#BoycottNRA

[ButchPlz]

Wait so the rounds can kill police through body armor but only 'wound' animals?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

1. Semantics. It was interpreted in a way that allowed the limitations.
2. Common ground. There are reasonable and rational limitations to the Second Amendment.
3. I don't care. Let the "experts" define. I stated at the beginning of one of these debates that I would include some type of x rounds per y seconds limitation.
4. I agree.
5. I would agree if we could also include marriage and parenthood. If we only stopped under 21 parenthood society would become instantly better.

x rounds per y seconds?
Please, take one of those and go wild boar hunting.

Big Pissed Off Charging Boar! Wild Hog Hunting - Boar Hunting - YouTube

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Wait so the rounds can kill police through body armor but only 'wound' animals?

That was my favorite part. Derail a train, wound an antelope.

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

NRA gave $7 million to hundreds of schools

The National Rifle Association has given more than $7 million in grants to hundreds of U.S. schools in recent years, according to an Associated Press analysis, but few have shown any indication that they'll follow the lead of businesses that are cutting ties with the group following last month's massacre at a Florida high school.

Florida's Broward County school district is believed to be the first to stop accepting NRA money after a gunman killed 17 people at one of its schools Feb. 14. The teen charged in the shooting had been on a school rifle team that received NRA funding.

NRA gave $7 million to hundreds of schools - National News - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[Orangedogsrule]

"Long Distance Murder Rifles" sounds like the name of a death metal band.

with ammo that allows them to engage targets well over 100 meters away.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haw haw hawhaw haw haaww haaaww!
..

Idiots! flat wantonly ignorant IDIOTS!

 

[Grand Vol]

There are reasons so few have cause to trust these people and their "reasonable" ideas about firearms. From the Brady Campaign 2007:

Was this actually the Brady position or a letter written to them?

Not much out there on that, though the author is an idiot and knows even less about guns than luther.

 

[hndog609]

Was this actually the Brady position or a letter written to them?

Not much out there on that, though the author is an idiot and knows even less about guns than luther.

This was back in '07 and I'm pretty sure it was taken off the BC's Myspace page or blog site.

In any case it's a peek into the mind of people who think they have a clue on the subject and very, very much don't as well as demonstrating the dubious nature of taking many (most? damn near all?) of the gun control crowd at their word when they use things like "only" and "reasonable" when discussing compromise.

 

[luthervol]

x rounds per y seconds?
Please, take one of those and go wild boar hunting.

Big Pissed Off Charging Boar! Wild Hog Hunting - Boar Hunting - YouTube

You may have inadvertently stumbled across the metric.

x = number of rounds necessary to kill a charging wild boar starting from 100 meters away.

y = number of seconds it takes a charging wild boar to cover 100 meters.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You may have inadvertently stumbled across the metric.

x = number of rounds necessary to kill a charging wild boar starting from 100 meters away.

y = number of seconds it takes a charging wild boar to cover 100 meters.

How do you account for the difference in reloading time. It takes time to tamp down a musket ball.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You may have inadvertently stumbled across the metric.

x = number of rounds necessary to kill a charging wild boar starting from 100 meters away.

y = number of seconds it takes a charging wild boar to cover 100 meters.

Nope. I’m more worried about the wild boar I stumbled upon/flushed on the other side of a 5’ diameter hedge/thicket that is about Y seconds away from opening up a new anus on me.

Pro tip. Hunters do not fire blindly into brush. They have to identify and properly sight their game. Those are the ROE I was taught anyway. And I’ve seen more boar first at 15’ in thick brush than I have at 100 yds.

But make no mistake a charging boar with 4”+ tusks will do serious damage. When hunting them when I was younger we carried two firearms. A rifle for shot one. And a revolver on the hip for rounds 2 thru 7 shot preferably from up in a tree.

 

[Grand Vol]

I have a question for those that want to talk about the Founding Father's intent on the whole "weapons of war" issue and "assault rifles." Now, you have those that like to claim: "well, they never envisioned what weapons would be available today." Yet, In Washington's first annual message to Congress...

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories {sic}, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

Anyone care to chime in on the fact Washington specifically mentions "military supplies" in the same sentence (paragraph) as a free and armed people?

