Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 15 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: The second amendment was ratified 56 years before the invention of the cartridge. Perhaps it's worth another look. Limiting cartridges has mostly been found unconstitutional. I know NY's ban on extended magazines was overturned in federal court years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: The AR-15 is a dressed up semi-automatic rifle with a gun grip. Basically Armalite, the original manufacturer, wanted to let people play out their soldier fantasies. It's ammo is fast but it's a smallish caliber (.223). There are higher caliber hunting rifles that would do way more damage to a person. The military uses/used to use the M16, that the AR-15 is made to look like. The M16 can be made to fire as an automatic weapon. The thing that sucks about the AR-15 is that it uses cartridges. That in my opinion is what makes it dangerous. Tape 3 extended cartridges together and you can do a lot of damage, very quickly. Limiting cartridges has been found to be unconstitutional though. The US Constitution, when it comes to firearms, is archaic. That country needs to grow up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Alflives said: The US Constitution, when it comes to firearms, is archaic. That country needs to grow up. I'm pro 2nd amendment. Although, there are some common sense restrictions on things like the aforementioned cartridges that I would like to see. At least automatic weapons aren't in danger of ever being reinstated. Gotta count blessings on that. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 3 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: I'm pro 2nd amendment. Although, there are some common sense restrictions on things like the aforementioned cartridges that I would like to see. At least automatic weapons aren't in danger of ever being reinstated. Gotta count blessings on that. I think there's a nice middle ground to be found between Canada's and the US's gun laws. I'd like to see a basic gun safety course be a requirement, and give mental health professionals the ability to recommend restrictions on dangerous individuals. I would like to see Castle Doctrine and the right to self defence. However, I fully understand that my personal beliefs are way too restrictive for the US and not restrictive enough for Canada to the point a party that ran with them would be unelectable in both countries. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 6 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: I'm pro 2nd amendment. Although, there are some common sense restrictions on things like the aforementioned cartridges that I would like to see. At least automatic weapons aren't in danger of ever being reinstated. Gotta count blessings on that. We may differ on firearm accessibility but I’m thinking we agree this Supreme Court justice made a big mistake with her comments you posted. Why did she write that? It makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 7 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: Limiting cartridges has mostly been found unconstitutional. I know NY's ban on extended magazines was overturned in federal court years ago. By cartridge I meant the first modern style self propelled bullet. People were shoving musket balls wrapped in paper down 6ft long barrels at the time the second amendment was ratified. Time for a revisit is long overdue but that ship probably sailed a long time ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Alflives said: We may differ on firearm accessibility but I’m thinking we agree this Supreme Court justice made a big mistake with her comments you posted. Why did she write that? It makes no sense. She either made a mistake that she's taking her time to correct or the wording was intentional. I honestly don't know. Nobody but her and her aides know for sure. The Bruen ruling has changed the court systems handling of gun law cases including the Supreme Court itself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: By cartridge I meant the first modern style self propelled bullet. People were shoving musket balls wrapped in paper down 6ft long barrels at the time the second amendment was ratified. Time for a revisit is long overdue but that ship probably sailed a long time ago. That ship has sailed off the edge of the Earth. There are more guns than people in this country. The bad guys with them do not follow the law anyways and it's very easy to get one legally and illegally. I no longer have a handgun, but if I ever felt the need to get one again, I wouldn't hesitate. Edited June 18 by Sabrefan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: I think there's a nice middle ground to be found between Canada's and the US's gun laws. I'd like to see a basic gun safety course be a requirement, and give mental health professionals the ability to recommend restrictions on dangerous individuals. I would like to see Castle Doctrine and the right to self defence. However, I fully understand that my personal beliefs are way too restrictive for the US and not restrictive enough for Canada to the point a party that ran with them would be unelectable in both countries. You make good sense. But experiencing using firearms for what farmers too often need to use them for has made my views on restrictions more severe. IMHA(farmer)O no citizen should be allowed to own a firearm who doesn’t need it for work or for hunting. Add to that old Alf believes all firearms should be individually tagged and if they cannot be proven to be needed for work or hunting they will be confiscated and destroyed. And any crime committed with a firearm is punishable by immediate death penalty. No friggin’ guns on the streets. Use a gun for a crime and you are put down. Serious gun restrictions and serious consequences to using guns in crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Alflives said: You make good sense. But experiencing using firearms for what farmers too often need to use them for has made my views on restrictions more severe. IMHA(farmer)O no citizen should be allowed to own a firearm who doesn’t need it for work or for hunting. Add to that old Alf believes all firearms should be individually tagged and if they cannot be proven to be needed for work or hunting they will be confiscated and destroyed. And any crime committed with a firearm is punishable by immediate death penalty. No friggin’ guns on the streets. Use a gun for a crime and you are put down. Serious gun restrictions and serious consequences to using guns in crime. You'll never