What would you say to this?

This is a discussion on What would you say to this? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; An acquaintance of mine are discussing the 2nd Amendment over email. Recently, after finding I am pro-gun, he sent me this message. As for the ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: What would you say to this?

  1. #1
    Member Array Risque007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri
    Posts
    219

    What would you say to this?

    An acquaintance of mine are discussing the 2nd Amendment over email. Recently, after finding I am pro-gun, he sent me this message.

    As for the 2nd amendment... I'm not a gun guy, and that is just me. But I don't believe the founding fathers meant the same thing we use it for today. Back then, there were primarily muskets... and if people want to own muskets today, I'm cool with that. But assault weapons in my opinion don't count. The Brady Bill seemed like a good thing to me, because you can't hunt a dear with an AK-47 if you really want to use the meat when you are done. I realize hunting is good for the environment and helps control animal populations, and that seems fine to me as well. But there is something wrong with Americans. We kill each other like no other industrialized nation. Canada has far more guns per person and they don't kill each other... so the problem is something deeper. But I'm most definitely against assault rifles.
    What's your say, guys? Statistics -- use'em if you got'em.
    A man without a blackthorn stick is a man without an expedient. - Irish Proverb

    Why so SERIOUS?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,353
    so why cant i hunt deer with a ak-47 if i want meat? My 30-06 or 300 mag run rings around a ak-47 and work just fine on deer without a lot of meat damage

    Canada has a lot mor guns per person what ever

    why do we kill each other? this nation was based on criminals face it as ugly as that is most people who were sent here were just that

  4. #3
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    15,943
    guns don't = crime. Look at G.B.
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Team American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,826
    He is operating under a couple of misconceptions...nobody hunts deer with a machinegun...
    Also, the Founding Fathers interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was exactly as you see it, Risque007...it had nothing to do with hunting (unless you're hunting tyrants.. )

    I would put it to him this way: At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the Founders couldn't have possibly forseen the invention of computers or the internet...and since the "pen is mightier than the sword", applying your friends logic to the 1st Amendment would mean that the 1st only protects opinions printed with a hand-type printing press...
    "I surrounded 'em"- Alvin York

    "They're ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six"- Jeff Cooper

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array RSSZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,843
    I don't believe that Canada has more guns "per person".

    Can't quote or reference anything,just simply don't believe it.

    Also........It is obvious to me that the person knows zip about firearms and/or ballistics from his spew about AK's.--------

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213

    Oh this is just ripe.

    As for the 2nd amendment... I'm not a gun guy, and that is just me. But I don't believe the founding fathers meant the same thing we use it for today.
    The text of the second amendment reads:

    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.

    For the long version of what that means, look here and here.

    For the short version, it translates to this:

    An organized government sponsored military is necessary to secure your personal rights in a free country, therefore the right of all people to own and carry weapons will not be restricted or regulated.

    The people that wrote that amendment had just gotten through fighting a revolution they never would have won without guns. The British tried several times to legally disarm the colonists. Why would these people want to write anything that might imply only certain people could have guns, or only certain kinds?

    Back then, there were primarily muskets... and if people want to own muskets today, I'm cool with that. But assault weapons in my opinion don't count.
    Muskets were the military weapons of the era. The only reason they had muskets was that the M249 hadn't been invented yet.

    Does the first amendment only apply to printing presses?

    The Brady Bill seemed like a good thing to me, because you can't hunt a dear with an AK-47 if you really want to use the meat when you are done. I realize hunting is good for the environment and helps control animal populations, and that seems fine to me as well.
    The Brady Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting and is not concerned with AK-47s in particular.

    Hunting is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    Also, you could hunt deer with an AK47, the cartridge it fires is a slightly less powerful version of a common hunting round. It is physically possible. You could even use the meat.

    But there is something wrong with Americans. We kill each other like no other industrialized nation.

    This claim is ridiculuous.


