Just to keep this simple...

I have gone to the range where I had to drive another vehicle besides my Boxster due to rifle case fitment issues. So, this thread is relevant imo.

TUL ammo is is not even up to par for simple plinking (many jams in my pistols).

And, the ONLY time some crazy a**hole/bad guy STOPS shooting (in a mall/theatre/school/etc) or STOPS attacking, is when, and ONLY when a good guy with a gun shows up!

That group of terrorists in China with machetes--->they stopped chopping people up when the police arrived with GUNS! I will never relinquish my right to bear arms in MY country. God bless America!

But, a standing army won't protect me or my property/family from home invasion out here in the country.

Flip side. One guy with one gun and one bullet can stop the guy with the high-cap mags ('banana clips' for all the MSNBC watchers) and semi auto rifle ('military-style assault weapon' for that same crowd) before a shot is fired.

And not the printed gun thing again.....:eek:

He used a nail for a firing pin, and it was single use, so no such thing as high capacity printed gun. I can do better with oak or a steel pipe (or pressure cooker). And what does a 3d printer cost? Remember all the Glock hype about a "plastic gun" when they never did get through a single metal detector? We may as well ban phasers unless they only produce them with stun power and they don't have a selector switch for kill.

As for state borders, any controlled item like guns or drugs or pills or fruit can be illegally transported anywhere in the US and I do not look forward to state border checks. Maybe patrol your own streets and enforce existing laws and put thugs away for longer before trampling on my rights? If someone is willing to shoot a store clerk in the face for $30 in till, are they obeying any law at all? Seems those laws only apply to me. :(

Sorry, but that's how the constitution was written. It may have indeed intended a citizen army, but they also had no grocery stores. Was one guy supposed to be a designated hunter for everyone, or do we suppose that right may have also covered a person's right to eat meat? Hmmmm, doesn't say. We give them credit for being so smart, but complain this is so vague.

Those "right to keep and bear arms" provision were made in another era when the was a real need for them that is no longer true today, and that provision is being used by individuals to own property that, in many cases, is simply inappropriate to be in private hands, just because it's "fun"

Here's an example. Here in Canada, firearms laws are continually being made more restrictive, but when the law changes, 'grandfathering' provisions are written into the new law that basically say that if you legally owned one of these now-prohibited firearms prior to a certain date, you are allowed to keep it and given a special permit, and there are often special conditions attached to its use. That's the back story.

Where I am going with this is that back when I was involved with shooting sports I had the opportunity to fire several legally ownerd fully automatic weapons - Sterling, Sten, Thompson, USAS12 (OMG!!) Uzi... I even got to stand with an UZI in each hand and chatter them both together - tell me that doesn't make you feel like Arnold. My point being that it was an incredibly fun experience and one I would repeat anytime, but I would never ever try to make the case that my fun was so important that these incredibly dangerous weapons should be legalized and put carte blanche into the hands of private citizens who have absolutely no justifiable reason for owning them, other than that they are "fun".

And this is how I feel about assault style rifles. There is no justifiable reason for owning them. "But i like them and they're fun" is not a justifiable reason and certain is not reason to put aside public safety. The fact that they are presently semi-auto is irrelevant. Every one of them can be fairly easily modified to full auto. Combine that with a couple of jungle-clipped banana mags and you have an assault weapon that simply could not be possible with your standard 5-round hunting or target rifle. To me, the need to protect our kids from the occasional whackos that get their hands on these guns completely outweighs personal enjoyment. There's lots of other great hobbies out there - pick one.

I think what is cool about Guns and cars. Specifically, for us here guns and Boxsters :) is that in the United States we have a completely different mentality about them.

I was reading an editorial and a foreign car maker sent a designer here to try to understand why Americans care about things like cup holders and the like in cars. When he returned after traveling all over he commented something to the effect that the USA is so big and the cities are generally so spread out that you cannot help but see your car as a place you spend significant time and so eating, drinking and focusing on things other than pure driving are a must.

