What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

I had a bird fly into my windshield, does that count?

Does a deer running into your line of fire count?

Only if you completely pulverized little ole birdie. Then we can play the congruency game.

We should just all go home and watch Death Race 2000 - cars and guns (together at last).

Edited March 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[HAL 9000 96]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

you carry on about gang bangers doing drive bys like it happens every hour. is chicago obamaland that bad, really?

need i add that a car can take out more people quicker on the street than some yoyo with a pistol?

mexico may get it's guns from the usa, but if you'd read matt's link, you'd see who the real culprit is.

just keep on with your fail this and fail that. it's apparently what you've majored in when it comes to the topic of guns. while you may not mind abdicating your constitutional rights, some of us do mind because we see the slippery slope it will lead to. too bad you're blind, oblivious, or both to that.

Your demise (FAIL) comes from oversimplifying the issue to one 'culprit.'

You're also skipping out on my posts where I quite clearly say that not all guns need to be banned. So try again.

i'm not the one all up in arms (pun not intended) about guns. you are, remember? it's good to see how concerned you are about constitutional rights.

Yeah read up on that bold part again.

apparently you're not understanding the point: you just want to give up a little bit of your rights....

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

[HAL 9000 96]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

actually my last deer kill was with my honda

got luck in regards to the car (no damage) ... the deer broke it's neck on the guard rail.

story:

doing about 45 mph down a secondary road in VA through an area of farms. It was dark. Didn't see the deer until it cleared the uncut hay on the side of the road (the deer was running). Jammed the brakes (anti-locks are great) ... expected to hit the animal. It's last leap almost cleared the front bumper ... it didn't. Caught the back hoof and flipped the deer. It went end-over into the guard rail. Got lucky there was only a little fur and a scuff mark on the car. The deer ... well I didn't need to use my ex's carry piece to put the animal down. It was already terminal. Felt bad about it ... but at least I didn't have bambi through the windshield.

[justashooter 430]

apparently you're not understanding the point: you just want to give up a little bit of your rights....

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about he just stops using the letters H, S, T, and M in his writing from this point? after all i'm only suggesting he give up a little bit of his right to freedom of expression (1st amendment).

[HAL 9000 96]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

I had a bird fly into my windshield, does that count?

Does a deer running into your line of fire count?

Only if you completely pulverized little ole birdie. Then we can play the congruency game.

We should just all go home and watch Death Race 2000 - cars and guns (together at last).

I do like the idea of placing some of these high-powered weapons ON my car. Hmmm. Then I could avoid ruining my rims from jumping sidewalks.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

I had a bird fly into my windshield, does that count?

Does a deer running into your line of fire count?

Only if you completely pulverized little ole birdie. Then we can play the congruency game.

We should just all go home and watch Death Race 2000 - cars and guns (together at last).

I do like the idea of placing some of these high-powered weapons ON my car. Hmmm. Then I could avoid ruining my rims from jumping sidewalks.

It sounds like it would make the morning commute a bit more interesting.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Edited March 27, 2009 by charles!

[*Robert* 2]

It sounds like it would make the morning commute a bit more interesting.

Oh Lord... You'd be reading about me every morning in the news and about how many fvcking idiots I blasted of the road!!! :lol:

Flordia drivers... FTW!!!

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

It sounds like it would make the morning commute a bit more interesting.

Oh Lord... You'd be reading about me every morning in the news and about how many fvcking idiots I blasted of the road!!! :lol:

Flordia drivers... FTW!!!

why does roi hate blue hair drivers?

[HAL 9000 96]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

[stangguy 0]

Here is an interesting thought, in United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the second Ammendment only protects the rights of citizens to posses military type firearms. That ruling hasn't been revisited but it was mentioned in Distict of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying that Miller only addresses the type of firearms that one can posses under the second ammendment. Also, only 6 supreme court cases have referenced Miller and none with respect to any "assault weapon" ban. I'm suprised at that, but would expect based on the weapons specifically mentioned in the various proposed versions of the ban, being military in origin, that any ban would be overturned.

[HAL 9000 96]

Here is an interesting thought, in United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the second Ammendment only protects the rights of citizens to posses military type firearms. That ruling hasn't been revisited but it was mentioned in Distict of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying that Miller only addresses the type of firearms that one can posses under the second ammendment. Also, only 6 supreme court cases have referenced Miller and none with respect to any "assault weapon" ban. I'm suprised at that, but would expect based on the weapons specifically mentioned in the various proposed versions of the ban, being military in origin, that any ban would be overturned.

Ah the <18 inch shotgun case.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

[HAL 9000 96]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

[justashooter 430]

Here is an interesting thought, in United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the second Ammendment only protects the rights of citizens to posses military type firearms. That ruling hasn't been revisited but it was mentioned in Distict of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying that Miller only addresses the type of firearms that one can posses under the second ammendment. Also, only 6 supreme court cases have referenced Miller and none with respect to any "assault weapon" ban. I'm suprised at that, but would expect based on the weapons specifically mentioned in the various proposed versions of the ban, being military in origin, that any ban would be overturned.

miller was dead by the time the SC heard his case, so was not represented. the only significant finding in the case was that short barreled shotguns were not especially appropriate for military use. this was in reference to the military thinking of the time. interestingly enough, the "master key", a short barreled shotgun clamped to the bottom of an M4 type variant of the M16 has become standard issue within the last 30 years.

scalia and roberts made it very clear in heller that "a type of firearm within common use may not be banned". AR 15 and AK 47 exist in private ownership to the tune of about 15 million examples today. it would be hard to describe that as anything less than common use.