Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[Newtosavage]

@Newtosavage what say you?

About what exactly?

If you are asking about the "modern weapons" then yea, there should be some dialogue on what constitutes "arms" today. Or, we can be constitutional literalists and use the definition of the time which then limits us to muskets and swords and the like. I prefer the dialogue and reasonable arguments that can be explained to the typical voter.

Looking at Huntinaz's comments, the name-calling isn't helpful. That's not going to win people over to his side. But more specifically, the idea that if you don't see the need for high capacity magazines and firearms specifically designed for killing humans, then you're part of the problem.

A LOT of hunters don't see the need for high capacity magazines or firearms designed specifically to kill humans. But they know better than to speak up because they will get shouted down by the gun nuts, called names and in some instances, banned from forums because the mods don't want to hear those points of view.

What we need is reasonable conversation. If we don't sound reasonable to the growing number of people who don't use or own firearms, then we will lose what we have because we didn't do a good job of stating our case. And that's on us.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

Yup, no one wants to take away any gun rights and to realize that all you need to do is look at Cali or similar states......

Just need to look at the travesty that is the 1934 firearms act.

 

[WCB]

Also it’s no surprise many don’t care one way or the other about losing second amendment rights or having their freedoms infringed upon. The hunting community is still full of Fudds. Plenty of people don’t realize the value of something like the second amendment and I fear it will continue to become less important to the masses as ignorance of firearms and of history in general abounds. But I suppose what’s sad (at least to me) about Fudds being Fudds is that being hunters they at least have knowledge about firearms. When a skinny hipster with a curled mustache and soft hands who thinks nature is a walking trail through a city park and who’s never handled a firearm in his life says “I don’t know why people need high-powered automatic military-style guns with high-capacity magazine-clips” I can say ok yeah I’m not surprised this doesn’t make sense to you. But it’s tough to see it from someone who owns guns and handles them and has had the direct opportunity to witness and extrapolate their potential utility for other purposes

Unfortunately I work in the hunting and shooting industry for let us just say one of the largest manufacturers in the industry. I talk to comp target shooters, hunters, tacticool guys, the general citizen that just owns a gun because they just do, and people that only have firearms for self defense every day. Being honest a large number dare I say majority actually have little to no actual knowledge of a firearm. Honestly about as much as the gun grabbers. I think there is a huge hole in the firearms world of actual education. People are getting it from Youtube guys (most are full of BS) and old time thinking fudds like you mention.

I am with you on the Fudd thing along with the blatant ignorant hunters that avoid or dismiss the 2nd. I wish more hunters and hunting organizations would just say "yeah we use these tools (firearms) to hunt, target shoot, have fun. BUT, fundamentally that is not what gun owner ship and the 2nd is about...it is about the right of "The People" and should not be infringed. It doesn't say can be infringed a little or may be infringed. It says "shall not be infringed".

It will be interesting to see if the fight gets into serious contested ground where more people and organizations will stand.

 

[orionthehunter1]

About what exactly?

If you are asking about the "modern weapons" then yea, there should be some dialogue on what constitutes "arms" today. Or, we can be constitutional literalists and use the definition of the time which then limits us to muskets and swords and the like. I prefer the dialogue and reasonable arguments that can be explained to the typical voter.

Looking at Huntinaz's comments, the name-calling isn't helpful. That's not going to win people over to his side. But more specifically, the idea that if you don't see the need for high capacity magazines and firearms specifically designed for killing humans, then you're part of the problem.

A LOT of hunters don't see the need for high capacity magazines or firearms designed specifically to kill humans. But they know better than to speak up because they will get shouted down by the gun nuts, called names and in some instances, banned from forums because the mods don't want to hear those points of view.

What we need is reasonable conversation. If we don't sound reasonable to the growing number of people who don't use or own firearms, then we will lose what we have because we didn't do a good job of stating our case. And that's on us.

So because you don't see a need for something means nobody should have it? On your earlier post about semi automatic weapons used in war were you also wanting to include semi-auto shotguns?

 

[WCB]

Yes some people actually do need to hunt, not very many these days, but some do need to. Also theres a need for wild animal population control. On the other hand there is no need for an AR with a 50 round mag.

NO need? What round limit is needed? and who can determine that? Is there a need for any repeating firearm then? or is it just ARs? how about a a semi auto built in 1965 can that have a 50 round magazine. Or, is it just capacity and not platform? 10 rounds or less? what about the standard magazines that hold 20 rounds or 13 rounds?

