|
|
 Expert
Posts: 4121
 
Location: SE Louisiana | Tdove - 2015-10-05 11:06 AM 2nd 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." Did you see mention of gun? It specifically states Militia and Arms, not guns. The Second Amendment is primarily to protect the free state from its own government. Secondary, is to protect from foreign government and personal protection. There has never been a free people without the ability to arm themselves. It is inherent to freedom, only bested in importance by free speech. Type of gun is similarly irrelevant. Assault rifles are not inherently more dangerous than others. Even fully automatic rifles have severe limitations and as such, I don't believe the US military is issuing them any more.
Those are the same thing!!! It's a pet peeve of mine when some dip$hit calls a .22 decked out in an M16 frame an assault rifle. People need to stop watching Hollywood. Gun crimes in the USA are not committed with automatic firearms!!
Edited by komet. 2015-10-05 1:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 929
 
| Meth is illegal but it doesn't stop anyone from getting a hold of it. There can be laws and rules up the wazoo and the bad guys will still have access to it. I feel safer knowing that if I might die, I at least tried to save my family.
The 9/11 terrorists had box cutters and a pen or something. Should we outlaw all of those things, too? |
|
| |
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 851
Location: West Texas | Komet, I didn't mean to imply the aren't. I was referring to assualt rifles in general, and a subset of those being fully automatic versions, the M16.
I agree they are typically not the guns involved in crime. Statistically, handguns are the biggest group.
Edited by Tdove 2015-10-05 3:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Tdove - 2015-10-05 2:59 PM
Komet, I didn't mean to imply the aren't. I was referring to assualt rifles in general, and a subset of those being fully automatic versions, the M16.
We got off on the wrong foot. Pretty much everybody knows who Scrat is. but.... who is that handsome fella in your avatar pic? (and please... stop calling semi-auto rifles "assault weapons) We have not had fullly automatic guns on the street since the Tommy Guns back in the 1920s-1940s. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 851
Location: West Texas | Thank you, that is my stallion, Iam In Command
I agree. But some people don't know the difference. You see that all of the time. I was just using that to show that it is the operator, not the weapon that is dangerous. I believe the military stopped issuing them because fully automatic was a waste of ammo and the troops marksmanship was down incredibly with it and used it too much. So, even fully automatics aren't that much dangerous. Actually the opposite. You have to hit what you aim at for any weapon to cause harm. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Tdove - 2015-10-05 3:20 PM
Thank you, that is my stallion, Iam In Command
I agree. But some people don't know the difference. You see that all of the time. I was just using that to show that it is the operator, not the weapon that is dangerous. I believe the military stopped issuing them because fully automatic was a waste of ammo and the troops marksmanship was down incredibly with it and used it too much. So, even fully automatics aren't that much dangerous. Actually the opposite. You have to hit what you aim at for any weapon to cause harm.
He's a very handsome fella..!!! The last time I checked, the M16 had a two position switch. One position for a 3 round burst, the other was a full (spray). I don't think the one I saw had a single shot option. I've been lucky enough to play with a mini-14. (THOSE ARE FUN!!) But still semi auto.... |
|
| |
|
 Toastest with the Mostest
Posts: 5712
Location: That part of Texas | The fact of the matter is you can sit and debate gun control laws and stricter purchase laws all day long but technology is going to always be one step ahead of you. In a few years our world will look much different when guns are more easily made using 3D printers and if you really want to, you can legally by-step any law on the books to get what you want through that venue. Look at the Philippines and what gun control has done for them on that front. They now have more people making a living as illegal gunsmiths than ever before. We also have many from the Philippines coming to America as refugees from the violence over there. They'll bring their trade with them and will have a place alongside native Americans who will pick up the art if their rights are infringed upon. Technology is always going to be one-step ahead.