Or how about James Madison?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

Interesting he separates the two. "Right of the people" and "well regulated militia." But goes on to describe the militia as the "body of the people, trained to arms." Of course the militia in those days was used in everything from protecting settlements against hostile native tribes to large scale warfare. Regardless, he obviously felt the "body of the people" would constitute the militia. And on that militia talk, Vice President Elbridge Gerry:

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins

Being that the militia is, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the body of the people, wouldn't disarming them give the truth to his words?

However, let's clear that up with a quote from Richard Henry Lee:

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle

That's pretty clear cut. Not a Founding Father, but one of the early Presidents Andrew Jackson had this to say:

But the bulwark of our defense is the national militia, which in the present state of our intelligence and population must render us invincible. As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe.

Interesting. Now one final quote on the whole militia thing. From the debates over the Militia Act of 1792:

The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons

And yet, there are some that will argue the militia is actually the National Guard?

Let's bounce back to Thomas Jefferson:

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons

Which actually was a quote taken from another author, but included in his Legal Commonplace Book. Basically, the Founding Fathers are saying taking away the right to protect oneself gives encouragement to those who would commit harm. Hmmm...haven't heard that one before.

Tell me again how the Founding Fathers would have wanted gun control...

I'll leave you with Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

 

[luthervol]

Nope. I’m more worried about the wild boar I stumbled upon/flushed on the other side of a 5’ diameter hedge/thicket that is about Y seconds away from opening up a new anus on me.

Pro tip. Hunters do not fire blindly into brush. They have to identify and properly sight their game. Those are the ROE I was taught anyway. And I’ve seen more boar first at 15’ in thick brush than I have at 100 yds.

But make no mistake a charging boar with 4”+ tusks will do serious damage. When hunting them when I was younger we carried two firearms. A rifle for shot one. And a revolver on the hip for rounds 2 thru 7 shot preferably from up in a tree.

Again, just joking.....kind of.

It sounds like all you need for the "charging wild boar" argument is a single shot rifle and a 6 round pistol.

x and y is the debate of the future. Just laying the groundwork.

 

[midnight orange]

I have a question for those that want to talk about the Founding Father's intent on the whole "weapons of war" issue and "assault rifles." Now, you have those that like to claim: "well, they never envisioned what weapons would be available today." Yet, In Washington's first annual message to Congress...



Anyone care to chime in on the fact Washington specifically mentions "military supplies" in the same sentence (paragraph) as a free and armed people?

Or how about James Madison?



Interesting he separates the two. "Right of the people" and "well regulated militia." But goes on to describe the militia as the "body of the people, trained to arms." Of course the militia in those days was used in everything from protecting settlements against hostile native tribes to large scale warfare. Regardless, he obviously felt the "body of the people" would constitute the militia. And on that militia talk, Vice President Elbridge Gerry:



Being that the militia is, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the body of the people, wouldn't disarming them give the truth to his words?

However, let's clear that up with a quote from Richard Henry Lee:



That's pretty clear cut. Not a Founding Father, but one of the early Presidents Andrew Jackson had this to say:



Interesting. Now one final quote on the whole militia thing. From the debates over the Militia Act of 1792:



And yet, there are some that will argue the militia is actually the National Guard?

Let's bounce back to Thomas Jefferson:



Which actually was a quote taken from another author, but included in his Legal Commonplace Book. Basically, the Founding Fathers are saying taking away the right to protect oneself gives encouragement to those who would commit harm. Hmmm...haven't heard that one before.

Tell me again how the Founding Fathers would have wanted gun control...

I'll leave you with Patrick Henry:

It also just common sense of the situation of the time. You had a bunch of farmers with muskets just defeat the world's most powerful military in a asymmetric war, with the exception of George Washington who tried to fight using European military tactics and subsequently lost every battle but one. There's no way in hell a constitution with limits on personal combat- grade firearms would have passed ratification by even one state.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It also just common sense of the situation of the time. You had a bunch of farmers with muskets just defeat the world's most powerful military in a asymmetric war, with the exception of George Washington who tried to fight using European military tactics and subsequently lost every battle but one. There's no way in hell a constitution with limits on personal combat- grade firearms would have passed ratification by even one state.

Could not disagree more. The intent of all of what GV posted was that, if required, the milita (people) would meet force with EQUAL force. And that disarmament of the milita (people) would embolden others to overthrow them.