convince me that a man who uses a gun to defend his family should be imprisoned or executed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 9 minutes ago, King Heffy said: You'll never convince me that a man who uses a gun to defend his family should be imprisoned or executed. Who uses firearms to defend their family? This isn’t 1868 Wyoming. No citizen (unless for work or hunting) needs a firearm. The US gun laws (their second amendment) is stupidly archaic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Alflives said: Who uses firearms to defend their family? This isn’t 1868 Wyoming. No citizen (unless for work or hunting) needs a firearm. The US gun laws (their second amendment) is stupidly archaic. Having been in a situation where my father had to defend our family from a cougar using a firearm, I'm going to have to disagree. There's a lot of "it depends" with this and a lot of scenarios where the need to defend happens. You don't need 1868 Wyoming for that scenario to happen. I'm not that old last I checked. With your scenario, I might not be alive today. Edited June 18 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 7 minutes ago, Alflives said: Who uses firearms to defend their family? This isn’t 1868 Wyoming. No citizen (unless for work or hunting) needs a firearm. The US gun laws (their second amendment) is stupidly archaic. An actress named Fran Drescher had her home broken into and was raped and robbed at gunpoint in front of her then-husband. I'll bet both her and her husband wish they had a gun to protect themselves that day. Bad people don't obey the law. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, The Lock said: Having been in a situation where my father had to defend our family from a cougar using a firearm, I'm going to have to disagree. There's a lot of "it depends" with this and a lot of scenarios where the need to defend happens. You don't need 1868 Wyoming for that scenario to happen. Hahaha. Cougars in modern downtown cities? How about lock the doors and call 911? The US gun laws are beyond stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: An actress named Fran Drescher had her home broken into and was raped and robbed at gunpoint in front of her then-husband. I'll bet both her and her husband wish they had a gun to protect themselves that day. Bad people don't obey the law. And in Canada, they'd have been criminals if they'd shot the rapist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: An actress named Fran Drescher had her home broken into and was raped and robbed at gunpoint in front of her then-husband. I'll bet both her and her husband wish they had a gun to protect themselves that day. Bad people don't obey the law. What in the heck does that story have anything to do with the stupidly of the US second amendment? Oh my! A swimmer in Florida got attacked by a shark so I need shark repellent and a gun in my night stand? The second amendment is archaic. That’s a non arguable fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Hahaha. Cougars in modern downtown cities? How about lock the doors and call 911? The US gun laws are beyond stupid. Not everyone lives in a city. 911 would have taken over an hour. We had no doors to lock. Do you get out much? Edited June 18 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: And in Canada, they'd have been criminals if they'd shot the rapist. Holy craperolla. Of course rapists are bad and should be shot. What in the heck does that have to do with the stupid archaic US second amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Alflives said: Holy craperolla. Of course rapists are bad and should be shot. What in the heck does that have to do with the stupid archaic US second amendment? Everything. It's the difference between this kind of self defence being legal and illegal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: What in the heck does that story have anything to do with the stupidly of the US second amendment? Oh my! A swimmer in Florida got attacked by a shark so I need shark repellent and a gun in my night stand? The second amendment is archaic. That’s a non arguable fact. You said..... Quote Who uses firearms to defend their family? This isn’t 1868 Wyoming. No citizen (unless for work or hunting) needs a firearm. That night Fran Drescher and her then-husband needed a gun to defend themselves. /It didn't happen in 1868 Wyoming. It happened in modern day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, The Lock said: Not everyone lives in a city. 911 would have taken over an hour. We had no doors to lock. Do you get out much? Not too sure what your individual case has to do with the stupidity of the US second amendment. But if people are living in the bush then of course they need a firearm. Those folk likely are hunters too. What in the heck has that to do with city folk needing a firearm? Huge friggin’ difference, don’t ya think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 18 Author Share Posted June 18 I want to comment a bunch, but I want you all to figure it out. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: You said..... That night Fran Drescher and her then-husband needed a gun to defend themselves. /It didn't happen in 1868 Wyoming. It happened in modern day. Okay. You win. Like Archie Bunker said. Give every passenger on a plane a gun and that will end high jacking. Makes perfect sense. Guns are not the problem; people are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Alflives said: Not too sure what your individual case has to do with the stupidity of the US second amendment. But if people are living in the bush then of course they need a firearm. Those folk likely are hunters too. What in the heck has that to do with city folk needing a firearm? Huge friggin’ difference, don’t ya think? You have to understand there's a lot more crime that happens in the states. I've basically heard if you have a motorhome or anything in the states with a Canadian license plate and don't have a gun, you're seriously at risk of getting robbed because they know we don't have that 2nd amendment. Whether that crimes because of guns or not, it's still the situation down there. Removing the 2nd amendment isn't going to fix the problem. It's not going to magically make people without guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Alflives said: Okay. You win. Like Archie Bunker said. Give every passenger on a plane a gun and that will end high jacking. Makes perfect sense. Guns are not the problem; people are. God made all men, Colt made them equal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.