With guns, I have met a few military people in my life from our allies. Keep in mind that our military guys are generally the biggest proponents of firearms in this country. (war and the military is the sole reason for the explosion of the AR styled rifle phenomenon.) I was chastised on multiple occasions by guys carrying their full auto service weapon about how crazy Americans are for wanting to have AR styled weapons. To me I just wanted to say look at you! To them they saw no issue at all because they were in the military and that line between civilian and military is so stark they do not see the need for citizens to have anything near what the military has.

By that logic, we are focusing on the wrong weapon. If we truly wanted to curb firearm tragedies and murders the handgun would be it.

The issue is that everyone has these motivations which are not bad. To protect posterity to end senseless killing.

No one has the cojones to go after the real killer on the streets, the handgun. Instead they go after the new comer, the one that looks different. In reality even if there was a wholesale ban of even every firearm other than hand guns. retroactive and proactive it would barely dent the murder rate.

Good news is, murder rate is down by several thousand since 2007

Good thing California banned the .50 before a single crime was ever committed in the entire US!

In Canada, we have gone after the handgun:
-Magazines over 10 rounds prohibited
-Barrel lengths less than 4" prohibited
-permits are available to transport cased handguns directly to and from the range only
-nobody gets either open or concealed carry permits unless you are a police officer or an armed guard transporting valuables. (The guards only get S&W model 10's)

The only exception I ever saw approved was three government scientists were given permits to carry a .44 mag revolver in a holster while working. This was because their work involved darting and tagging polar bears and there was a risk the bear might regain conciousness while they were still sitting on him. I saw lots of carry permit applications from northern bush pilots - all declined.

There, now that is good, pro-active law-making. Why wait until some nutjob gets his hands on a Browning machine gun and opens up on a shopping mall. There's no need for any private citizen to have a .50

Does that apply to the .50 cal handgun cartridges as well?

which pales in comparison to the UK. But, seems to work for Canada. Thankfully lawmakers here in the US know those things would not stand. Different strokes. That being said I doubt many murders would be stopped because the shooter only had 10 rounds.

Sarcasm???? It is hard to tell. Seeing as the ma deuce has not been illegal to buy for years... disregarding prohibitive price and any persons lack of ability to hip fire it.

Just the mass murders, and that was the point of the restriction.

The magazine restrictions were a direct result of the Marc Lepine incident.

The 4" bbl restriction was an attempt to get rid of the "Saturday Night Special" type guns - cheaply made, highly concealable, readily available.

Holy "the Government is here to protect us", Batman.

Do you Libs take ANY responsibility to protect your Families?

Bad guys have guns regardless of the gun restrictions, why do you want law-abiding citizens to be limited?

Seriously, Man up.

It's not that all of those types of guns shouldn't be in private hands, it;'s that some private hands are not stable or mature enough to own them.

As for the constitution thing, it also allowed for slaves and women could not vote. Yes, another era, but here we are and it still has authority over this issue.

A semi auto AR style gun cannot be easily modified to shoot full auto. Biggest lie around.

BTW, I own a Sterling SMP and an M1 Thompson, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and a 1927 Thompson (Al Capone era) among other fun guns. :D

No one said fun was the reason. It;s the constitution that allows me to own them. I need no other reasons.

Dude, you drank the Koolaid.....

Biggest "feel good" law ever. It weighs a ton, ammo is scarce, it costs a ton of money, very few can load for it, the scope is as much as a used car, and they banned it before it could do any harm. Dumbest thing I have ever heard, and a total waste of time. But, someone somewhere feels good about it, and that's what counts, not facts.

Just the sound of it...BROWNING MACHINE GUN!!! It's .50 BMG ammo. NOT a full auto Browning Machine Gun. Bolt action, single shot.

Look up mass murders. How many used a gun? Ted Bundy? John Wayne Gacy? Berkowitz? Ramirez? Any guns used there?

A pistol would have been more effective at Newton, but an evil black gun was used and is now branded, not the mental health people who missed this kid, or his own stupid dead mom who gave him access. Why try to pick out the unqualified ones when we can simply ban them all, right?