    Your view "there is something wrong with Americans" shows that you believe everyone else but you is some kind of liability. It shows your desire to control everyone else's life. That is wrong.

    Canada has far more guns per person and they don't kill each other... so the problem is something deeper. But I'm most definitely against assault rifles.
    I doubt very much Canadians have more guns. But there is a grain of truth in this statement: the physical presence of firearms has nothing to do with causing people to commit crimes.

    You are against assault rifles?

    First, describe an assault rifle without referring to its appearance or listing an example of one. Tell me the exact feature or features that makes something an assault rifle.

    Also, were you aware that assault rifles have been illegal for anyone without special permission from the government since 1934, and that in 1986 the importation or creation of assault rifles was effectively banned for anyone unless they once again had special permission from the government?

  8. #7
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,675

    Don't Waste Your Time...

    discussing guns with an 'anti' who has all the answers...don't try to confuse him/her with the real facts...they won't be heard. I have learned 'who' not to discuss the self-defense issues with at work (it's a school...so that is pretty much everyone...).
    I made that mistake once...the individual had so many strange ideas about how dangerous guns were...
    I just had to agree to disagree...so frustrating...

    OMO

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,712
    Malarky.

    A gun just lays there. It doesn't do anything by itself. The evil intent of the criminal is what creates violence; the efficiency of the tool merely speeds the effect of the crime (as opposed to a different tool).

    Interestingly, the guy is effectively making this exact point in suggesting Canada has "more guns" but not the level of violence. IOW, he's agreeing that it's the violence that's the problem, not the specific gun ... his unwarranted fears notwithstanding.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #9
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,302
    I think it's really dangerous and sickening the way crazy sports fans riot, carry on, get drunk, & start fires, loot businesses and turn over cars after big championship games causing millions of dollars in damage to a city....so why not eliminate stadium sports?
    You never see that sort of stuff happening after a ballet or a symphony or the figure skating competitions or even pedigree dog shows....so let's just have those. I would say that those milder events are OK.
    Who needs the violent sports games in an industrialized, civilized, society...afterall we're not ancient Romans.
    We should be more advanced by now.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array sisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas, GCK
    Posts
    616
    If the second amendment is ment only for muskets then the first amendment must only apply to quill pens and Guttenburg presses but not radio, television and the internet.
    I'm a child of the 60's, but I got over it.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,712
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Who needs the violent sports games in an industrialized, civilized, society...afterall we're not ancient Romans.
    We should be more advanced by now.
    Hm. Great idea: return of the gladiators, but in a free-for-all format (in a "free" country) with free admission even. Want to attend? You get locked in, left to your own devices, and the one left standing gets to leave via the front gates. That would clean up things pretty quickly. A self-correcting system with effective feedback loops. Yeah. That'd do it.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #12
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,302
    Let's Start Chanting
    Two Men Enter...One Man Leaves ~
    Two Men Enter...One Man Leaves ~
    Two Men Enter...One Man Leaves!!!
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  14. #13
    Member Array Risque007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri
    Posts
    219
    Here's my reply -- any suggestions/comments on how to make it better?



    Guns: Totally understandable that you're not a gun guy, since we all have different interests and activities, and I'm glad you mentioned that up front.

    [But I don't believe the founding fathers meant the same thing we use it for today. Back then, there were primarily muskets... and if people want to own muskets today, I'm cool with that. But assault weapons in my opinion don't count.]

    When the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had just thrown off the yoke of a the tyrannical British Government -- a government that had, actually, tried several times to disarm the colonists through legal means-- and yes, the musket was the military arm of the day. First off, I think the Founding Fathers, who dabbled in invention and technology themselves -- were not stupid and realized that there would be technology in the firearms department. Indeed, a Scotsman named Ferguson had already come up with a 7-shot musket, if you can believe it, that was not yet accepted by the military because of it's reliability issues. But honestly, I think the certain guessed-at expectations of the Fathers is irrelevant, because saying that, since there were only muskets during that time, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees right to bear arms to the degree of carrying a musket is the same as saying that, because the printing press was all that was available when the 1st Amendment was written, then obviouisly the use of computers and typewritiers, not to mention microphones, loudspeakers, etc, are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Can you imagine the use of the 1st Amendment, our right to free speech, if all we could use was an antique printing press? Well, first of all, writing this msg would take a heck of a lot longer since I'd have to get the press ready and then hand-deliver it. See what I mean? The idea is crazy, and the same principle applies to the 2nd Amendment.

