[Aptmunich]

Originally Posted by cfrench

I personally like assault rifles as they are a good time shooting. I also have family members that are and was police officers and they also enjoy them. No your not gonna just take them out hunting but they are fun to shoot when your target shooting which last time I checked is kinda a sport.

That has always kind of bothered me. If the argument is "I need a gun to protect myself and my family", fine - it can be debated.

But I don't need assault weapons to be accessible to everyone just so you can enjoy shooting at things.

[leecho7]

I never needed a gun for personal protection, and I grew up and lived in some of the roughest places in Baltimore. As one of the few non-black, and probably the only Asian in Woodlawn, I was able to survive several years without getting shot.
There were confrontations, and there were several times where my life was threatened by someone wielding a fire arm in my direction, and a couple of cases at point blank.
Not once was I shot. Being shot at, thats a different story.
I think there are plenty of ways for people to defend themselves without the need for guns. With that said, I voted for Obama. As for gun control, I couldn't care less either way.
It's an American's constitutional right to bear arms. And I support that. Although I do believe there should be some limitations, and the definition of arms should be examined restricting people from obtaining stuff like missiles and weapons grade plutonium.
I have friends who served as Marine Scout Snipers, and served 2-3 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. They own weapons. One of them claims to own an AK-47, not sure if its true. I have seen them with pistols, shotguns, and the sort.
They say its fun, almost meditative to go to the range and shoot. They would never aim the weapon towards people unless the need really arises, such as in war.
I think both sides have this negative view for each other. Admittedly, I find the liberals that I know ignorant of those who own guns. They just kind of group gun owners and psychos together, which I find unfair and try to make a point that gun owners are people, American citizens upholding their constitutional rights.
But I digressed, since this is a thread about ammo, XJ-Linux you'll get ****** if you hear what Chris Rock has to say about "Bullet Control". Imagine if a bullet cost $5000. People would be putting bullets on layaway.

[D3v1L80Y]

Originally Posted by Aptmunich

That has always kind of bothered me. If the argument is "I need a gun to protect myself and my family", fine - it can be debated.

But I don't need assault weapons to be accessible to everyone just so you can enjoy shooting at things.

I would agree.
People also don't seem to understand the definition of "arms".
"Arms" are merely weapons.
This could be knives, swords, spears, rocket launchers, cannons, missiles, bombs....etc.... it doesn't have to mean guns or rifles.

The second amendment doesn't say guns... it says arms.
So, if someone were denied the use and ownership of a gun or firearm, their second amendment rights would not have been violated.
They would still be able to own any other form of weapon.

[XJ-linux]

Originally Posted by leecho7

Imagine if a bullet cost $5000. People would be putting bullets on layaway.

I believe that is part of the reason people are buying up ammunition right now. I personally have taken up ammunition reloading. Still, it's kind of pointless right now as pistol and centerfire rifle primers are more often than not, harder to find than actual ammunition. My local gun dealer has 250,000 primers on order. Expected delivery date - November 2009.

[gagnerants]

I have an uncle that goes hunting a few times a year, he says that there is an ammo shortage because a few of the companys that would buy the brass from the military and would resell it to the public is now gone. Which is in part to our new President who banned that kind of resell. I think it's both smart and stupid, I agree that we have the right to bear arms but I think we should do further background checks and maybe a little sit down talk to a shrink every 3 years for a gun owner.

[baggss]

Originally Posted by XJ-linux

Yep. IPSC, GSSF and USPSA shooting seasons.

Good answers...

[cfrench]

replied without refreshing my page and responded to late. Please delete the post. Thanks

[MilwaukeeMac]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

The second amendment doesn't say guns... it says arms.
So, if someone were denied the use and ownership of a gun or firearm, their second amendment rights would not have been violated.
They would still be able to own any other form of weapon.

Just out of curiosity, by that logic wouldn't it be okay for the government to stop all internet journalism because there are still other types of "press" out there, like TV and radio?

[D3v1L80Y]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMac

Just out of curiosity, by that logic wouldn't it be okay for the government to stop all internet journalism because there are still other types of "press" out there, like TV and radio?

No, it wouldn't.
The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People would still have freedom of speech. Even if that speech is transmitted via broadcast journalism, then it is still protected as those would be forms of exercising one's speech and to regulate or limit such would constitute as an abridgment; a shortening or condensing of one's speech... in other words, a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment simply states:

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

Therefore, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
The argumentative part of the Second Amendment is how someone decides to define "arms".

