One thing that unionman did miss was the fact that the M-14, which I carried in the military (shows you how old I am!), was a 7.62 round and the AR type rifles, which I owned after I was out of the military, are chambered for 5.56 rounds. Also, Ruger makes a 10.22, which is almost identical to the Ranch Rifle but chambered for .22 ammo. It can be had with the folding stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip of the AR type rifles, can be had with a 50 round magazine, It can also be made into fully automatic with the proper internal parts and machining. Although, that is illegal for anyone without special BATF license.
The point I was trying to make was that the slide show made an attempt to paint a picture of the "ranch rifle" being a non-minacious weapon. In reality it was based on a military weapon and was actively marketed to law enforcement of all levels. Personally, I love Ruger and the Mini-14 has been on my wish list for years.
Like I said, I am not sure where I stand on this. I am a firm believer in civil rights, even when those rights are used to promote something I oppose. Something must be done to prevent or at least decrease these crazy people committing crazy acts with firearms. We cannot pretent that a problem doesn't exist. We cannot continue to pretend that more guns or less guns will solve the problem either. I do not claim to know what the answer is or where to begin. That is why I elected my government representatives. As long as they understand that I will be in good shape.
Unionman wrote; "Like I said, I am not sure where I stand on this. I am a firm believer in civil rights, even when those rights are used to promote something I oppose. Something must be done to prevent or at least decrease these crazy people committing crazy acts with firearms." I think a mandantory drug test, along with the usual checks when purchasing a gun would solve a lot of problems. Most of those on opposite sides of the fence would be agreeable to this i think. How about making drug testing mandantory for all elected/appointed officials, local, state and federal while we are at it? Maybe not just for gun ownership either...
_________________ "I have never believed there was one code of morality for a public official and another for a private man." Thomas Jefferson"
citizen, you've got to start getting your quotes correct:
Home â€ş Jefferson â€ş Quotations â€ş Famous Quotations No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation) This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson's three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:
First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"
This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.
Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.
Thanks for the videos, Ryan! I was just thinking, I have a .22Mag semi-auto pistol, a Grendel, similar to a Glock in that it is mostly polymer except for the operating parts. It has a side by side 30 round (yup! 30!) magazine that is contained completely within the pistol grip and invisible from outside. I wonder if it will become illegal.
What are those arms? A nuclear bomb? Armor peircing rounds? Antitank missles? Mines? Grenades? Grenade launchers? All of these are considered arms.
Not by anyone with a reasonable sense of right and a firm grip on sanity. Sure they fit the military useage of the word but certainly not the civilian. I haven't heard anyone say that they climb on their nuke and the government can't stop them.
OOoooh! A proper "thumbs forward" two hand grip! I can't say I have EVER seen a proper grip in a theatrical type video! And unionman, I agree that we could stand to do something regarding the total loons getting guns, but that's also a fine line. It was on NPR several weeks ago that the main book psychiatrists use has now defined people grieving over the loss of a loved one for more than two weeks as diagnosable mentally ill. Anybody who is not VIOLENTLY mentally ill should have access to all of the same small defensive arms as the military. Bombs and poison gas and such nonsense would NOT fall into that category. The US Military most often uses an M16 platform rifle with "Safe" "Semi" "Burst" (three round burst) as the options for fire. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that such a weapon could come in handy when faced with multiple attackers, depending on your living situation and area.
_________________ Closed minds STOP thought crimes!
Ryan, the amendment reads "the right to keep and bear arms".
So logic says that IF our forefathers gave us that right "in case we had to defend ourselves against the government if need be", I and others should have the right to build and keep nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Since our government has them also. WE need them as a deterrent. If we are denied nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the second amendment is meaningless. "WE" need the same weaponry that they have.
IF we are limited to only small arms, we have no hope of defending ourselves from a tyrannical, overbearing government.
Shifting gears a bit, this is from a recent editorial in the Washington Post:
In fact, the federal government of our Founders made gun ownership mandatory for white males, while denying others â€” slaves and later freedmen â€” the privilege. Today, the most vociferous defenders of gun rights tend to be white, rural males who oppose any regulation. But theirs was once the ardently held position of radical African-Americans. Notably, in the 1960s, Black Panthers Bobby Seale and Huey Newton toted guns wherever they went to make a point: Blacks needed guns to protect themselves in a country that wasnâ€™t quite ready to enforce civil rights. In one remarkable incident in May 1967, as recounted in The Atlantic by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, 24 men and six women, all armed, ascended the California capitol steps, read a proclamation about gun rights and proceeded inside â€” with their guns, which was legal at the time. Needless to say, conservatives, including then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, were suddenly very, very interested in gun control. That afternoon, Reagan told reporters there was â€śno reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.â€ť The degree of oneâ€™s allegiance to principle apparently depends mainly on who is holding the gun. While black activists were adamant about their right to protect themselves, the National Rifle Association wasnâ€™t much interested in the constitutional question until the mid-â€™70's.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum