Gun Dog Forum

I'm glad Ezzy allowed these threads to go on as long as they have. For me it's been interesting to watch positions taken, points argued, and facts thrown around; but in the end I doubt anyone's views were changed despite some compelling reasons to do so. I've learned quite a lot and got some information straightened out. Thanks.

http://conservativepost.com/breaking-ne ... fiscation/This is an interesting part of our countries history that you should read and maybe it will help you understand where our love of the 2nd amendment comes from and why some would repeat it if necessary. Sure isn't something anyone would want to do put there are times when you have to do things you don't like.

So Ezzy, you're comparing the colonists, who had no say over the laws placed on them, with our current system of government, in an effort to defend the possibility of violence to to "defend" the second amendment.

Also, if conservatives support this kind of revolutionary behavior, why does BLM upset so many conservatives?

Why don't you respond then lock this thread so there's no chance of a discussion.

Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.

No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.

Bill

Spy Car wrote:Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.<br abp="645"><br abp="646">No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.<br abp="647"><br abp="648">Bill

Trump said, we'll let the second amendment people take care of it. How do you twist in Trump calling for the death of Clinton and judges ? I Hope the second amendment people will take care of it by voting. Be fair...

Spy Car wrote:Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.

No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.

Bill

What about Hillary's thinly veiled threat to Obama in June, 2008, when she told the press that she needn't drop out of the primaries because we never know what will happen, like when Bobby Kennedy was killed in June?

Where's your left-leaning righteous outrage for that? Or do your high moral standards only apply to the right?

Black helicopters.... :roll:

Spy Car wrote:Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.

No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.

Bill

Quite the imagination there - but that is what the press wants - more money to them the more outlandish crap they can spin.
Is there a news media outlet out there anymore? They have all become the National Enquirer because that is what people will pay to watch/read/repeat.

slistoe wrote:

Spy Car wrote:Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.

No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.

Bill

Quite the imagination there - but that is what the press wants - more money to them the more outlandish crap they can spin.
Is there a news media outlet out there anymore? They have all become the National Enquirer because that is what people will pay to watch/read/repeat.

More truth than fiction to what you say.

You have to appreciate our founding Fathers who had the foresight to recognize that a Government formed for the people and by the people must be able to form a well armed militia to avoid the Government and/or the Military to take this freedom away from the people. It was valid then and is valid today and logically, if a well armed militia may be necessary, those citizens must be well armed....!

2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"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."

I know you libbers will play all kinds of mind games with this....but it is made clear in plain language for a reason!

are there any restrictions on "arms" .... I mean, can it mean we can use IED's, or dirty bombs, or machine guns? Are there any restrictions?

I mean, can it mean we can use IED's, or dirty bombs, or machine guns? Are there any restrictions?

What an obtuse statement. Do you equate your own firearms (I assume you do own some if you're on a hunting forum) with IED's, dirty bombs?

I own lots of guns, including hand guns, 375's, shotguns, etc. but do not own any AR-15s, or machine guns, or other weapons. Just wondering if there are any limits on what's considered "arms"? Can you answer the question?

Ouzel wrote:are there any restrictions on "arms" .... I mean, can it mean we can use IED's, or dirty bombs, or machine guns? Are there any restrictions?

IEDs and dirty bombs are 'destructive devices', outlawed. Machine guns outlawed about 30 years ago.

Miniguns, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, and cannons are OK. So are potato guns federally, but local/state may have restrictions. Be wary out there!

MNTonester wrote:

I mean, can it mean we can use IED's, or dirty bombs, or machine guns? Are there any restrictions?

What an obtuse statement. Do you equate your own firearms (I assume you do own some if you're on a hunting forum) with IED's, dirty bombs?

Oh, you know that's not meant to be taken literally. It's an example of regulation that exists on weapons and arms. It also points out that it doesn't protect every weapon. It's part of the social contract. Once we establish regulation is part of 2A, then we can begin have actual conversations about what our priorities are, rather than point to 2A and cry oppression.

I'm not saying we should lose guns, in fact I'm pro gun, but we have to be able to move past the argument of "but the second amendment..." After a while it sounds like whining and cowering. We need to be able to convince others the benefits of having this right.

dup, sorry

mnaj_springer wrote:

MNTonester wrote:

I mean, can it mean we can use IED's, or dirty bombs, or machine guns? Are there any restrictions?

What an obtuse statement. Do you equate your own firearms (I assume you do own some if you're on a hunting forum) with IED's, dirty bombs?

