Here is why I enjoy owning guns, and firing them on the small range I have constructed on my land here in northern Alabama. a. Guns are a nice investment. They never lose their value, and IF you ever have to sell one because you need some cash that month, you know exactly what you are going to get for it. b. Guns feel and smell really nice. The cool metal feels good in your hand, and a well-oiled & properly maintained gun has a smell that is viscerally-appealing. c. Firing the guns on a regular basis my land lets all the neighbors know that I am well armed. That helps to keep trespassers and littering teens from screwing around on my property, and wandering around uninvited on my trails and streams. d. Owning and carrying guns bring you peace of mind and confidence. When you get to be a little older, and you realize that you will likely lose each and every fight started by a younger and stronger robber (or thug, or gang-banger, pick one) then carrying a piece puts a little bounce in your step. e. If somebody breaks into your house, and tries to steal all your stuff, and/or rape your wife, you get to enjoy shooting them dead. Shooting a housebreaking rape-artist dead is a pleasurable concept, because it appeals to the sense of justice that is instilled in all of us. It has the added benefit of removing somebody from this earth who offers no value-added to society. f. It bothers the hell out of anti-gun nuts. That's about it, I guess. Have a great weekend, everybody.
Interesting and we can note that the Declaration of Independence does advocate revolution if a government becomes intolerably despotic. Not only does it state that the People have a Right to revolt under certain conditions but goes so far as to state that the People have a duty to do so. I also oppose the usurptations and infringements of the US Constitution by our government and gun laws attempt to do exactly that. What part of "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not being understood? The 2nd Amendment does reference a well regulated militias and the foundation for that is that the People have a Right and a Duty to defend themselves from despotic government actions whether foreign or domestic but we also have a right and a duty to defend ourselves from any form of aggression against us. It is the Right of Self Defense that is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Ha ha ha!! Again you fail to see a point for a point. It is YOU that doesn't understand the definition of a pencil. Use defines purpose, remember? That's what you've been trumpeting. If using a pencil as a weapon makes that pencil a weapon, then using a rifle to assault a group of unsuspecting moviegoers makes it an assault rifle. Your words, your logic, your inconsistency. You don't get to have it both ways.
It is only a problem for those who do not believe they should have to earn an entitlement to the "character of a well regulated militia" of the United States.
Assault is most certainly a use. A pencil is not a weapon. It is a type of writing instrument. Please be consistent.
Lol! From his desire to keep High Capacity Magazines legal. Or his ass. Not sure at this point but it's from one of the two.
All of those (especially about getting older like I am) and also they are simple machines and I like machines, especially if they are utilitarian like guns are.
Perhaps we should define what we mean when we speak of "HCM"s. Based upon the legislative precedent, I define an HCM (Hi-Capacity Magazine) as any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. The 100 round Beta-C mag is one that I define as being used for fighting from a fixed position, but is one I personally have no use for because I find them not sufficiently or consistently reliable for personal protection, and it makes a weapon - as I said before - unwieldy. However, I DO use 30-round magazines in my rifle, which are intrinsically reliable, easy to handle and do not adversely affect the handling characteristics of my weapon. I also use 17 and 19 round magazines in my defensive pistol, which are also reliable and give me sufficient firepower for most defensive scenarios. So, I don't use a 100 round mag, which I guess means I don't "need" it. However, imposing capacity restrictions sets bad precedent and is - in my opinion - utterly idiotic. It is the position of someone who knows NOTHING about tactical reality. Besides, if we ban 100 rounders, why not 30 rounders? Or fifteen rounders? Or ten? How about five? Again: idiotic, especially since there is no evidence whatsoever that such restrictions adversely affect anyone other than honest citizens. You also surprise me with your arrogance. You think you can tell me what I need and what I don't need, mock my desire to have the means to properly defend myself and my family readily available, and you dismiss me as "paranoid" and that I should "consider moving to a safer area". Who are you to tell me I should just "consider moving"? I actually live in a relatively safe area, but gang problems are a reality here and I live at least 20 minutes away from any police response. I also couldn't afford to move. That's all pretty irrelevant, since it is proven again and again that violent criminals can strike anywhere they choose, including peaceful suburbia. If you want to live where people can't have guns, then why don't YOU move? I hear Communist China is nice this time of year! You say my ability to defend myself "is in no way diminished without them". I say you are full of crap. Take away my ability to possess magazines of sufficient capacity and you undermine my ability to deal with worst-case scenarios, so my ability is indeed "diminished".
The "carnage" was created by a man with mental problems going into a room full of helpless victims. His weapon was incidental. Done already. Banning High capacity magazines undermines my ability to defend myself in a worst-case tactical scenario, and thus undermines my right to self-defense as a result. Your arrogance and snide contempt can't hide your ignorance.
You just said you don't use them, yet I'm full of crap for saying your ability to defend yourself is not diminished without them? WTF? How can banning something that you don't use have any impact on you? Strawman alert! Did I say GUNS should banned? No. Of course not. This is an all too often tactic uses by pro gunners. So you called bull(*)(*)(*)(*), I'm calling BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). Another strawman that you are erecting is this notion that I'm telling you what you need. Again, BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). If your ability to sport, hunt or defend yourself is diminished, then I'm all ears. Explain with reason how any of these things would be diminished. Actually, it's moot... you don't use them.
A bit flustered are ya. Let's make sure we understand your positition: Use a pencil for a weapon, it's a weapon. But, use a rifle for assault, it's NOT an assault rifle. Use defines purpose, unless it's a rifle in use. Are there any other exceptions we should be aware of?
I already know that the Second Amendment is being miss-used by gun lovers (maybe even on a for profit basis) and that rights in private property, which may include Arms, are specifically secured in State Constitutions and that the judicature of the United States must recognize Due Process since it is specifically enumerated under our republican form of Government. It is only a problem for those who do not believe they should have to earn an entitlement to the "character of a well regulated militia" of the United States.
Assault is a use. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your falsity. Go for it dude. It's all you got left.
I can honestly say that I wouldn't want a fully-automatic assault weapon. a. All that ammo costs more than I can afford. b. There are so few people that I actually want to kill. Six bullets at a time is more than enough.
...actualy, assault is an action. Simple assault can be equated with battery, ie. punching someone is assault and battery...battery is the action taken Assault can be verbal or physical. Assault with a pencil is assault with a weapon. Assault with a pistol, rifle, knife, or baseball bat, is assault with a deadly weapon. Assault is a verb or adverb.
Right. Just like stabbing somebody is an action. Use defines purpose according to the OPer. Stab somebody with a pencil, the pencil's purpose is a weapon. (Yes, I'm Laughing Out Loud typing this nonsense!). Assualt somebody with a rifle, the rifle's purpose is assault: that makes it an assault rifle. Definitions don't factor here. They get tossed aside; trumped by use. You cannot deny Wolv's logic! You just can't!'
hmmmm, I noticed you didn't call the pencil an assault pencil. Its purpose is to write, however, it can be used for different purposes. It doesn't change its definition: A pencil is a writing instrument. Using it in the commission of a crime doesn't change its original intent or definition. Assault with any firearm does not change its definition and its intent is intact. Specialty items have specialty names, but even then, they derive their definitions from the same source, the Law and courts.
That precedent only applies in a vacuum of special pleading simply because the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution, is not a Constitution unto itself.
