Firearms Section

[malave7567]

I stopped by Murfs earlier today looking for ammo. Went during my lunch break. They were packed and were trying to attend everyone. Definitely lots of business right now. But yeah, good shop.

[Mr Twisty]

So... some lady on tv says, "No way are 4 million members of the NRA going to control this, 80 million mothers think otherwise."

It's time to spread the news, and speak up..... She didn't take into consideration the 80+ million fathers who prefer to stay armed!

Call your congressmen!

[driyac]

Originally Posted by Mr Twisty

So... some lady on tv says, "No way are 4 million members of the NRA going to control this, 80 million mothers think otherwise."

It's time to spread the news, and speak up..... She didn't take into consideration the 80+ million fathers who prefer to stay armed!

Call your congressmen!

Find me 80 million responsible mothers. Ya I didnt think so.

[skipinminn]

With what the Leader of the NRA has said I add this. During the coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting. I heard said the first Officers at the school entered the building and saw the shooter at the end of the hallway dressed in Black. This is when he went back into a room more shots were heard and he had killed himself. So when the good Guys got there WITH weapons HE stopped shooting and ended his own life. Now had somebody in the building had a weapon maybe he'd have ended the whole thing sooner? Just my 2 cents!? Correct me if I'm wrong???????

[Nessal]

Originally Posted by kalimus

I agree. But even we, as gun owners, can't pretend like there isn't a pretty big difference with that style of rifle over something like a handgun or a beginner's hunting rifle... or knife or rocks. They all can kill someone, but if they were all equal, why would we care if we couldn't have them? We'd still have handguns, shotguns, bolt-actions...

I'm not anti-gun... but to play devil's advocate, I think it's foolish for us to pretend they are just like any other gun. They're not. This rifle gets a bad rep because it, in its original form, was not DESIGNED for anything other than combat. It just wasn't. Do we use it for other things? Of course. Some people use it for hunting (I've never met a person that did), they compete, they shoot as a hobby, they collect... the majority of them will never be used, even by accident, on another person.

We have a civilian version of a weapon that was designed to be used on other people. And when a whack job uses it for that purpose, that's how it gets blown up into the drama that it is right now. My personal feeling is that if we, as owners, don't at least acknowledge the difference between this kind of weapon and dad's hunting rifle, we look like just as big of idiots that say it doesn't have any practical purpose other than the battle field.

That is where you are wrong. What about a mini14? They are both as accurate and can shot as many round as fast as you can pull the trigger. How is one more dangerous than the other. It is foolish to want to protect one type of firearms over the other. You are climbing a slippery slope that does not end well for gun owners. If you want to talk about devistation you would be hard pressed to best a shotgun. If you want big caliber a bolt action will best your semiauto "gun designed for combat".

I can see the future already after all these supposidely gun rights "advocate" that champions the 2A compromise with the gun grabbers. I mean who really needs a shotgun since they are capable of shoot 8-9 projectiles the size of "9's" in one shot right? Or who needs a bolt action that can shoot such a high caliber above what our current military uses in combat right? Either your protect the 2A or you don't. There is no middle ground. Any other stance is flaws in logic and leads to nothing but restrictions on law abiding citizens.

[GaBoy25]

Originally Posted by Nessal

That is where you are wrong. What about a mini14? They are both as accurate and can shot as many round as fast as you can pull the trigger. How is one more dangerous than the other. It is foolish to want to protect one type of firearms over the other. You are climbing a slippery slope that does not end well for gun owners. If you want to talk about devistation you would be hard pressed to best a shotgun. If you want big caliber a bolt action will best your semiauto "gun designed for combat".

I can see the future already after all these supposidely gun rights "advocate" that champions the 2A compromise with the gun grabbers. I mean who really needs a shotgun since they are capable of shoot 8-9 projectiles the size of "9's" in one shot right? Or who needs a bolt action that can shoot such a high caliber above what our current military uses in combat right? Either your protect the 2A or you don't. There is no middle ground. Any other stance is flaws in logic and leads to nothing but restrictions on law abiding citizens.

These are the type of questions that should be answered by these individuals calling for a "logical" action concerning gun control with illogical real world consequences

If truly removing the weapons blamed for most shooting deaths is the priority then banning pistols would seem the more "logical" thing to do.

It only confirms that the older I get the dumber congress gets and the more rights I lose; or are infringed upon. Pondering the future only becomes sadder staring at a generation that will one day lead our unprepared country into an era of ignorance and self righteous pity

[Mr Twisty]

The shooting of innocent children in a classroom at Sandy Hook was horrific and the rise in events like this in the recent past raises difficult questions for our nation.

We must begin to look inwardly at ourselves as a people and begin to attempt to make some sense of what is actually happening and why.

The founders of this nation instituted a particular type of government in a Republic that was based on freedom and designed to govern a group of citizens that had a specific set of core values and beliefs. The founders of this nation in their own words spoke in great detail on this subject.