Edit: sorry misread your post. I think we’re actually in agreement :hi:

 

[Grand Vol]

It also just common sense of the situation of the time. You had a bunch of farmers with muskets just defeat the world's most powerful military in a asymmetric war, with the exception of George Washington who tried to fight using European military tactics and subsequently lost every battle but one. There's no way in hell a constitution with limits on personal combat- grade firearms would have passed ratification by even one state.

I prefer James Madison's outlook on it from the Federalist #46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

ETA: Accidentally cut some of the passage that's important for context.

 

[midnight orange]

Could not disagree more. The intent of all of what GV posted was that, if required, the milita (people) would meet force with EQUAL force. And that disarmament of the milita (people) would embolden others to overthrow them.

Edit: sorry misread your post. I think we’re actually in agreement :hi:

No problem.

 

[midnight orange]

I prefer James Madison's outlook on it from the Federalist #46:



ETA: Accidentally cut some of the passage that's important for context.

Good stuff GV.

 

[SLICKYINC]

I prefer James Madison's outlook on it from the Federalist #46:



ETA: Accidentally cut some of the passage that's important for context.

But, but, but common sense and reasonable rational regulations......

 

[NorthDallas40]

Again, just joking.....kind of.

It sounds like all you need for the "charging wild boar" argument is a single shot rifle and a 6 round pistol.

x and y is the debate of the future. Just laying the groundwork.

Luth if I ever go in the woods knowing I might be staring down a 300 + lb pissed off pig with 6” tusks intent on ripping me up I’d consider anything less than a belt fed 7.62 M60 machine gun as under powerd.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh wow. Just saw a banner that the NRA is suing Florida over the age limitation in the new legislation. Will be interesting to watch.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

You may have inadvertently stumbled across the metric.

x = number of rounds necessary to kill a charging wild boar starting from 100 meters away.

y = number of seconds it takes a charging wild boar to cover 100 meters.

😲

ha ha ha

you are insane:crazy:

 

[InVOLuntary]

I have a question for those that want to talk about the Founding Father's intent on the whole "weapons of war" issue and "assault rifles." Now, you have those that like to claim: "well, they never envisioned what weapons would be available today." Yet, In Washington's first annual message to Congress...



Anyone care to chime in on the fact Washington specifically mentions "military supplies" in the same sentence (paragraph) as a free and armed people?

Or how about James Madison?



Interesting he separates the two. "Right of the people" and "well regulated militia." But goes on to describe the militia as the "body of the people, trained to arms." Of course the militia in those days was used in everything from protecting settlements against hostile native tribes to large scale warfare. Regardless, he obviously felt the "body of the people" would constitute the militia. And on that militia talk, Vice President Elbridge Gerry:



Being that the militia is, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the body of the people, wouldn't disarming them give the truth to his words?

However, let's clear that up with a quote from Richard Henry Lee:



That's pretty clear cut. Not a Founding Father, but one of the early Presidents Andrew Jackson had this to say:



Interesting. Now one final quote on the whole militia thing. From the debates over the Militia Act of 1792:



And yet, there are some that will argue the militia is actually the National Guard?

Let's bounce back to Thomas Jefferson:



Which actually was a quote taken from another author, but included in his Legal Commonplace Book. Basically, the Founding Fathers are saying taking away the right to protect oneself gives encouragement to those who would commit harm. Hmmm...haven't heard that one before.

Tell me again how the Founding Fathers would have wanted gun control...

I'll leave you with Patrick Henry:

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Again, just joking.....kind of.

It sounds like all you need for the "charging wild boar" argument is a single shot rifle and a 6 round pistol.

x and y is the debate of the future. Just laying the groundwork.

Single shot and a revolver, eh!!???

Luther Luther Luther. Ol' Son. You are so (this is truth, don't take it otherwise) ignorant of firearms and how they are used yet carry on this way. It's really rather pitiful. If it wasn't so entertaining you probably wouldn't have anyone to talk to.

By the way. Feral pigs often run in big packs. Texas has an eradication program using poisons and of course hunting.

per Smithsonian Magazine:

..."Wild hogs are among the most destructive invasive species in the United States today. Two million to six million of the animals are wreaking havoc in at least 39 states and four Canadian provinces; half are in Texas, where they do some $400 million in damages annually..."

If killing dangerous hogs bothers you protect yer precious eyes and don't watch.

Insane Feral Hog Eradication Footage - 70 Hogs Down in One Night - YouTube

 

[Orangedogsrule]

That aint Patrick Henry! You can't fool me.

 

[apevol]

buncha bambi killers