Oh, you know that's not meant to be taken literally. It's an example of regulation that exists on weapons and arms. It also points out that it doesn't protect every weapon. It's part of the social contract. Once we establish regulation is part of 2A, then we can begin have actual conversations about what our priorities are, rather than point to 2A and cry oppression.

I'm not saying we should lose guns, in fact I'm pro gun, but we have to be able to move past the argument of "but the second amendment..." After a while it sounds like whining and cowering. We need to be able to convince others the benefits of having this right.

Say what? We have to convince antis that we have rights? How about it's their job to convince us that we don't?

OK... so educate me here: I thought there was a ban on assault rifles in the 90's? Was that really so bad that it can't happen again? Please answer.

Ouzel wrote:OK... so educate me here: I thought there was a ban on assault rifles in the 90's? Was that really so bad that it can't happen again? Please answer.

I think the big question is what is an Assault rifle. Records show it had no effect on killings or shootings.

Some would say any gun designed for the killing of as many humans as possible would be an assault rifle. But, what about handguns, they're not rifles. but weren't they designed for killing people? Many more of these are used to kill people than any form a an assault rifle. Thanks goodness for the NRA for fighting and not giving in to a death of 1000 cuts. I would guess the assault weapon ban was useless, as law enforcement people need a way to enforce such laws. What about the people that already have assault weapons? How does a ban affect them?

ezzy333 wrote: Records show it had no effect on killings or shootings.

.

regardless, the question was whether the assault weapon ban in the 90's was all that bad? I mean, did you have any problem living with the ban?

I didn't ask if it had any effect on killings (AR-15's seem to have an effect on killing these days anyway)

shags wrote:
Say what? We have to convince antis that we have rights? How about it's their job to convince us that we don't?

That's not what I said shags. I said we should convince them of the benefits (for us, them, everyone) of us having the right to own guns. Never did I say we have to convince them we have rights. That's ludacris. The easiest way to get someone on your side is to show them how it benefits them. But sticking to the second amendment narrative does not do that.

Thanks, springer. Sorry to have misinterpreted

Ms. Cage wrote:

Spy Car wrote:Trump was talking about assassinating either Hillary Clinton and/or the justices she appoints as president.<br abp="645"><br abp="646">No thanks Ezzy. Not buying it.<br abp="647"><br abp="648">Bill

Trump said, we'll let the second amendment people take care of it. How do you twist in Trump calling for the death of Clinton and judges ? I Hope the second amendment people will take care of it by voting. Be fair...

The full quote isn't as innocuous. The Trumpsters have sanitized it, as much as that dumpster fire can be, by only selecting a segment of the quote.

Here is the full quote:

By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

I've put the quote into 2 colors.

The portion of the quote in RED is the aftermath of an election. Aside from the inaccuracy of his statement (ie. The president only nominates judges. The Senate must confirm them), his statement is: the president picks scotus judges and you can't do anything about it.

The portion of the quote in BLUE is a modifier for RED. To be exact, it is a modifier for "nothing you can do folks". So despite it clearly modifying a statemnt about post election hopelessness, it's obvious he wasn't talking about voting. If he was talking about voting, why couldn't the non-2A folks do it? If he was talking about 2-A people voting, why would that simple solution garner "maybe there is, I don't know?"

Look, words have meanings. In this instance, his words indicated that he thought an armed intervention by gun owners was the only way, if elected, to stop Hillary from appointing her judges.

Anything else is a damage control fairytale.

shags wrote:Thanks, springer. Sorry to have misinterpreted

No problem. I don't even think should have to convince others of rights, but that's the reality of this world. It happened with women's suffrage, civil rights, marriage, etc. For whatever interest people struggle to see past their own self interest in nearly every aspect of life, then come up with unselfish reasons to justify it, and then oppose others who have different interests. So instead of expecting people to suddenly change, a new tactic should be used that answers this question... "Why should non gun owners and non hunters support the right to bear arms?" If those people suddenly realize there is a benefit, that it serves their needs, they may begin to change. An example of this could be jobs... Think about Cabelas (and I know I'm preaching to the choir), and think of how empty that store would be without hunting gear (including guns, bows, etc. The store would employ at least less people 50% than they do now. Same with most outfitter stores. That would definitely affect the lives of non-hunters and non-gun owners. That's the kind of argument/point of emphasis I'm talking about. (Some) People don't care what the founders of this nation believed, or that most of the time guns are used safely, or that children who grow up with guns in the house generally are safer with them... But they'd care if they didn't have a job, or that property value went down after a major employer closed down.

mnaj_springer wrote: The easiest way to get someone on your side is to show them how it benefits them.

The Basic principle of 'marketing' .
The rest are just 'sheeple' .