Anyway, the only thing that's happened since gun control has been debated is that gun sales are skyrocketing and more people are herded through the screen process so it's harder to look at each individual than it was before. Whereas you might have been able to stop some people from purchasing guns just by odd behavior and the types/amounts of guns/ammo they would be buying in past times, you don't have that now when everybody is scrambling to stockpile what they can, when they can. What would be a strange order a couple of years ago is now commonplace and it makes it harder to sort out who's stockpiling for good or evil.
What I really wish would happen is that the media would adopt it's own policy of not reporting any new shooter's name nor giving their family time on air to talk about them. Don't give them the fame they deserve. It's funny how the Sheriff in Oregon was okay in refusing to give out the name in a press conference when by law, he's probably more beholden than the media is and the media turns around and says that they must give the name out. By whose law? It's their policy -- not law. One small set of people could make such a big difference but they refuse to. They'd rather be able to make money off of reporting it all -- shooter, victims, parents, gun control debates, etc. -- than to make a difference.
|
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| komet. - 2015-10-05 4:12 PM
Tdove - 2015-10-05 3:20 PM
Thank you, that is my stallion, Iam In Command
I agree. But some people don't know the difference. You see that all of the time. I was just using that to show that it is the operator, not the weapon that is dangerous. I believe the military stopped issuing them because fully automatic was a waste of ammo and the troops marksmanship was down incredibly with it and used it too much. So, even fully automatics aren't that much dangerous. Actually the opposite. You have to hit what you aim at for any weapon to cause harm.
He's a very handsome fella..!!! The last time I checked, the M16 had a two position switch. One position for a 3 round burst, the other was a full (spray ). I don't think the one I saw had a single shot option. I've been lucky enough to play with a mini-14. (THOSE ARE FUN!! ) But still semi auto....
The newer M16 you are correct however the older ones circa 1970's where full auto. I am not sure when they changed I think sometime in the 90's |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Red Raider - 2015-10-05 4:17 PM The fact of the matter is you can sit and debate gun control laws and stricter purchase laws all day long but technology is going to always be one step ahead of you. In a few years our world will look much different when guns are more easily made using 3D printers and if you really want to, you can legally by-step any law on the books to get what you want through that venue. Look at the Philippines and what gun control has done for them on that front. They now have more people making a living as illegal gunsmiths than ever before. We also have many from the Philippines coming to America as refugees from the violence over there. They'll bring their trade with them and will have a place alongside native Americans who will pick up the art if their rights are infringed upon. Technology is always going to be one-step ahead.
Anyway, the only thing that's happened since gun control has been debated is that gun sales are skyrocketing and more people are herded through the screen process so it's harder to look at each individual than it was before. Whereas you might have been able to stop some people from purchasing guns just by odd behavior and the types/amounts of guns/ammo they would be buying in past times, you don't have that now when everybody is scrambling to stockpile what they can, when they can. What would be a strange order a couple of years ago is now commonplace and it makes it harder to sort out who's stockpiling for good or evil.
What I really wish would happen is that the media would adopt it's own policy of not reporting any new shooter's name nor giving their family time on air to talk about them. Don't give them the fame they deserve. It's funny how the Sheriff in Oregon was okay in refusing to give out the name in a press conference when by law, he's probably more beholden than the media is and the media turns around and says that they must give the name out. By whose law? It's their policy -- not law. One small set of people could make such a big difference but they refuse to. They'd rather be able to make money off of reporting it all -- shooter, victims, parents, gun control debates, etc. -- than to make a difference.
Glad to see you chime in here. I agree with most of your post. But.... they do not deserve the fame they acquire. Just another killer. You're a lawyer. You understand that in a courtroom, whoever tells the best story, WINS!! It's the same thing with the press/media. |
|
| |
|
Miss Southern Sunshine
Posts: 7427
Location: South Central Florida | People forget there are lots of ways to kill people. If they want to..they will. We live in a free society. Most of the World doesnt even understand that. With freedom comes obligation and risk. Risk to start a business, risk to lend money and make money doing it, risk to reach for a dream. Also risk because some fail, and some dont try and with a free society as we have, sometimes it means watching and taking action on our own. |
|
| |
Folks on-line