have a 12 ga pump with a tighter choke.

When I get the chance, I also hunt feral hogs. Again, these are an invasive species and they are doing huge amounts of damage to native fauna and destroying acres and acres of crops. The .270 would work, but the idea of stalking feral hogs with a single shot rifle is a bit insane. I have a .44 revolver and a lever action rifle in 45-70. I have taken hogs with both.

I also hunt rabbit and groundhog. The 12 ga would maul the rabbit too much to be of any use. The groundhogs are too wary to get closeenoughto use either the shotgun or the .22. I have a .17HMR rifle for these. My daughter also hunts with this rifle.

I have a .22 rifle that I keep handy for any vermin or animal problems around where I live. I live in the boonies, so the potential for raccoons, possums, ect are always there.

I work out of town. My wife has a .357 revolver that she keeps in the pistol box, loaded and ready. The response time for law enforcement out here is 30 mins. So depending on them to protect her is not an option.

I have a M1911-A1 .45ACP that I take with me. The design is 101 years old, but it is still one of the best semi-auto pistols ever made.

When I go fishing I take a .22 revolver with me for snakes.




There is simple justification for 12 firearms. I own more, but obviously owning more than 1 or 2 is not nuts. It depends on the uses. And I have not even talked about target shooting or CASS competitions.

Not that I think I have to justify anything, but I think most non-gun people do not understand the limitations of each caliber or gun. Perhaps now you have a better understanding.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You are nuts if you have one gun, unless your gun or guns are kept at a sporting gun club under lock and key and never taken home.Then you can stroll over every Saturday and pop Coke cans off tree stumps or whatever you do.

Mine are kept locked in a safe or pistol box at home. I don't need to store them someplace else where someone else controls who has access to them.

 

[CanceledB]

Ok, allow me to point outthe flaw in that. Then, perhaps, you will have a better understanding of gun collections.

I hunt deer. For that I use a rifle. It must a be a large enough caliber to quickly, and humanely kill a 150 to 200lb animal with one shot. I prefer a .270 for that. My daughter hunts as well. Not liking the recoil, she hunts with a .243 caliber rifle.

I also hunt coyote. They are an invasive species which is wrecking havoc on native species all over the southeast and cost farmers their livestock. They also kill pets. For this my .270 is only marginally effective. The fact that I have a semi-auto for this purpose has allowed me to double the number of animals killed on several occasions (quick second shot and all). This is pest removal.

I also hunt quail. For this I have an over/under shotgun in 12 ga. It is choked for quick wing shooting.

I also hunt turkey. The over/under 12 ga is not an ideal turkey gun. So I also have a 12 ga pump with a tighter choke.

When I get the chance, I also hunt feral hogs. Again, these are an invasive species and they are doing huge amounts of damage to native fauna and destroying acres and acres of crops. The .270 would work, but the idea of stalking feral hogs with a single shot rifle is a bit insane. I have a .44 revolver and a lever action rifle in 45-70. I have taken hogs with both.

I also hunt rabbit and groundhog. The 12 ga would maul the rabbit too much to be of any use. The groundhogs are too wary to get closeenoughto use either the shotgun or the .22. I have a .17HMR rifle for these. My daughter also hunts with this rifle.

I have a .22 rifle that I keep handy for any vermin or animal problems around where I live. I live in the boonies, so the potential for raccoons, possums, ect are always there.

I work out of town. My wife has a .357 revolver that she keeps in the pistol box, loaded and ready. The response time for law enforcement out here is 30 mins. So depending on them to protect her is not an option.

I have a M1911-A1 .45ACP that I take with me. The design is 101 years old, but it is still one of the best semi-auto pistols ever made.

When I go fishing I take a .22 revolver with me for snakes.




There is simple justification for 12 firearms. I own more, but obviously owning more than 1 or 2 is not nuts. It depends on the uses. And I have not even talked about target shooting or CASS competitions.

Not that I think I have to justify anything, but I think most non-gun people do not understand the limitations of each caliber or gun. Perhaps now you have a better understanding.

In other words, you enjoy killing animals and need lots of different kinds of guns because certain guns are better for killing certain animals. Terrific. You justified your 'need' for many guns.

I don't eat animals, I don't hunt, I think the sport is disgusting, so there's no point in continuing the discussion. You justified your need for all your guns. I won't argue that point with you.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So we should only protect free speech in person or in writing? There was no TV, internet or radio in the "Constitution Era", so the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the ability for a single person, especially an anonymous person, to speak to and coerce or offend millions of people at one time.

Also, as I have said before, that "Constitution Era" weapon was state of the art at the time. It was the same weapon carried by the infantries of the best equipped armies in the world.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not that I think I have to justify anything, but I think most non-gun people do not understand the limitations of each caliber or gun. Perhaps now you have a better understanding.

I'm telling you, it doesn't matter... these people want to take every gun out every hand in America, and they will not be satisfied until that is accomplished. This silly charade about ammo and number of guns is nothing more than a fishing expedition, to see who they can dupe into going along with their incrementalism.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

In other words, you enjoy killing animals and need lots of different kinds of guns because certain guns are better for killing certain animals. Terrific. You justified your 'need' for many guns.

I don't eat animals, I don't hunt, I think the sport is disgusting, so there's no point in continuing the discussion. You justified your need for all your guns. I won't argue that point with you.

I enjoy hunting. Hunting is not just about the kill. I do not kill something every time I go. I also go to some effort to make the kills as humane and quick as possible when I do kill an animal.

I do eat what I kill, with the exception of the coyotes. I am also helping maintain a better balance in the ecosystem by hunting. Plus, the extra taxes I pay help fund the lion's share of state conservation efforts. And lastly, on several occasions I have donated meat to charities, to enable the needy to have high quality, low fat, chemical free protein in their diet.

 

[apple0154]

Apple, I admire your fortitude but you are trying to strip away centuries of bullshit. You have only to look to the romanticisation of the Wild West to see what you are up against!!

I think the following sums it up. Haiku wrote in msg #46,

I think some people have no clue as to what 'the enlightenment' was and how influential it was during that time...a true testament to how some still haven't been enlightened.

Assuming there is such a thing as inherent rights I believe they're the result of enlightenment. When people have evolved sufficiently and are aware then they have certain rights. For one to say they not only have no obligation to help others but to oppose those (government) who do believe there is an obligation it shows they have not evolved.

But I am the eternal optimist.