Here are a few of those words.

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters. Benjamin Franklin

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people .It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

The sum of it all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While on the other hand , if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves." Samuel Adams

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of duties of men and citizens.... let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life , if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" George Washington

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson, 1781

When you read the words of those who were the founding fathers of this Republic it soon becomes clear that this nations Constitution was only designed to function in the governance of a people with a particular moral center and foundation. They also sternly warned that if we lost that moral center and rejected those core values as a people that this very freedom that the constitution instituted would become our undoing.

Today because this society has lost respect for the preciousness of human life our very freedoms granted under our constitution are quickly becoming our undoing. This leaves us as a nation with a difficult choice.

We return to our core values regain the respect for one another and for the preciousness of human life that our republican form of government was intended to govern over; or we continue down our current path which will lead to more and more governmental control of our daily lives and eventually the abandonment of this current form of government altogether and the institution of a much more authoritarian and restrictive form of government.

This particular quote from one of our nation's founding fathers Benjamin Franklin

applies I believe here as a stern word of warning.

"Those willing to forfeit liberty for security will have neither."

The founders of this nation knew that the form of government they were institution as the "great human experiment" also required a great responsibility from it's citizens in order to survive. Now the question becomes as a people today are we up to that task?

History will judge us on the path we take over the next few months and years. The question asked here by Thomas Jefferson must be answered " The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

The final answer of whether the founders "great experiment" in creating a republican form of government was a successful experiment or failure today seemingly hangs in the balance as it never has in the history of this nation.

Sincerely

Richard Rutledge

Chairman Conservative Party Alabama

.

[GaBoy25]

Great read twisty

[CHMSC]

Originally Posted by GaBoy25

Great read twisty

Our founding fathers spoke those words a couple hundred years ago and they still ring true today.

[Mr Twisty]

It's like they could see into the future.

[ChrisBlair]

[Mr Twisty]

Another excellent read..... Maybe this is our Christmas gift...

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court
December 22, 2012 By Mitch F.

Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.

Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.

Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The law imposed a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppression devices and other destructive devices.

The NFA was challenged before the Supreme Court in 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton had transported a double barrel shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The firearm was not registered nor was there a tax stamp affixed order for the gun as defined by the NFA. The District Court struck down the NFA on Second Amendment grounds. On hearing the case (United States v. Miller) the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and held the NFA to not violate the Second Amendment.

The primary reasoning of the Court was that automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons bore no relation to the needs of the common infantryman at the time.
From the ruling:

In subsequent references to Miller (of which there are seven), the Court has repeatedly held this basic principle. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess those guns that would be used by infantryman to defend our freedom.

There have been challenges to the nature of the right Miller defined. United States v. Warin and United States v. Oakes are most prominent. The Court’s rulings had painted a picture where the Second Amendment was meaningless. Under the rulings of Miller, Warin and to notes in Oakes, the Court protected neither a right to keep arms for personal defense nor a right to keep arms to be used in a citizen militia. I am hard pressed to understand what exactly the Second Amendment was protecting in the years leading up to 2008.

In 2008 the Second Amendment received its first direct review since Miller. District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns for self defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Heller, however, left the question of incorporation open. This was settled two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago when the Court extended the individual right to all citizens of the United States via the Due Process clause. The ruling struck down the Chicago gun ban and cleared the confusion regarding Heller’s application to the states.
Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).

At the time of Miller, the official primary infantry arm was the United States Rifle, Cal. 30 M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand. This gun had an 8 round magazine and was a gas operated semi-automatic action. That is, for each time the trigger is depressed, one round (shot) is fired. While officially adopted in 1936, it was not fully deployed until 1941. Many soldiers at the time of Miller were still issued the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle. Both of these guns sported barrels in excess of 22″ of length.
Today, the modern infantryman is equipped with M4, which is a derivative
of the M16/AR-15 line of guns. The M4 is a carbine with an overall length of 33 inches and a barrel length of 14.5 inches. The stock is adjustable for length, it is issued with a 30 round detachable box magazine and a flash hider. The gun has three fire control modes: safe, semi-automatic and 3-round burst. The M4A1 which is issued to certain squads has a different trigger pack: safe, semi-automatic and fully automatic. In addition, in a ten-man squad, you will see two men equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapons System, a light machine gun. General officers, medics, and other non-combat personnel in a combat zone are issued a Beretta M9, a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic handgun for personal defense.

If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should. They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban. But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment.

[GaBoy25]

Originally Posted by Mr Twisty

Another excellent read..... Maybe this is our Christmas gift...

That should close the case and seal the file!

Their argument so moronic in every way; those babbling fools

Merry Christmas Y'all

[skipinminn]

Question < Ar15 > My boss has offered to build me an AR15 whats a fair price for one ??