 

[dsotm]

A LOT of hunters don't see the need for high capacity magazines or firearms designed specifically to kill humans.

Those hunters are called fudds and should be looked at as enemies to the hunting and shooting sports communities

 

[slick]

And what animal populations NEED control?

Like it or not, no population is “controlled”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[spike camp]

And what animal populations NEED control?

Like it or not, no population is “controlled”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans

 

[Huntinaz]

@WCB yeah I had a clarification on that and deleted it but agree there are a lot of people who own guns that are pretty clueless. Still, I am saddened by it

@Newtosavage name calling, you mean like Gun Nut? Right-Wing Extremist? Yeah yeah. But by point was it’s an illusion that hunters and second amendment supporters are the same base. They aren’t. It’s just frustrating and in my opinion having solidarity would strengthen both cases

But it’s not the case. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising. As has been said before, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting

 

[BjornF16]

If you are asking about the "modern weapons" then yea, there should be some dialogue on what constitutes "arms" today. Or, we can be constitutional literalists and use the definition of the time which then limits us to muskets and swords and the like. I prefer the dialogue and reasonable arguments that can be explained to the typical voter.

A LOT of hunters don't see the need for high capacity magazines or firearms designed specifically to kill humans.

What we need is reasonable conversation. If we don't sound reasonable to the growing number of people who don't use or own firearms, then we will lose what we have because we didn't do a good job of stating our case. And that's on us.

If we go by the "constitutional literalists" argument, there shouldn't be any media except paper. Or, if we were to allow it, no 1A protections to anything but paper media. I personally believe this is a puerile position to take.

In my opinion, "original intent" is the correct application. The courts have been using that for many years...basically, applying 18th standards/protections to modern twists. Seems to work pretty well.

Under original intent, AR-15s and "high capacity" magazines are protected.

Why on earth would anyone want to handcuff themselves, or others, with what they can defend themselves with?

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, hunting was NOT the primary reason for the 2A. Defense of self, home, community and state were the primary reasons. Defending against whom is varied: Bandits, burglars, thieves, oppressors, tyrannical government just to name a few. Being practiced ("regulated") in arms common to the day for the purposes of feeding into state militia and standing army was another reason.

Again, the book I recommended earlier is a great resource. It includes information not only from the Federal debates/discussions but also from the States who were also adopting new constitutions and bills of rights. It gives great insight into what the Founding generation believed and were thinking.

The largest factor was the British confiscating arms and powder...from citizens!

 

[Bubblehide]

I think some need to ask what the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment was.

 

[Newtosavage]

So because you don't see a need for something means nobody should have it? On your earlier post about semi automatic weapons used in war were you also wanting to include semi-auto shotguns?

here we go...

Don't worry too much about my thoughts friend. I'm only one vote out of millions.

 

[Newtosavage]

Those hunters are called fudds and should be looked at as enemies to the hunting and shooting sports communities

LOL okay. I guess that's one approach. Good luck with that.

 

[brocksw]

When was the last time you heard a liberal politician on the national scale mention any of those organizations?

I've heard them mention the NRA many, many times but never one of those.

The NRA has its issues, but they are the strongest protector of our 2A rights and I for one feel this would be the worst possible time to deny them support.

You might be right. I would certainly not look down or criticize others who continue to support the NRA and push for drastic reform (save the 2nd is a good website to see some of that reform). There was a great post about that very thing in another thread on rokslide. I hope they're successful in getting that reform.

In my eyes we've given them the benefit of the doubt long enough. They've had years and years and many chances and many warnings to get that ship straightened and failed to do so on many levels. Some might see it differently.

I'm not a life member, so maybe its easier for me. But I'm not a life member to any group. Partly because I'm cheap....partly because I want the ability to separate if things go south...just like this instance. I can enthusiastically support an organization today and not tomorrow, I've done that with a number of conservation groups. I like it that way.

For now, I think I'm going to switch to SAF or FPC (GOA last year).

NRA's Dirty Laundry Exposed as Pro-Gun Group Cleans House

On April 12, the National Rifle Association filed suit in a Virginia court, accusing their long-time PR company, Ackerman McQueen, of failing to provide detailed billing, and failure to disclose contracts with NRA staff and officers.

www.ammoland.com

 

[Newtosavage]

@WCB yeah I had a clarification on that and deleted it but agree there are a lot of people who own guns that are pretty clueless. Still, I am saddened by it

@Newtosavage name calling, you mean like Gun Nut? Right-Wing Extremist? Yeah yeah. But by point was it’s an illusion that hunters and second amendment supporters are the same base. They aren’t. It’s just frustrating and in my opinion having solidarity would strengthen both cases

But it’s not the case. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising. As has been said before, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Yea, I thought about the term "gun nut" when I wrote that, but couldn't think of another way to describe those folks, and everyone knows what that means, so it was convenient if not misplaced.

