View Poll Results: Support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 29.27%
  • No

    29 70.73%
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 113 of 113

Thread: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

  1. #111
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Actually if you were educated on caliber selection you'd know the 300 winmag ruled the LR roost in Hathcock's day. It is what he used at Camp Perry.

    IF you had said the 300wm or 7remmag instead of 30 ought you would have shown some caliber savvy. The 30 ought owes it's popularity more to age than excellence. That a caliber is popular doesn't make the owner Dan'l Boone just as the popular 30/30 is by no means a sniper round.

    Now as far as who is competition for you at a rifle shoot, is but one way to find out... I have a 1000 yard steel range available... come on down, I always enjoy shooting with someone who thinks they have something to teach me. Might even get Steve Suttles to spot for us. The school is active this time of year.

    Now back on millions of guys ready to shoot a dictator at 800 yards...

    That you think you can doesn't validate anything. That you think the dictator will wait patiently to be shot, and he got to be dictator without a large armed entourage...

    More fantasy mind games.

    You think the military won't disarm civilians... bet you screamed a blue moon when the Guard seized weapons in New Orleans after Katrina. You REALLY sure the military won't seize weapons from civilians? Way I see it, if a Dictator gains power a sizable portion of military will believe the malcontents need to be disarmed. N your kind will be said malcontents.

    Ft. Lewis, I was stationed there back when you were hunting in Africa. You sound like one of those guys who dabbles here and there and thinks he actually did the deed. Please tell me, did you ever serve in the military? You ever earn cash money by being a LR Tactical Instructor?

    But do come on down and school me. You can add it to your rhetoric. As far as SOTIC, and the US shooting teams, hell anyone who hits the Hipower/F-Class circuit shoots and shoots the **** with those guys. They have some interesting theories on spin drift...

    some serious idiocy in that post. The 300 WM was not introduced until 1963. It was not a NATO standard caliber at any time in the Nam period while the 30-06 (M2 ball) was rather common since most of our WWII era weapons used that from the Browning 30 caliber machine guns, the MI garand and the A3 O3 springfield rifle. Hathcock won the national match with a 30-06 and at the time the army competition shooters were using 30-06 rifles mainly in competition be it scope for the wimbledon cup and iron sights for the service rifle matches with garands and sprinfields and some (later though) USAMU armory rebuilt M14s

    BTW WHEN DID Hathcock win the NR championships? 1965, only two years after that new cartridge had been introduced. I know he won it with a 30-06 because one of his students noted it was the same rifle he used in Nam.


    To kill the enemy, Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: the Winchester Model 70 .30-06 caliber rifle with the standard 8-power Unertl scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the .50-caliber M2 Browning Machine Gun, on which he mounted the Unertl scope, using a bracket of his own design.


    Carlos Hathcock | History Wars Weapons

  2. #112
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    First, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post instead of just the first sentence, you would understand that just rebelling against England was meaningless. America didn't take on freedom and democratic government simply because it rebelled. We could just as easily have become a tyrannical monarchy, but simply ruled by different people. It is the text of the constitution and the rule of law that made the revolution mean anything. The fighting would have just been on behalf of a few greedy landowners if they had set up a new aristocracy. It was the words the founders set down that created the template for modern democratic government, not the bullets and bayonets.

    As for Tienanmen Square, do you realize that the shame and derision that was aimed at China because of the massacre is one of the major reasons why China has become less totalitarian? The violence didn't end the discourse, it didn't end the struggle, it didn't stop those students from making progress towards their goals. It only ended the people. And we all know that killing a person doesn't destroy what they stood for. Is actually sacrificing something for your patriotism too complex an idea for you?



    Well, the war on drugs really isn't (my opinion, opposed by half a century of supreme court rulings), but it will need a major movement in favor of stripping the government of power and reinforcing the fourth amendment to make that happen. Restoring the fourth amendment is one of the few situations where I think a major overturning of previous supreme court doctrine would be both possible and beneficial.

    Most of the first amendment ones actually are quite reasonable, though, and pass the strictest of scrutiny. What makes me think some things are constitutional and some aren't is that I, in a fit of madness, actually study law, read constitutional cases, and learn how the whole thing works.



    Right there, you are listing infringements that are reasonable. Clearly these amendments are not meant to be 100% ironclad. They are meant to bend a little. So I return to my original question. Why is it that pro gun people take the position that the second amendment is immune to this sort of bending, when no other rule is? The same people who argue that the fourteenth amendment wasn't intended to protect homosexuals because the writers weren't thinking of them then turn around and say that the second amendment applies to all kinds of weapons that didn't exist in 1798. All I am seeking is come consistency.

    The second amendment guarantees the right to own weapons. It does not say anything about owning all types of weapons, nor about owning weapons free from registration, training, or accountability. I, and most other people who are opposed to the proliferation of weapons, do not want to remove the right to own weapons. We just want some regulation to keep the whole thing as safe as possible. And since that same regulation is applied to every other amendment, and done so in a consistent manner, passing the same tests for legitimacy, regardless of the right involved, why should the second amendment be immune?

    I have yet to meet a pro gun person who opposes reasonable limitations on the USE of guns=such as bans on shooting a shotgun on the public square or practicing rifle marksmanship in a crowded hs gym

    that is a proper type of restrictions.

  3. #113
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    First, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post instead of just the first sentence, you would understand that just rebelling against England was meaningless. America didn't take on freedom and democratic government simply because it rebelled. We could just as easily have become a tyrannical monarchy, but simply ruled by different people. It is the text of the constitution and the rule of law that made the revolution mean anything. The fighting would have just been on behalf of a few greedy landowners if they had set up a new aristocracy. It was the words the founders set down that created the template for modern democratic government, not the bullets and bayonets.

    As for Tienanmen Square, do you realize that the shame and derision that was aimed at China because of the massacre is one of the major reasons why China has become less totalitarian? The violence didn't end the discourse, it didn't end the struggle, it didn't stop those students from making progress towards their goals. It only ended the people. And we all know that killing a person doesn't destroy what they stood for. Is actually sacrificing something for your patriotism too complex an idea for you?

    I almost missed the bolded part. You fail to realize something about Tienanmin square, shame or not it changed nothing, not one thing. You bring up the idea of sacrifice, but without accomplishment or setting the stage for progression of freedom it is a hollow sacrifice and thus a wasted effort. Now, the wasted effort does not make the sacrifice any less noble, don't get me wrong, but they were noble in a history book and a casualty report only.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

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