TheOtherOne
Member
Oh good, now I feel comforted. Yeah, I had forgot all about that old Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms for shooting deer, shall not be infringed"
MD to try banning "assault" guns not needed for Deer hunting!
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
But come on man -- Montgomery County is one of the safest places in the world to live, Tacoma Park being a "nuclear free zone" and all. I know whenever I'm in DC for work and have to take the Metro to Silver Spring, I feel safest traveling through Tacoma, knowing no nuclear weapons can harm me.
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
One thing that people like Gen. Wesley Clark and Md State Sen. Rob Garagiola prove is that not everyone in uniform takes their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution seriously.
Invertebrates like Sponge Rob Garagiola who pander shamelessly for votes by trashing the Constitution are beneath contempt.
Given his obvious lack of character I'd like to see some proof of his claim to have "Served 5 years in a Special Operations Airborne Unit." Or an explaination of what "served in" is supposed to mean.
Invertebrates like Sponge Rob Garagiola who pander shamelessly for votes by trashing the Constitution are beneath contempt.
Given his obvious lack of character I'd like to see some proof of his claim to have "Served 5 years in a Special Operations Airborne Unit." Or an explaination of what "served in" is supposed to mean.
Last edited:
I'm in Santa Barbara, the "Tacoma Park" of CA.
or is that ?Actually I think CA is worse right now. You Maryland folks are at least lucky that you have a Governor who has stated for the record that he's against a State "assault weapons" ban.
Hazwaste
Member
It really bugs me when people say things like "You can't hunt deer with an AK!", or "What do you NEED an AR-15 for?".
The people who say these things are not educated on the subject. Oh sure, the fellow who shot an M-16 when he was a reservist might be considered by the ignorant as a "trained professional", but serving in the reserve doesn't make him an expert on Constitutional law. Nor does it make him an expert on the non-military uses of firearms.
Besides, the 7.62x39 cartridge makes a fine hunting round for small deer.
The people who say these things are not educated on the subject. Oh sure, the fellow who shot an M-16 when he was a reservist might be considered by the ignorant as a "trained professional", but serving in the reserve doesn't make him an expert on Constitutional law. Nor does it make him an expert on the non-military uses of firearms.
Besides, the 7.62x39 cartridge makes a fine hunting round for small deer.
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
This is so dumb
How many times have I heard a poltician cry that you don't need an "AR-15 to hunt dear." No kidding, tell me something I don't know. Of course I don't need an AR for killing dear, that's not what it's made for. That's like saying I don't need a tractor to drive to work. Let's be honest, an AR-15 is a semi auto M16, and we all know what the M16 is good for, it's good for shooting people. And that's just fine. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to own "hunting" guns, it defends your right to own guns used to kill *people*. And if you can't accept that, too bad... but that's the way it is. The 2nd refers to a militia, not a hunting club, clay shooting club, or any other shooting organization. If you really hate the 2nd amendment so much, repeal it then, but as long as it stands, I will not tolerate this type of talk from politicians anymore.
While I'm at it, might I ask how far most of you are willing to let our "leaders" go before you won't take it anymore? Or is there no limit to our tolerance for their lies? Will anyone draw a line in the sand, or are we doomed to follow the examples set for us by Australia, England, Canada, etc?
How many times have I heard a poltician cry that you don't need an "AR-15 to hunt dear." No kidding, tell me something I don't know. Of course I don't need an AR for killing dear, that's not what it's made for. That's like saying I don't need a tractor to drive to work. Let's be honest, an AR-15 is a semi auto M16, and we all know what the M16 is good for, it's good for shooting people. And that's just fine. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to own "hunting" guns, it defends your right to own guns used to kill *people*. And if you can't accept that, too bad... but that's the way it is. The 2nd refers to a militia, not a hunting club, clay shooting club, or any other shooting organization. If you really hate the 2nd amendment so much, repeal it then, but as long as it stands, I will not tolerate this type of talk from politicians anymore.
While I'm at it, might I ask how far most of you are willing to let our "leaders" go before you won't take it anymore? Or is there no limit to our tolerance for their lies? Will anyone draw a line in the sand, or are we doomed to follow the examples set for us by Australia, England, Canada, etc?
just keeps rearing its ugly head
Here's a response I wrote regarding that ubiquitous "need" question. It bears repeating, C-
Never answer that question
We MUST control the terms we use in our language if we are going to win this arguement!
When you allow your self to answer the 'need' question, you play into their hands.
Why do i need...? why do you need...?
Let's settle this really quickly: you dont NEED it. period.
The only things a human being can claim to need are nutrients and air. That's it.
As for all our WANTS, which we claim we 'need', we can answer as follows every time:
The lack of need is NOT a valid reason to restrict ownership of anything in a free market economy. Period.
Dont get it? OK, a free market allows a person to pursue both his economic needs (nutrients and air) and wants without restriction.
So anytime someone asks why you need something other than food,water, and breatheable gas; YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION (and you don't want to).
THE BIG POINT: To answer it assumes a validity that the question does not have in this country.
It draws you into useing a term defined by the enemy.
Who defined the current legal definition of 'assault weapon'? or 'arsenal'? or 'armor piercing'? That's right, the anti-gun crowd did. When we meet them on a field of their own terms, we are at significant disadvantages- since words shape opinions, and people vote their opinions.
We must take control of our arguements!
C-
Here's a response I wrote regarding that ubiquitous "need" question. It bears repeating, C-
Never answer that question
We MUST control the terms we use in our language if we are going to win this arguement!
When you allow your self to answer the 'need' question, you play into their hands.
Why do i need...? why do you need...?
Let's settle this really quickly: you dont NEED it. period.
The only things a human being can claim to need are nutrients and air. That's it.
As for all our WANTS, which we claim we 'need', we can answer as follows every time:
The lack of need is NOT a valid reason to restrict ownership of anything in a free market economy. Period.
Dont get it? OK, a free market allows a person to pursue both his economic needs (nutrients and air) and wants without restriction.
So anytime someone asks why you need something other than food,water, and breatheable gas; YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION (and you don't want to).
THE BIG POINT: To answer it assumes a validity that the question does not have in this country.
It draws you into useing a term defined by the enemy.
Who defined the current legal definition of 'assault weapon'? or 'arsenal'? or 'armor piercing'? That's right, the anti-gun crowd did. When we meet them on a field of their own terms, we are at significant disadvantages- since words shape opinions, and people vote their opinions.
We must take control of our arguements!
C-
Mark Tyson
Member
Or, you could counter by asking them why they need a sports car, fast food, toxic cleaning chemicals, toys with small parts(choking hazard), swimming pools (drowning) or any number of other commonplace dangerous things.
Then ask them why they single guns out when all of these things claim lives.
Then ask them why they single guns out when all of these things claim lives.
so we answered the 'need' question
Now we can tackle 'infringed'...
Here’s the goods on ‘reasonable restrictions’:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of infringe:
infringe
• verb 1 violate (a law, agreement, etc.). 2 encroach on (a right or privilege)
Similarly in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Regarding these definitions are the same sources for the meanings of violate and encroach.
Violate: (Oxford): verb 1 break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
2 treat with disrespect. 3 rape or sexually assault.
(M-W): 1 : BREAK, DISREGARD <violate the law>
2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : RAPE
3 : to fail to show proper respect for : PROFANE
4 : INTERRUPT, DISTURB
Encroach: (Oxford): verb 1 (encroach on/upon) gradually intrude on (a person’s
territory, rights, etc.). 2 advance gradually beyond expected or acceptable
limits
(M-W): 1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights
of another 2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
Therefore we can make easier to understand the phrase: “shall not be infringedâ€
(Note: the words “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state†have been gramatically analysed (reference available) and are not a clause but a present participle used as an adjective modifying the word militia. They do not restrict nor modify the right to keep and bear arms in any way. They simply make a positive statement regarding the right. Therefore for understanding the meaning of the article, the present participle can be disregarded.)
So the remaining phrase, “shall not be infringed†can be stated as follows:
Shall not be violated
Shall not be encroached upon
Shall not be broken
Shall not be failed to be complied with
Shall not be disregarded, interrupted, disturbed
Shall not be intruded upon, nor by gradual steps advanced upon
To do any of these would be to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus violate the Constitution of the United States, and thus render the any action which does so illegal and any law which does so null and void.
Period.
The Supreme Court does not need to ‘rule’ on this point: it is already decided for them.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
Now we can tackle 'infringed'...
Here’s the goods on ‘reasonable restrictions’:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of infringe:
infringe
• verb 1 violate (a law, agreement, etc.). 2 encroach on (a right or privilege)
Similarly in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Regarding these definitions are the same sources for the meanings of violate and encroach.
Violate: (Oxford): verb 1 break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
2 treat with disrespect. 3 rape or sexually assault.
(M-W): 1 : BREAK, DISREGARD <violate the law>
2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : RAPE
3 : to fail to show proper respect for : PROFANE
4 : INTERRUPT, DISTURB
Encroach: (Oxford): verb 1 (encroach on/upon) gradually intrude on (a person’s
territory, rights, etc.). 2 advance gradually beyond expected or acceptable
limits
(M-W): 1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights
of another 2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
Therefore we can make easier to understand the phrase: “shall not be infringedâ€
(Note: the words “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state†have been gramatically analysed (reference available) and are not a clause but a present participle used as an adjective modifying the word militia. They do not restrict nor modify the right to keep and bear arms in any way. They simply make a positive statement regarding the right. Therefore for understanding the meaning of the article, the present participle can be disregarded.)
So the remaining phrase, “shall not be infringed†can be stated as follows:
Shall not be violated
Shall not be encroached upon
Shall not be broken
Shall not be failed to be complied with
Shall not be disregarded, interrupted, disturbed
Shall not be intruded upon, nor by gradual steps advanced upon
To do any of these would be to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus violate the Constitution of the United States, and thus render the any action which does so illegal and any law which does so null and void.
Period.
The Supreme Court does not need to ‘rule’ on this point: it is already decided for them.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Of course .. in theory QED ..... but then there seems this almost compulsion to ''re-write'' the rules ... despite your logic.:banghead:
- Status