{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/28/2015 12:30:14 AM
52
Because Americans pick and choose what they want , even if it makes no sense. Read the 2nd amendment and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say you have the right to bare 10 automatic rifles with 100 rounds to hunt. Learn what a militia is and we start from there.
However people wanna protect themselves from people with guns , so they buy a gun. But the guy they hope to protect themselves from gets the same benefit as you so wouldn't you wanna make it harder for him and let the police protect you? Oh wait the police are to busy shooting their guns to protect themselves from people who have guns.
Logic
English
-
Fun Fact: you can not own an "automatic weapon". Contrary to popular beliefs, civilian AR-15's are semiautomatic. To convert it is both illegal and would require a good amount of knowledge about how guns work.
-
You actually can own a full-auto weapon. Must be made and registered pre-1986, and it requires a lengthy approval process and a $200 tax stamp.
-
Its a special classification of license that civilians will usually not receive. The way people use the term is not correct
-
No, it's not. There is no special license for owning pre-86 machine guns. There is a special dealer license for possession of post-86 dealer sample weapons. If you doubt me, you're welcome to look up the Knob Creek machine gun shoot. Plenty of examples of civilian-owned full-autos. Anyone with the capital, the time, and a clean background can get a pre-86 machine gun.
-
I didn't read pre86, whoops. I'd personally have to check on that, but it seems truthful. I was talking modern day, hence the AR15 comment
-
AR15s are old duder. Colt used to sell full auto AR15s to civilians, till 86. But I get what you mean. Also, you don't know joy till you've fired an MP5 with a giggle switch.
-
Yeah, i guess I was a tad vague, but most people picture an AR15 and think fully automatic when you can't get them like that now. And oh how I wish I could. Personally I plan on buying a rifle (not sure what yet) and a handgun once I've got a house
-
I've got a few (8?) rifles, and five handguns. They're pretty awesome.
-
Id say 8 qualifies as several instead of a few. But what type of rifles do you own? And preference on handgun?
-
I've got all manner of rifles. Four bolt-action surplus rifles, four semi-auto carbines. And I prefer compact semi-autos because they're easier to conceal. Revolvers are nice though, I've got 3. For you, I'd need to know what you want it for before making any serious suggestions.
-
The rifle will mainly be to just go out to a range and have fun, but I'm sure I'll hunt as well. I know I'm most likely going to get a mosin Nagant because it is one of my favorite rifles and I'm a history buff. Handguns I haven't done enough research on, but it'll most likely be to keep in my home and range shoot. Unsure on concealed carry at this point
-
I've got 3 mosins, I love 'em. For a handgun, I'd suggest you try some to find what you're most comfortable with. For a home/range gun, a full-size is great for recoil management and comfort. 9mm is relatively inexpensive as well. Of course, as a history buff you might want to look into a Nagant revolver, a P-38, or a TT-33. All are relatively affordable, but the P-38 will be the easiest to find ammo for (it's 9x19mm).
-
Okay, that's cool. I haven't really looked into the WW2 era handguns but I'll look into the ones you listed. But I feel as though I should shoot a few different types before making a decision on them
-
Absolutely dude. Guns ain't cheap, you want to make sure you'll enjoy it before you buy it. Many gun stores/ranges will allow you to rent their used guns.
-
Yeah, I'll definitely need to get a feel for the type I want when it comes to a handgun. Only a few more years haha
-
The waiting game sucks if you don't have family members that are into shooting
-
I don't, but my girlfriends family is and they've got a farm
-
Try out some of their handguns. Also look into Tannerite, is a binary compound used to make reactive targets. And NEVER put it in a metal or glass container to shoot at, because safety first!
-
Edited by QuackFever: 7/28/2015 3:42:57 AMActually, it doesn't specify anything beyond arms. Not how many, not what type. In the language of the day, and in modern English, "arms" are basically any instrument of war, of offense or defense. Taking it a bit further, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1939 in the United States v Miller case that the only arms protected by the 2nd Amendment [i]were[/i] military weapons. That precedent has not been ruled against at this point in time. Given that it is generally accepted that fully automatic weapons have a military application, this ruling implicates the unconstitutional nature of the 1934 National Firearms Act [i]and[/i] the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. And if we want to discuss the prefatory clause, or the 'Militia' clause, it should be noted that in the language of the time of writing, "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped" and "disciplined". The Constitution also specifies who composes the "militia", which is, in short, every able-bodied male. Nor is the 2nd Amendment about hunting. "A Well-Regulated Militia, being Necessary for the Security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed." Unless I'm mistaken, there's not a word about hunting in there.
-
Surely they did not intend for such advancements in arms to the point that were at at now. Because it was written so long ago and no one is around to correct what they meant it leaves it to be abused by people that believe that a gun will make them safe. No matter how many guns you have, you will die one way or another. There is no escape.
-
I contend that the absolutely had an idea of how arms would advance, given that they used the general term "arms" instead of something more specific like "muskets" or "rifles". Especially since they were aware of the existence of both the Puckle Gun and the Girandoni air rifle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle It's disingenuous to suggest that individuals with the foresight to write a document still so highly regarded that they couldn't foresee advancements in arms that were occurring in their own time. Jefferson authorized the Louis and Clark expedition, and they took with them a Girandoni. He was aware of its existence, for sure.
-
But to the extend of a weapon that could fire hundred of rounds in seconds ?
-
Absolutely. The Puckle Gun and the Girandoni were lightyears ahead of the warfighting technology of the day. Use our modern world as an example: ballistic weapons are commonplace, and directed-energy weapons are the stuff of science fiction, yet we have functional directed-energy weapons that can stop a truck cold at 1.5 miles [b]today[/b]. They're certainly not commonplace, or even man-portable (by a single individual), but they exist. It would be silly for us now to say "Well, there will never be anything more advanced than a semi-automatic rifle," when we have direct evidence to the contrary.
-
I agree with you that it would be silly to say weapons have reached its limit on a technical standpoint and even the ammo along with your example of the puckle gun which shows how even "full auto" weapons were in development at the time, I would have to disagree on allowing anyone to have any type of gun, ammo or accessories. The second amendment "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." The very first part of it clearly states regulation. Even if the founding fathers did know or had any foresight into the future of weapons they already put into place clearly in the second amendment that there should be "well regulated militia"
-
Also, from an grammatical standpoint, "a Well-Regulated Militia, being Necessary for the Security of Free State," is a dependent clause, indicating that it isn't the primary purpose of the statement, whereas "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" is an independent clause, indicating that it is the core idea of the sentence.
