why the left hates guns

[The_Dude 1,142]

especially them .22 stinger hollow points.

I didn't think you could still get those. Maybe that is just California.

[Ban Hammer 12,884]

I didn't think you could still get those. Maybe that is just California.

must be just in cali, as i found them online at cabela's

[The_Dude 1,142]

must be just in cali, as i found them online at cabela's

All this gun talk reminds me that I need to clean my shotguns out. Dove season is at the end of the month, and then pheasant season is right around the corner.

[Ban Hammer 12,884]

All this gun talk reminds me that I need to clean my shotguns out. Dove season is at the end of the month, and then pheasant season is right around the corner.

no quail hunting?

[The_Dude 1,142]

no quail hunting?

Not for me. Usually, quail season overlaps dove season so the group that I go with can get in on that. I don't like the taste of quail, so I don't hunt them. Pheasant hunting is the most fun you can have. If you're not using a dog or team of dogs, it's the closest you can get to a real life video game.

[Ban Hammer 12,884]

Not for me. Usually, quail season overlaps dove season so the group that I go with can get in on that. I don't like the taste of quail, so I don't hunt them. Pheasant hunting is the most fun you can have. If you're not using a dog or team of dogs, it's the closest you can get to a real life video game.

the overlap was some of the best hunting i remember. listen for the quail, watch for dove. later on the quail got to where they'd run, then later on they'd hold, and eventually they'd flush over a hundred yards away.

[slim 1,514]

The 2nd Amendment also says diddly-squat about being able to use firearms against your fellow citizens.

It doesn't say anything directly about who guns can be used against. However, it does say "necessary to the security of a free state." SCOTUS has determined that to mean a personal right to possess arms for defense. Defense against whom? Well, you'll just have to figure that out, I guess.

I was thinking more along the lines of the majority of the first world. I am keen to see where it states in the Constitution that liberty means being able to use weapons against your own people.

Keep in mind the constitution isn't influenced by "the majority of the first world."

Pull it out and murder him in cold blood.

***Again, maybe we could have murdered the 2 or 3 people who robbed us but it probably wouldn't have been a good idea.

It would've been impossible to murder anyone in those situations. First of all, because you didn't have a gun and second of all because you can't murder someone who's criminally victimizing you with a firearm.

In your two examples, both were of folks illegally using firearms for illegal purposes. There's no way to make those "more illegal" than they already are. In both examples, the only way to end that behavior is to indefinitely lock away the criminals or end their lives. I'm guessing that as long as they continue to encounter unarmed people, they'll maintain their successful criminal lifestyles.

Thank you for making my point for me. At the time it was written, we had no army and as such needed the population to be armed to stand in militas for national defense. Since we have had a professional, standing army for quite some time now, it invalidates the need for militias and for a well armed population.

Where does it say the militia's job is to defend us against foreign invaders? Also, where does it say anything at all about an army? I must've skipped over the part that said, "whenever there's an army, you don't need guns anymore."

As I read it, "being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't necessarily mean from the outside only. Security needs to be guaranteed from the outside and within.

It isn't implied, and more importantly, it is not directly stated. You like to take a literal interpretation of the amendment on the "shall not infringe upon" part, yet selectively want to interpret "implied meaning" where there is none. Hypocritical don't you think?

Not at all. It's in very simple text throghout for the sole purpose of not being misinterpreted. In modern times we've read way more into it than need be. Simply put, the amendment means that all Americans can own firearms and be prepared to use them in the defense of freedom. That doesn't change if we have an army, that doesn't change if we have shotguns or semi-autos, that doesn't change if we don't practice as a militia anymore.

The only thing that's changed is our apathy and unwillingness to personally support the constitution and bear the responsibility of liberty.

Slim, as was showed before, the government has an army, they don't need 30+ year olds with beer guts to take up arms to fend off an invasion. You are misinterpreting the literal verbiage of the amendment, as well as the context and spirit of it.

I believe it's you who is misinterpreting the amendment. You're still trying to insinuate that the army is in charge of keeping the government in check.

I'm willing to make the concession that you can't get rid of guns in this country. But you surely don't need semi-automatic pistols, assault rifles, or an arsenal of guns large enough to hold off a police siege for days on end.

That's your opinion and is not supported by anything in the 2nd amendment.

My opinion is you should have those things and that capability because if the police or any other form of government means to take away your rights, the constitution guarantees your right to deny them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I didn't think you could still get those. Maybe that is just California.

Only banned in slave states with high crime rates. Free people can still buy them. By mail. But they are still a .22 I will carry .45 hollow points to protect my family. shoot and release is not interesting

[The_Dude 1,142]

Where does it say the militia's job is to defend us against foreign invaders? Also, where does it say anything at all about an army? I must've skipped over the part that said, "whenever there's an army, you don't need guns anymore."

As I read it, "being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't necessarily mean from the outside only. Security needs to be guaranteed from the outside and within.

You keep sliding back and forth from a literal view to an interpretational view. Context would help here.

Not at all. It's in very simple text throghout for the sole purpose of not being misinterpreted. In modern times we've read way more into it than need be. Simply put, the amendment means that all Americans can own firearms and be prepared to use them in the defense of freedom. That doesn't change if we have an army, that doesn't change if we have shotguns or semi-autos, that doesn't change if we don't practice as a militia anymore.