I still maintain that the name-calling within the ranks is counterproductive and no way to win the war. I'm sure there are plenty of gun-enthusiasts (better?) that have no use for a single shot rifle or even a bolt action rifle when they can have a semi-auto. That's okay. I'm fine with that. But they don't need to paint the person who sees their guns as hunting tools as the enemy. That's just foolish. Why trim the ranks if you don't have to? That smacks of extremism.

 

[dsotm]

LOL okay. I guess that's one approach. Good luck with that.

Perhaps you should turn in all of your scary Savages and buy a flintlock. I hope you don't own a compound bow either, we should be restricted to traditional archery equipment as well right?

 

[orionthehunter1]

here we go...

Don't worry too much about my thoughts friend. I'm only one vote out of millions.

Good job dodging my question. Since i don't reload i don't see your need to have multiple pounds of powder. Really you should just need 1/2 lb at most because nobody needs to shoot more than that. See how this works?

 

[Newtosavage]

If we go by the "constitutional literalists" argument, there shouldn't be any media except paper. Or, if we were to allow it, no 1A protections to anything but paper media. I personally believe this is a puerile position to take.

In my opinion, "original intent" is the correct application. The courts have been using that for many years...basically, applying 18th standards/protections to modern twists. Seems to work pretty well.

Under original intent, AR-15s and "high capacity" magazines are protected.

Why on earth would anyone want to handcuff themselves, or others, with what they can defend themselves with?

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, hunting was NOT the primary reason for the 2A. Defense of self, home, community and state were the primary reasons. Defending against whom is varied: Bandits, burglars, thieves, oppressors, tyrannical government just to name a few. Being practiced ("regulated") in arms common to the day for the purposes of feeding into state militia and standing army was another reason.

Again, the book I recommended earlier is a great resource. It includes information not only from the Federal debates/discussions but also from the States who were also adopting new constitutions and bills of rights. It gives great insight into what the Founding generation believed and were thinking.

The largest factor was the British confiscating arms and powder...from citizens!

I get all that, but where the logic falls short (in my view at least) is the idea that we need AR's and high cap magazines to "defend" ourselves. Defend ourselves against what exactly? I mean, map out a scenario for me where only an AR will do. I am just not seeing it.

If I need to defend my home or the loved ones inside of it, my shotgun does a great job and is safer for the other occupants in the home. A semi-auto high velocity rifle just isn't an ideal home-defense weapon because it puts innocent people at risk.

Also, if it's a "tyrannical government" that I'm defending myself against, no amount of AR's and cases of ammo are going to do me or anyone else a damn bit of good when they send in the aircraft and neutralize my entire house.

So what is that scenario where an AR with a high capacity magazine is the right tool? I just don't see it. To me, an AR is best used for killing people on the battlefield (it's intended purpose) or plinking/target practice. If I need to defend my home, that's not the weapon I'm reaching for, and if I want to hunt, it's not the weapon I'm reaching for. Heck, when I was an LEO I preferred my Mini-14 and carried it as long as they would allow me. When I had to transition to the AR platform, I wasn't very pleased about it since I thought the Mini was a better platform for the intended job.

If that makes me a "fudd" in some people's minds, then so be it. But we all get the same number of votes, so be judicious with your criticism of fellow hunters and shooters.

 

[Newtosavage]

Perhaps you should turn in all of your scary Savages and buy a flintlock. I hope you don't own a compound bow either, we should be restricted to traditional archery equipment as well right?

do you feel so threatened by my opinion that now you are offering me advice?

And fwiw, I don't own a compound but I do have a stable full of recurves and longbows and do just fine with them. I also enjoy my muzzleloader quite a bit.

Focus on your own choices and try to worry less about mine.

 

[PistolPete]

The government will never limit its own power or give up powers it already has; it will only grow. Maybe some pro-gun politicians delay the growth slightly, but we all see what is coming eventually, whether it's under this administration or the next.

The only answer? Nullification. Exactly as prescribed by Madison and the founders. Everyone should check out the Tenth Amendment Center for more details and info as I think they're the only ones who are getting this right.