2nd Amendment takes a hit...

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by The Other David, May 13, 2005.

  1. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,548
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Which question? My interpretation of the 2nd, or that there is a constitutional right to own .50 caliber rifles?

    In either case, it is irrelevant. You think there is no individual constitutional right to own ANY firearm (if I'm wrong, please elucidate), and I think there is an individual right. Do I think there are any constitutional restrictions on this right? Maybe. The 2nd states "keep and bear", so that could rule out crew-served weapons.

    I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so we don't need to cover that ground again.

    There is a fairly new concept in medical practice, called "evidence-based medicine". That is, everything that is done in medicine should be based on good scientific evidence that it is safe and effective. I think we should consider "evidence-based legislation". That is, no law can be passed unless there is good a priori evidence that it will be effective, and that after a period of evaluation, all laws sunset unless they have demonstrated that they have been effective based on specific a priori hypotheses. That way we can clear the clutter off the law books and get about our lives thinking about the important issues. How does that sound to you?

    So, why would you want to ban .50 caliber rifles?

    On a more important topic: having taken Shiner off the table, what would you recommend?

    David

    BTW, you can't BEAR an M1A1. At about 50 tons you'd be squashed. It shoots a 120 mm smooth bore, so technically it is not a rifle.
     
  2. yellowlab03

    yellowlab03 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,440
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    WA
    David, the new .17HMR will also penetrate soft body armor. The prefered sniper weapon system for the isreali army is a suppressed ruger 10/22 shooting subsonics. Any weapon in the hands of a skilled marksman is a potential sniper tool. Do I see any use for a .50cal? If a legal citizen has a range to shoot it at and can afford to feed the thing, why not? He isn't breaking any laws. What is the difference in owning a drag car or owning a .50cal? Neither has a practicle use other than at a sanctioned range or track. Could it be possible to assume that if a person 21 or older has a few drinks he is automatically going to get into a car and kill someone? I think we should stop villainizing inatimate objects and start focusing in on the criminals behind them.

    Hypothetical question Greenhead: If you were a burglar and you have two houses you are looking to rob...
    House A there is an older couple say mid 60's... BUT, you also know that the old man is packing and has a loaded shotgun by the bedstand...
    House B has a younger couple say in their mid 20's. The male of the house is pretty fit and could probably defend himself if put in the situation to.

    Both houses are exactly the same, both have same ease of access and both have the same amount of valuables. Which one would you rob? Now what if no weapon was involved? Would you rob the guy that could potentially throw you a whoopin or the guy that you could easily overtake?

    That is what it all boils down to for me. I want the choice to defend my family with whatever means it takes. Hunting? I love hunting, but if faced with it I would resort to pointy sticks and a wrist rocket. Defending myself and my family is infinitly more important. And that ain't no NRA propaganda, that is just comon sense.


    YL03
     
  3. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Like 99 out of 100 robbers do, I would wait until the owners of both homes were gone and then rob them both, thus eliminating 9/10ths of the muck in your hypotheticals. Looks like I would also get a free shotgun out of the deal.

    David, as to your irrelevant comment, all I am going to say is anyone who is stupid enough to advertise in the post-9/11 era that his weapon can take out a jet airplane with one shot deserves to have it banned.

    Shiner is really all we have down here that could possibly interest you. The only other beer I can think of is Lone Star. Milwaukee's Best would probably taste better.
     
  4. yellowlab03

    yellowlab03 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,440
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    WA
    I forget how long ago it was, but a few years ago there was a video out from Tennessee I think...Anyhow, it was of a family that caught someone breaking into their home and beating the guy with bats (son and dad whailed on him while mom video taped...) Well, the guy was trying to steal all of the Christmas presents, after they beat him they gave him a pillow case and walked him around their home say stuff like, "Oh boy doesn't that look nice...Here put this in your sack..." It was great! Deffinitly taught that criminal a lesson! Anyone seen that one or have a link? Anyhow, not all criminals wait until the people leave. 99 out of 100, those odds are still do dang high for me. I bet 99% of people don't need seat belts or air bags for that matter, nor car seats for their children.


    YL03
     
  5. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,548
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Working back throught the questions and comments...