The only thing that's changed is our apathy and unwillingness to personally support the constitution and bear the responsibility of liberty.

I believe it's you who is misinterpreting the amendment. You're still trying to insinuate that the army is in charge of keeping the government in check.

That's your opinion and is not supported by anything in the 2nd amendment.

My opinion is you should have those things and that capability because if the police or any other form of government means to take away your rights, the constitution guarantees your right to deny them.

I can't tell if you are delusional, or you simply have no comprehension of what the 2nd amendment is. You misunderstand the scope and context in which the amendment was written.

Only banned in slave states with high crime rates. Free people can still buy them. By mail. But they are still a .22 I will carry .45 hollow points to protect my family. shoot and release is not interesting

Slave state? In what context would you need hollow point bullets, or assault rifles, or a large arsenal of weapons to protect your family? You live in Vermont, not Compton, what are you worried that a moose might break into your house?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You keep sliding back and forth from a literal view to an interpretational view. Context would help here.

I can't tell if you are delusional, or you simply have no comprehension of what the 2nd amendment is. You misunderstand the scope and context in which the amendment was written.

Slave state? In what context would you need hollow point bullets, or assault rifles, or a large arsenal of weapons to protect your family? You live in Vermont, not Compton, what are you worried that a moose might break into your house?

I use hollow point .45s in my normal carry gun. I fully intend to kill anyone that threatens myself or my family. I wish to cause wounds well beyond any medical technology to repair them. Moose are not a problem in Vermont, except possibly to motorists.

Assault rifles (so called) are just rifles. They are no more deadly than bolt action rifles firing the same cartridge. Semi auto is simply a type of action. No more deadly than a lever action. Just a mechanical device incapable of doing anything on its own. An "arsenal" can be considered "more than one gun". Sorry, but even with all my experience there is no way for me to shoot effectively more than one gun at a time. It really couldn't possibly matter how many guns I have in my closet. Sort of like "why would you need more than one car?" Lets limit cars to reduce "global warming". What difference could it make? I can only drive one. The ones parked in the garage cannot cause global warming.

All are stupid incremental restrictions of our rights without any possible benefit except the establshment of precedent for more restrictions. I do not accept them. It is the camel's nose under the tent and we should shoot the camels nose with a big gun, using hollow points so the camel gets the message. STAY OUT OF THIS TENT!

[The_Dude 1,142]

I use hollow point .45s in my normal carry gun. I fully intend to kill anyone that threatens myself or my family. I wish to cause wounds well beyond any medical technology to repair them. Moose are not a problem in Vermont, except possibly to motorists.

Assault rifles (so called) are just rifles. They are no more deadly than bolt action rifles firing the same cartridge. Semi auto is simply a type of action. No more deadly than a lever action. Just a mechanical device incapable of doing anything on its own. An "arsenal" can be considered "more than one gun". Sorry, but even with all my experience there is no way for me to shoot effectively more than one gun at a time. It really couldn't possibly matter how many guns I have in my closet. Sort of like "why would you need more than one car?" Lets limit cars to reduce "global warming". What difference could it make? I can only drive one. The ones parked in the garage cannot cause global warming.

All are stupid incremental restrictions of our rights without any possible benefit except the establshment of precedent for more restrictions. I do not accept them. It is the camel's nose under the tent and we should shoot the camels nose with a big gun, using hollow points so the camel gets the message. STAY OUT OF THIS TENT!

That really is a failed analogy there Gary. But thanks for clarifying that you aren't interested in defending your family so much as you have some sort of bloodlust for vengeance. It is comical how you try to justify that an assault rifle is no more deadly than a bolt action rifle. Technically, this is true, both weapons will kill a person. But one has the capacity to kill many many people in a short amount of time while the bolt action rifle is much more restricted.

[Ban Hammer 12,884]

That really is a failed analogy there Gary. But thanks for clarifying that you aren't interested in defending your family so much as you have some sort of bloodlust for vengeance. It is comical how you try to justify that an assault rifle is no more deadly than a bolt action rifle. Technically, this is true, both weapons will kill a person. But one has the capacity to kill many many people in a short amount of time while the bolt action rifle is much more restricted.

what is the definition of an assault rifle?

[The_Dude 1,142]

what is the definition of an assault rifle?

LoL, I tried to search for some sort of official definition and my google search came back with a big fat block from the filters here at work. Guess i'm not supposed to be looking up weapons. For my own definition, I would consider it to be any semi-automatic or fully automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine (or drum).

[Mags 112]

I use hollow point .45s in my normal carry gun. I fully intend to kill anyone that threatens myself or my family. I wish to cause wounds well beyond any medical technology to repair them.

If you run out of bullets, Alla could always hit the intruder over the head with one of her pork chops.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LoL, I tried to search for some sort of official definition and my google search came back with a big fat block from the filters here at work. Guess i'm not supposed to be looking up weapons. For my own definition, I would consider it to be any semi-automatic or fully automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine (or drum).

In California, if it looks awesome to a six year old boy, then it is an assault rifle.