The explicit language in the Constitution was by design. If the founding fathers wanted no limits to gun ownership they would not have bothered to condition it any way. Why condition gun rights but every other Constitutional right stated therein is not? You have the right to vote, for its own sake, not for you to join the Whig party or the Federalists, it's entirely, and only up to you to decide how you use that right. You have the right to free speech, not to voice an anti-monarchist view, but to use free speech however you wish, without condition. You have the right to practice religion, not for the purpose of being a Catholic or Puritan, but to simply use your right to pray or not to pray, there's no condition whatsoever. The founding father's were clearly trying to make a point in stating a singular purpose for the right to bear arms.


At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture. Once you've got hand guns into the hundreds of millions the laws become inherently ineffective. Legislative action and funding to enforce it becomes a waste of money and time because with that much supply $20 will get you a handgun anytime of the day in a city like Newark despite the state's severe sentencing guidelines. And frankly if any actual gun control ever were to take place it would nearly impossible to enforce and even with new laws you would still have more access to more types of guns and ammunition than any other country in the world that isn't run by Somali warlords. And really fights over this issue only polarize the country when there are enough things that the corrupt political parties of America can actually agree on. But sometimes I think the politicians like to rattle the cages of the 2nd Am simply to increase political donations and drive sales to the gun manufacturers that support their party. It's been workign like a charm so far, just look at SWHC, up like 300% since the '12 election.

Telling someone to man up because they choose not to own guns doesn't help us look mature. It plays their "obsessed" and "compensating" game of name calling and put downs.

Same for the " I don't dial 911 (with handgun pic)" . So, you shoot out a fire or shoot someone that needs help? Totally redneck.

Or "this house protected by The Lord and a handgun. If you come in uninvited, you may meet them both" signs. Wow. That makes us look normal....NOT.

We need to rise above that. I quit trying to help my liberal friends see the light a long time ago because they have the right to not partake just like I have (for now ) the right to own guns and choose to do so. It doesn't make them any less of a man, just ignorant. (KIDDING!!)

Tired old pro-NRA rhetoric that simply doesn't hold up

"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."

What if this militia also includes my right to preserve my freedoms against my own government? Seems we did just that when our previous gov taxed without rep. What if it was meant to keep our own gov honest?

And that is the whole problem with the Americans pro-gun group. You are so concerned about your rights that you have completely lost sight of what is right.

Yeah, I know. I was just yanking your chain with that one.

Intent... Intent is so important but impossible to divine once the opportunity to know it has passed. We have some writings from our founding fathers which can help us to understand but there will always be argument.

I believe that they intended to keep weapons in the hands of citizens as a means to fight tyranny. As we all know, the first battle of the Revolution was when the Brits tried to take a strategic colonial stockpile of weapons. The lesson being the only freedoms a person has is one they have the ability to fight for.

This ideology is what makes us as you say a gun-owning culture.

There are only two ways of dealing with people, persuasion or force. The first amendment protects persuasion and the second amendment protects force.

But, Gunny Hathcock shot a child with one from a mile away in vietnam after he mounted his sniper rifle's scope on it... of course it is too dangerous for civilians

Some yes, some no. I have a couple handguns for protection. No big deal. My SA rifles are a hobby. They can be used for that, but it not why I own them.

When the left throws every "for the children" and "military assault style automatic machine guns" argument out there, we're not expected to use the constitution or self defense or every sensible reply as well?

And I took that bait.....:(

Well gents, this has been fun. I don't think either side came out with anything new but, given the number of times this debate has been waged, that's not too surprising. We've all got our lines down pat by now, and we sure know which buttons to push!

Timco - is your Garand a National Match? Would love to see a pic.

I don't care about looking "mature". I care about retaining my rights to protect my self/family without libs crying about it.

I can't believe that a simple picture of a stored firearm makes people cry like babies.

Just a 1942 service rifle, mint condition but used. Springfield. My 1903A3 is a Singer.

I have the full length bayonet for it and the cut bayo, and the grenade launcher shuttle.

http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/DSC02174.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/DSC02185.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/DSC03172.jpg
http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/DSC03312.jpg

The wood & steel are the best...

http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/a...ics/tommy2.jpg

that wood is gorgeous. Original?

The WWII guns are all original. As a collector I wouldn't buy a reassembled or pieced gun. :cheers:

removed

-RD

Very nice collection Timco.
Sooo much history in those pieces, very cool!

