Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

[Joe S.]

No Joe ,
Not all , but surely , most of us should be allowed to keep and bear arms , including full auto .For the most part , we , as a society are law abiding citizens .What have you or I done to prevent us from owning a full auto M-16 ? Nothing here I know of .
Patriot missles ,LAAW rockets , Bazookas and such Artillery do not fall under the 2nd . Amendment. IMHO .Violent felons , mentally impaired ,domestic violence , minors ,etc.would also be disallowed . IMHO .
is this an infringement ? No ,common sense . Due to the situation of the individual , some rights are forfeited , as upheld by the scotus .

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

So then, weu agree that some infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is to the greater benefit of society as a whole and the word "infringed" can and does allow for rules and regulations.

I guess all that needs to be determined is the line of reasoning one is willing to accept on what should and/or should not be limited.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

[Juli H]

okay......

and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement....

Juli

[Joe S.]

okay......


Juli

OK. Thanks for clearing that up in the worst possible way.

Clear As Mud Regards,

Joe S.

[Juli H]

no - I think you knew what I meant....

you were talking of defending the constitution on the one hand....and on the other hand implying that the right to bear arms is not really a right...

but, I see you have already answered the question in your response to Mr. Kelder

Juli

[Steve Amrein]

The person using the assault rifle of the time had a rate of fire, under optimal conditions, of 3 or 4 rounds per minute. The range of weapon was about 200 yards and the effective range being closer to 60 yards.

A person using, for example, a modern day assault rifle such as an M-16A2 has a rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute in the semi-automatic mode. The maximum range of the weapon is about 1100 yards and the effective range being closer to 600 yards.

The assault rifles of today are not routinely used for any of the purposes you have outlined.

Bit of a difference, wouldn't you agree Bob?

Non-Machine Gun Owning Regards,

Joe S.

Using your formula above ALL modern day guns can be fired at more that 3 rounds per minute and are much more accurate so does that mean you OK with a complete gun ban?

Not that I am a historical or constitutional buff but didnt the authors of the constitution just wage war against a oppressive government ? Maybe they intended to give the folks protection from government. Even the biggest dung hole of a third world country can put down a uprising of villagers armed with pitch forks

[Bob Gutermuth]

Joe it really depends on who is doing the defining. The Brown Bess was designed as a military rifle, which seems to be the definition of an assault weapon by many. I own a Mini 14, it is defined as an AR by many of the anti gun crowd. They would like to divide and conquer, by taking away all the ARs and later broadning the definition to include 1100 Remingtons Ruger 10-22 etc until they eventually want my over&under fowling pieces. For my money, so long as the person who owns a firearm uses it for LAWFUL purposes, whether thats hunting, target shooting, competetive shooting, home/self defense and uses it safely, I have no issue with the type of firearm. That also includes lawfully owned full auto weapons.

[Hoosier]

Yes we should be able to own fully automatic weapons. The tyrant government that we may need to defend ourselves from certainly will have them. I believe the weapons we need to defend ourselves with need to be proportional to the weapons your advisory would have. Be it a gang banger trying to rob you or break into your house, or a representative of a tyrant government. To me that's what the 2nd amendment is for.

[EdA]

your advisory .

I am assuming that you meant your adversary (opponent)....

If The Army of Northern Virginia could not defeat the might of The United States Government what chance would a few guys with AK 47s have...

[Joe S.]

Using your formula above ALL modern day guns can be fired at more that 3 rounds per minute and are much more accurate so does that mean you OK with a complete gun ban?

Clearly I am not OK with a complete gun ban and you would be hard pressed to find me suggest such an outrageous thing anywhere on any post I've ever made. (Although...after missing that deer on Saturday only to have son take it and me then take endless amounts of crap from him over the missed shot, the thought...well...never entered my mind. )

Not that I am a historical or constitutional buff but didnt the authors of the constitution just wage war against a oppressive government?

Yes.

Maybe they intended to give the folks protection from government.

Personally, I think was their exact intent but I'm not a constitutional scholar either...but I do like to read and spent a night or two at a Holiday Inn Express.

Even the biggest dung hole of a third world country can put down a uprising of villagers armed with pitch forks

I agree with you.

I do not believe the Founding Fathers envisioned the advancement of weapons in conjunction with the basic decay of civility. When kids are shot for their jackets or shoes, there is a problem much larger than the availability of firearms in play but we are short-sighted if we do believe that availability of firearms does not, in some way, contribute to the problem.

Regards,

Joe S.

[backpasture]

I am assuming that you meant your adversary (opponent)....

If The Army of Northern Virginia could not defeat the might of The United States Government what chance would a few guys with AK 47s have...

Obviously you've never seen this prophetic tale.