    Which irrelevant comments? Let's see:
    I said the 2nd took a hit.
    You said it was my interpretation. You are correct in that statement.
    You asked me about .50 bans (What do you think about...), and wanted to know if I thought we had a constitutional right.
    I said the bans are stoopid and that we do have a right. I made a number of comments about why the bans are stoopid and why the whole issue is a duck (see, I knew I'd get back on topic!).
    You said I didn't answer your question, but I thought I did.
    I made comments about EBM and EBL.
    Now we are at your last note.

    What did I miss? Just to clarify, in case I wasn't clear before, yes I think we do have a right. But you already knew that! :D

    DGH, I don't think the manufacturers of the .50 cal rifles advertise that their guns can shoot down a jet airplane. If you know of any such ad please let me know. Assuming that they have not made such a claim, perhaps any anti-gun organization that points that capability out to the general public should be banned. Wait, doesn't that violate the First Amendment? No worry, these are dangerous times.

    Like 99 out of 100 robbers do...

    Except in the UK, where the proportion of "hot" burlaries (conducted while people are at home) is substantially higher than in the US. If you care enough I will find the source.

    Shiners it is! But not Bock. All the stores here carry that, but not the other kinds.


    David
     
  6. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
  7. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,548
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    Thanks for the link. Here is the pertinent stuff: But Pelosi offered a brochure Barrett's company used in the past to market the .50-caliber to the military. It boasts that the gun can hit a jet airplane or a helicopter in just the right spot, "making it capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."

    Doesn't sound like marketing to the civilian community to me. Sounds like marketing to the military. In fact, that is exactly what it is. So, what is the problem here?

    I addressed this specific issue earlier. Ducks.

    Oh, I see now: Which question? My interpretation of the 2nd, or that there is a constitutional right to own .50 caliber rifles? In either case, it is irrelevant.
    The reason I said that is because this issue will be resolved at a higher paygrade than mine, and my opinion is irrelevant. Besides, you know my opinion! But not sure how it relates to David, as to your irrelevant comment, all I am going to say is anyone who is stupid enough to advertise in the post-9/11 era that his weapon can take out a jet airplane with one shot deserves to have it banned.

    I'm still not clear if you think gun control in general or in any specific method is a good idea, although you are clear in that thinking there is no individual right to any gun (or knife, apparently). If you do think that gun control in any fashion is a good idea, what empiric evidence do you have that it will work? Please include in your equation potential downsides, such as how it would be enforced, how opposition would be handled, and how it would impact the criminal class. Please be prepared to justify everything you say.

    If you are trying to convince us that there are no constitutional limits on government control of these items, good luck. That's not going to happen because of a bunch of messages on a bulletin board. If you are trying to establish some criteria above which guns (and knives) may be banned, or trying to find out what our opinions are on such criteria, you are taking a very indirect approach.

    I still don't understand why you are so supportive of the entire concept!

    What are the non-bock Shiner options?

    David
     
  8. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Not this again, please. I am not doing this argument again, David, I just don't care enough about it to do it (again).

    Ummm, I don't see any evidence in the link to suggest the advertising was in any way limited to military recipients. Sounds to me like a case of you trying to adjust the facts to fit your argument.
     
  9. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,548
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    Quote from the newspaper article: But Pelosi offered a brochure Barrett's company used in the past to market the .50-caliber to the military. It boasts that the gun can hit a jet airplane or a helicopter in just the right spot, "making it capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."

    Your comment: Ummm, I don't see any evidence in the link to suggest the advertising was in any way limited to military recipients. Sounds to me like a case of you trying to adjust the facts to fit your argument.

    OK, I'm confused. The article says "to market...to the military." What are you implying?

    No, we don't need to rehash all the arguments. But you raised the issue! :p

    Do you need a mailing address?

    David
     
  10. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    I didn't see the market to the military qualifier. But now that I think about it....doesn't the fact that it's a military weapon bolster a ban argument rather than the other way around?

    As for the direction and breadth of this conversation, I asked you what you thought of the 50 caliber bans. I haven't been too chatty on the subject otherwise.
     

Share This Page