Thanks. Those are old pics. I've got vintage shottys, a .50x140x3.25 Sharps Straight Rolling block buffalo gun, and fun cowboy .45 long colt guns.

Just when I say I like the WWII guns best, we go to the desert and shoot .338 Lapua at a mile. :D

I am not going to lie you did a good job making that statement sound like it was originally that way.

As a matter of Constitutional writing, and the issue of gun ownership aside for a second, the founding fathers were very specific when they wanted to be and other times they were intentionally vague. They knew what they were doing, which is really amazing looking back 300+ years. The second Amendment is one that was written specifically, and addresses a group right, which is precisely why it was conditioned.
The founding fathers wrote individual rights in absolute terms to keep challengers of their writing from embarking on the "what if's" or "they meant this". They made this distinction with full understanding of the British tyranny, yet they still did not author the 2nd Amendment as an absolute and unconditioned individual right. If the right to bear arms was meant to be an indvidual right they would not have bothered to mention militias in the first place, since it could be inferred that an armed militia was a utility of an individual (i.e. uncontioned) right to bear arms. Instead we are arguing the reverse, that the group right to have an armed militia can be interpreted as and individual right. But again that's not at all they way they wrote it. And they semed fully aware of the possibiliity of re-interpretation, like we are doing now, since they made it a point to be absolute and unconditional with regard to invidual rights. The pivotal queston still remains, why didn't they do this with regard to gun ownership as well?

Aside, I don't have a problem with some guy owning as many guns as he wishes. Statiscally, most aren't nuts and planning on walking into a kindergarten or movie theater to waste everyone in the whole room. But neither do I believe they are correct in stating that they, as individuals, have a Constitutional protection, if we take the founding fathers' written words at face value. WHich is kind of the whole point of the Constitution writing exercise.

I suppose that's why intent is so important. At face value I see no indication it limits the individual right.


Here is a picture that made me laugh
http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/x...071625234.jpeg

__________________________________________________ _______________

Allow me to respectfully disagree that it is not an individual right. The people are a group of individuals. They have a right to free speech, keep and bear arms etc. Bill of right protect the individual from the govt. The govt. is subordinate to the individual. Govt. was sending troops to confiscate weapons and ammo when the "shot fired around the world" was first discharged. (seems like we may need a second shot to get the current crop of politicos to start paying attention but I digress). The founders were wary of a standing army as it took citizens taking up arms to throw the British out of the colonies. It seems to me that after all this the right to keep and bear arms would not be an individual right? If not, who would grant the collective right, the govt.? Not hardly as they would be the entity doing the infringing. State of the art military weapons were always supposed to be in the hands of the public and the public would form their own militia's. Do not confuse this with the Nat. guard which was not formed until sometime in the 1930's and can be federalized by the govt. to serve its ends and not that of the populations. The minute man went to the house to secure his firearm before joining his fellow militia men to fight he did not go to the govt. armory to sign out for a weapon. I spent 6 years in the PA Natl. guard and know what a locked arms room looks like.

As far as the so called "gun lobby" goes it really is the Bill of Rights lobby. If the only thing that gives teeth to the people to resist tyrants is the 2nd Amendment then it must by its very nature be an individual right. If the militia is now the Natl. Guard, as some suggest, it is an arm of the govt. if federalized and therefore counter to the ability to resist. As an aside the 2nd amendment is a check and balance to govt. not a recreational document allowing the citizens to go deer hunting. Self defense is a given and needs no apology. "Self preservation is the first law of nature", as my old elementary school principal was fond of stating.

I have enjoyed your perspective on this debate as you seem to have done your homework and have a sense of historical perspective. Why it is important to our shared interest in Boxsters is that if we lose our freedom and are dictated to by the likes of the EPA etc. we won't be sharing the experience of driving around in them as they will be legislated out of existence.

Notice to those who find this thread offensive, just delete it or don't read it. Do not take the usual progressive tack of trying to suppress it., OK?

Respectfully, AKL

Allen K Littlefield - excellent perspective and discussion .... you give me hope that all is not lost in your part of this country that seems to vote government has all the answers.