I agree with Springer and I think with all of the happening in the world today we have convinced a majority of people that they do need them. The people we can't convince though are the well to do liberal minded people, especially in DC that can hire people with guns to protect them and consequently think the common person doesn't need them either.

mnaj_springer wrote:

shags wrote:
Say what? We have to convince antis that we have rights? How about it's their job to convince us that we don't?

That's not what I said shags. I said we should convince them of the benefits (for us, them, everyone) of us having the right to own guns. Never did I say we have to convince them we have rights. That's ludacris. The easiest way to get someone on your side is to show them how it benefits them. But sticking to the second amendment narrative does not do that.

I was the president of a pretty well known college's men's club in grad school.

We had a once a semester shooting event that, because of word of mouth created the demand, expanded to 6 events in the 2nd year. The year after, it capacity was increased drastically and it was expanded to include women.

The local gun club got the why of it and always supplied a ton of perfect volunteers and firearms.

If you've never had significant exposure to firearms, it's much easier to vilify firearms and their owners.

Springer, how would you convince antis that the benefits outweigh the negatives, when (IME) their main argument is that limiting arms would limit violence. What good would you offer them to counter arguments that w/o guns, Gabby Giffords, Fort Hood, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernadino, etc would not have happened? Seems to me that they don't believe murderers will always find a way, e.g. knifings and machete attacks a la Europe. They don't seem phased by arguments that the are a million law abiding gun owners for every evil attacker. Sometimes I think they are like little children, and must be told 'because I (Uncle Sam) say so, that's why'.

shags wrote:Springer, how would you convince antis that the benefits outweigh the negatives, when (IME) their main argument is that limiting arms would limit violence. What good would you offer them to counter arguments that w/o guns, Gabby Giffords, Fort Hood, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernadino, etc would not have happened? Seems to me that they don't believe murderers will always find a way, e.g. knifings and machete attacks a la Europe. They don't seem phased by arguments that the are a million law abiding gun owners for every evil attacker. Sometimes I think they are like little children, and must be told 'because I (Uncle Sam) say so, that's why'.

No clue. I really have no idea. I just know that the current program does not work. But AAA brought up something that is intriguing. Right now archery is common is schools (NASP). It's a really good program. A similar program for firearms would be a huge investment for the future of firearms.

But I don't have the answers. I just have the question(s). But sometimes the right question is just as valuable.

We have a shooting program in 4-H that is going over good in some places at least.

Big new sport in High School at this end of the state is shooting clays. Boys and girls compete. Growing fast, but we are a rural area.

Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s; Scouting was very popular in our area. Lots and lots of boys, especially those without a dad into shooting, got exposed to firearms there.

In the last 15 years, all the big troops in the area that I grew up completely died off.

DougB wrote:Big new sport in High School at this end of the state is shooting clays. Boys and girls compete. Growing fast, but we are a rural area.

We are in a rural area, senior class will graduate less than 40 kids. A trap league was started last year and 40 kids signed up, the next school over had the same numbers. All it took was someone to take the lead, there wound up being about seven coaches and a couple safety officers.

Ouzel wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: Records show it had no effect on killings or shootings.

.

regardless, the question was whether the assault weapon ban in the 90's was all that bad? I mean, did you have any problem living with the ban?

I didn't ask if it had any effect on killings (AR-15's seem to have an effect on killing these days anyway)

Yes, it was terrible.

Anyone here able to give a 'legal' definition of an AR? Since automatic weapons have been banned for years, todays AR's are nothing more than a semi-automatic weapon that looks like a military automatic weapon. Clip size is frequently used by the uninformed to try and distinguish today's Semi/AR, but Ruger and other rifle manufactures make Rifles that hold large volume clips....It is fun to watch most Liberals who don't know a automatic from a bolt action try and actually define what is it they want to outlaw.....

Again, I think the 'Second Amendment' as written is specific enough...but anyone can take exception to any part of the U. S. Constitution....it doesn't take a lawyer! Or you can do like Obama and just completely ignore the Constitution....

AR are the initials of the individual that designed them as I recall but I do know it has nothing to do with assault or automatic rifle like every one thinks. Assault is not a noun but is an action that you perform that may be with a gun, knife, bat, or a SUV. Doesn't matter what the design or object but if you are using it against someone you are assaulting them.

A rock laying on the ground is a rock. A bock dropped from an overpass that hits a car is an assault rock.

Not a person, but a company "Armalite Rifle".

nikegundog wrote:Not a person, but a company "Armalite Rifle".

Yep I couldn't remember the name.