|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 8, 2022 16:04:54 GMT
I was once the proud owner of a Marlin 45/70. Sigh. PS: If they had been reluctant to leave, you could have showed them the size of a round.  And Marlin really used to make a great rifle. Remington bought out Marlin, which is about like Walmart buying them. But, the Marlins I have seen and read about have still been good quality. Maybe nothing much changed at their Kentucky factory.
I really like my Ruger 9mm semi-auto carbine. No fancy design. Not trying to play GI Joe. Just good reliable action with a shorter barrel. Good for moving through brush. And the slide is reversible for us left-eyed folks.  |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 8, 2022 18:00:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 8, 2022 18:00:59 GMT
Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous
Opinion by Michael Fanone Updated 6:26 AM ET, Mon June 6, 2022 www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html
If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be
politically palatable, here's another option: Reclassify semi-automatic
rifles as Class 3 firearms.
I can't overstate how dangerous it is to have semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 in the hands of civilians. Our public officials have it within their power to help make it harder for people who shouldn't have these weapons to get them.
A police officer should never have to worry about being outgunned by the bad guy they're protecting the public against.
It may slow down 16 year olds (but so would beefed up security) but it won't stop the majority of criminals. I had a friend back in my early college days. He claimed to be a hard core communist. But he had one saying I really liked ... said he never wanted to see a day when the government had a monopoly on violence. Had to agree with that.
True, no gun laws will stop criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 8, 2022 18:01:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 8, 2022 18:19:47 GMT
The West was wild when it was thinly settled and outlaws settled in. The West lost its wildness when law-abiding settlers with guns moved in and cleaned out (planted) the outlaws. US inner cities should try it. As long as inner city residents tolerate the outlaws, the outlaws will run the cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jun 9, 2022 3:18:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jun 23, 2022 17:02:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jun 23, 2022 18:26:21 GMT
ok hands up if you think you could shoot someone  ? then hands up if you have shot a person .. i was always told the shooting is easy .... living with it a bit harder .. killing someone even if you don't know them will lay heavy on you for yrs to come ... |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 23, 2022 23:07:53 GMT
I will preface this by saying I own guns. I grew up in a house with guns. I am a big Second Amendment supporter.
"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."
There is nothing "well regulated" about a clinically mentally ill person going to a gun store on his 18th birthday and buying an AR-15. Personally, I don't think a 21 year old minimum requirement (the same we have for handguns) goes against the Second nor would a 30 day waiting period.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 24, 2022 8:25:59 GMT
I will preface this by saying I own guns. I grew up in a house with guns. I am a big Second Amendment supporter. "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." There is nothing "well regulated" about a clinically mentally ill person going to a gun store on his 18th birthday and buying an AR-15. Personally, I don't think a 21 year old minimum requirement (the same we have for handguns) goes against the Second nor would a 30 day waiting period. I agree with you. A "well regulated" training program for certain weapons would also be useful. It is not reasonable gun regulations that I oppose. It is a government and particularly its handlers (and their political persuasions) that cannot be trusted. Mentally troubled people should not be walking the streets with weapons. Problem is who determines what constitutes mental illness. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 24, 2022 13:57:57 GMT
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Justice Antonin Scalia District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 24, 2022 14:00:39 GMT
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897)
The Court refused to apply the 13th Amendment to merchant seamen who had jumped ship, been caught, and been impressed back into maritime service without due process. The Court explained that 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude, even though absolute on its face, contained various implicit exceptions. In support of the finding of an exception to the 13th Amendment, the Court argued that the Bill of Rights also contained unstated exceptions:
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten Amendments to the constitution . . . [are] subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. . . . Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (art. 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion. . . .
In 1897, state laws which barred individuals from carrying concealed weapons were common, and usually upheld by state supreme courts; the laws did not forbid state militias from carrying concealed weapons. The prohibitions on concealed carry are the exceptions that prove the rule. Only if the Second Amendment is an individual right does the Court's invocation of a concealed carry exception make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jun 24, 2022 14:19:49 GMT
It is an individual right.
When the militia was called up, you brought your own weapons and ammunition.
Ref: Whiskey Rebellion
|
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jun 24, 2022 17:03:47 GMT
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Justice Antonin Scalia District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008 The anti Second Amendment folks are throwing this Scalia quote around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, screaming "hypocrisy" at yesterday's invalidation of New York's "convince me you really, really need a gun before I give you a permit" law. Heller did recognize that certain time, place and manner restrictions on the purchase and carrying of weapons may pass constitutional muster. All yesterday's New York case did was hold that the New York law WAS NOT a reasonable time place and manner restriction. It went too far in restricting the Second Amendment individual right to KEEP and BEAR arms. No hypocrisy or even inconsistency in the two decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jun 24, 2022 18:30:10 GMT
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Justice Antonin Scalia District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008 The anti Second Amendment folks are throwing this Scalia quote around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, screaming "hypocrisy" at yesterday's invalidation of New York's "convince me you really, really need a gun before I give you a permit" law. Heller did recognize that certain time, place and manner restrictions on the purchase and carrying of weapons may pass constitutional muster. All yesterday's New York case did was hold that the New York law WAS NOT a reasonable time place and manner restriction. It went too far in restricting the Second Amendment individual right to KEEP and BEAR arms. No hypocrisy or even inconsistency in the two decisions. The issue in NY is politicians, celebrities, the wealthy and retired cops are able to get “carry” licenses while the commoners cannot. While I can hunt or go to a range with a handgun, I cannot carry because the state says I don’t need to. Let me add that in order to get a restricted hunting/target/premises license requires an FBI background check, multiple character references and up to a 1 year wait. All handguns are registered with the state and itemized on the license. Those responsible for the crimes are not going through these procedures. Laws are for the law abiding. The lawless do whatever they want. |
|
? then hands up if you have shot a person .. i was always told the shooting is easy .... living with it a bit harder .. killing someone even if you don't know them will lay heavy on you for yrs to come ... 