    [But assault weapons in my opinion don't count.]

    Now on the assault weapon issue, I have to ask, what do you mean by the term "assault weapon"? Because if we're talking about a fully-automatic firearm, such as the Tommy Gun from the 1920s and the original AK-47 rifle that is used throughout the Middle East, then don't sweat, they've been illegal since 1934 and it really doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. To obtain one of those you have to have special persmission from the government, like the security-contractors who operate as private military over in Iraq. The Assault Weapons Ban, passed in 1994, banned semi-automatic weapons and handguns, and had no bearing on real assault rifles. The following excerpt is from Wikipedia.

    "All firearms addressed in the ban were semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration affects the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which can fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have long been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and only fully automatic firearms manufactured and registered to civilians prior to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 may be transferred to civilians."

    The Assault Weapons Ban did not work to ban full-auto machineguns, but instead was attacking the aesthetic look of certain weapons. For instance, A rifle with a detachable magazine was legal unless it had these certain characteristics:

    1. A folding or telescoping stock
    2. A pistol grip
    3. A flash suppressor (that's not a silencer, it's a device made to protect against flash blindness when firing in low-light conditions) or a threaded barrel made to accommodate a flash suppressor
    4. A grenade launcher lug

    All pistols were banned if they had the following:

    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (like the C-96 Mauser pistol made before WWI)
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
    A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    THe list continues concerning semi-auto shotguns, but I think you see what I mean. A common example of how the ban didn't make since was the Ruger mini-14 ranch rifle. If you had wood stocks on it, it was legal, but if you put a rifle stock with a pistol grip on it, it was suddenly an "Assault weapon" and a felony to possess. It's the same rifle, and has the same shooting ability as before, but since it looked more "military-like", it was illegal.

    The spokesperson said that the AWB's effect on crime was "hard to determine".





    You said it isnt possible to shoot a deer with an AK and have any meat left over. Totally incorrent statement. The AK-47 Kalishnakov Rifle (it's full name) fires the 7.62x39 cartridge. This cartridge's ballistic value is slightly below that of a 30-30, which is a very basic round used for hunting. It's power doesn't even begin to approach the speed and reach of some of the more popular hunting rifle calibers used to kill deer every hunting season. Believe me, it's very possible to hunt deer with an AK-47 or, it's cousin, the SKS. Looking at it calculatingly, it's much easier to drop a man than a deer. For more info on the AK and the cartridge, check out the wikipedia article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

    [But there is something wrong with Americans. We kill each other like no other industrialized nation. Canada has far more guns per person and they don't kill each other... so the problem is something deeper.]

    First off, I'm curious as to what your sources are on saying that Americans "kill like no other". According to this website (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita ) we are #24 on the list of amount of murders per capita. And as for Canada having more guns than we do, I hightly doubt it. According to a poll in the 90s, roughtly 50% of Americans admitted to having a gun in their home. Now, that was Pre-9/11, which was when gun sales really went through the roof, and also it doesn't count the many gun owners who probably wouldn't admit to owning a gun. Unless you're counting those lil "bang bang cap guns" at Wal-Mart, I don't see how Canada has more guns than we do, lol.

    Now, with that being said, let me congratulate you if I actually managed to read this far, as I have the feeling this post is getting long. But what I'm really trying to say comes down to this. Throughout what you said on firearms, you kept mentioning hunting and sports purposes in regard to handguns. Which that's a good point, since hunting is a big part of culture, survival, and the balance of nature. But I'm not going to BS you here, one of the biggest reasons for owning a firearm is the same reason many people take karate classes -- self-defense of themselves and their loved ones. When two women, who called the police before the fact, had their apartment in D.C. broken into and had the assailants repeatedly rape and torture them, they tried to sue the police department. There the court ruled that the job of the police was not to protect citizens from harm, but to maintain public order. When Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in New York, none of the people who saw what was going on reached out a hand to help her. Who is out there to protect the single mom working late at night so she can keep food in her kid's mouths and a roof over their head? Who's there to protect a man and his family if they take a wrong turn and get lost on a road trip? The average sized woman has no chance in the world against a powerful and determined assailant if it's just going to be strength-on-strength. Man, I do weight training, I jog, and I study unarmed combat, yet I wouldn't want to face a guy one-on-one in a situation like that, and I even work in security. The gun people I know and talk to, they aren't crazy lunatics who hate the government and they aren't white supremacist freaks hopping to "kill them a negro". They're honest, hard-working family men and women who love their community, respect their government, and try their best to make the world a better, safer place. That's why I dislike it when people who have no knowledge at all about firearms in general (not talking about you here, per se, so please don't be offended) attempt to talk on how "unsafe" and "dangerous" firearms are. That's like taking the a football coach and putting him in charge of the school band. That's why I'm always open with people who dislike and/or feel uncomfortable with guns, and I let them know -- you included -- that they have an open invitation to go target-shooting with me anytime they want. Haha, it's not inherently dangerous, I just go to Bass Pro Shops, sign in, and fire my gun, which is a 28 in. barrelled Winchester Pump Shotgun at some targets. Hey, it may not change their opinion about guns, but I'd be willing to listen to what they think on them more if they've actually had firsthand experience.
    Does anyone remember the name of the case against the police in D.C.?
    A man without a blackthorn stick is a man without an expedient. - Irish Proverb

    Why so SERIOUS?

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    I think your friend is having trouble thinking clearly.

    The statement about not being able to hunt deer with an AK47 is just misdirection. I suppose he's saying that you would kill it with fully automatic fire? That's just stupid. And besides, fully auto AKs are not what we have access to in the first place.

    Now, as far as "the founding fathers didn't envision the weapons we have today" -- that doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. What they envisioned was that we would have contemporary arms, I imagine. So if the other guy has a Remington 700, you have a Remington 700. If the other guy has a GLOCK 22, you have a GLOCK 22. If the other guy has an AK47, you have an M16, etc.

    You might want to point out to him that logic is only logic if it can be evenly applied. If he wants to argue that our guns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment because the guns of today were not dreamt of in 1789, then you remind him that in no way did they dream we would be able to reach MILLIONS of PEOPLE with the push of a "Return" key! They didn't dream of newspapers with circulations of 250,000 people, or magazines with subscription rates in the MILLIONS. So what of the 1st Amendment, then? Does it NOT protect the internet, the laser printer, the offset printing press, just because they were not in existence when the amendment was written?

  16. #15
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,675

    Risque007...

    ...Now, with that being said, let me congratulate you if I actually managed to read this far, -- self-defense of themselves and their loved ones...

    ...Who's there to protect a man and his family if they take a wrong turn and get lost on a road trip? The average sized woman has no chance in the world against a powerful and determined assailant if it's just going to be strength-on-strength...

    ...They're honest, hard-working family men and women who love their community, respect their government, and try their best to make the world a better, safer place. That's why I dislike it when people who have no knowledge at all about firearms in general (not talking about you here, per se, so please don't be offended) attempt to talk on how "unsafe" and "dangerous" firearms are...

    ...Hey, it may not change their opinion about guns, but I'd be willing to listen to what they think on them more if they've actually had firsthand experience.


    I thought you explained yourself rather well...

    Stay alert...stay armed...stay safe!

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ruger ranch rifle at walmart

Click on a term to search for related topics.