The Minutemen Militia groups weren't provided with any equipment and some actually used farming tools as weapons, or even Native American weapons like longbows and spears as muskets and rifles weren't as readily available for all.
The Bill of Rights gave these people the right to own weapons of any kind in an effort to protect themselves and their country.

The word infringe is defined as "To transgress or exceed the limits of".
So, if the privilege of owning a firearm was somehow reduced or controlled, that would not necessarily infringe on a person's right to own some other form of weaponry, therefore it would not exceed the limits of the Second Amendment. To do that, the government would have to disallow the people from having ANY type of weapon or "arms".

That just isn't the case if certain restrictions are put into place that might block some from obtaining specific types of weapons.

I am not for or against arms control one way or the other... I just find it amusing that some people are gung-ho for the literal translation when it benefits them, but then leave it open for interpretation when it doesn't benefit them.

[XJ-linux]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

I just find it amusing that some people are gung-ho for the literal translation when it benefits them, but then leave it open for interpretation when it doesn't benefit them.

Sounds like the basis for many episodes of "House". LOL

[cwa107]

Originally Posted by D3v1L80Y

I would agree.
People also don't seem to understand the definition of "arms".
"Arms" are merely weapons.
This could be knives, swords, spears, rocket launchers, cannons, missiles, bombs....etc.... it doesn't have to mean guns or rifles.

The second amendment doesn't say guns... it says arms.
So, if someone were denied the use and ownership of a gun or firearm, their second amendment rights would not have been violated.
They would still be able to own any other form of weapon.

The Constitution refers to the broad category of "arms" intentionally. It's non-specific because the founders were afraid of tyranny. The intent was to empower citizens to keep the government in check. If the founders meant that right to be limited, they would have said "some arms" or "fire arms". Instead they referred to it by category.

I'm not saying that the founders were right, but I disagree with your assertion that because the founders weren't specific, as long as only some are being limited, the right is still intact.

[D3v1L80Y]

Originally Posted by cwa107

If the founders meant that right to be limited, they would have said "some arms" or "fire arms". Instead they referred to it by category.

I'm not saying that the founders were right, but I disagree with your assertion that because the founders weren't specific, as long as only some are being limited, the right is still intact.

And this is where I will disagree.
If they wanted to prevent limitations of any kind, they would have used the term "abridge" as they do in the First Amendment.
They don't use "abridge" in the Second Amendment, instead they use "infringe".
Outlawing certain types of firearms does not infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms as it does not entirely defeat the right to own a firearm completely. It also doesn't completely deny a person the right to keep and bear weapons period.

Now as to why they weren't specific... well, this is because there was no specific form of weaponry to be used by the militia.
As I stated, some Minutemen didn't even use firearms. They simply didn't have access to them. Be it cost or availability, they just didn't have them. However, they were able to obtain other weapons.
It is my opinion that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as such, since it leaves things open so these more 'primitive' weapons (which may have been more readily available) are covered and allowable as well.

If an individual robs someone at knife-point and flees, he would still be considered "armed and dangerous" by the authorities.
That individual would have never touched a firearm, never brandished or showed a firearm... in fact, he could have been naked as a jaybird with only a knife in hand and not a firearm (concealed or otherwise) on his person at all... yet would still be considered as an "armed" individual.

I would wager that if a restriction or outlaw was placed on bladed weapons, but no restriction of any kind were placed on firearms, there would not be as big of a hullaballoo with people crying "infringement of my Second Amendment rights".

In the end, speculations and debate on the intent of the Founding Fathers is moot.
Until an amendment is passed that 'clarifies' things... the right to keep and bear "arms" is still intact even if certain arms and weapon types are controlled, limited or completely excluded.

[XJ-linux]

Arguing semantics is largely an effort in futility. I've only ever seen it benefit lawyers who charge by the hour. Bill Clinton said it best with, "What is 'Is'?"

[Aptmunich]

Originally Posted by cwa107

The Constitution refers to the broad category of "arms" intentionally. It's non-specific because the founders were afraid of tyranny. The intent was to empower citizens to keep the government in check.

Another argument that bothers me. You hear that a lot: "We need our guns to protect ourselves again the possibility of an evil government".

Surely we can agree that the time of the founding fathers has passed? Sure, in the early years after the revolution it made sense for the people to retain some element of force in case the new nation collapsed into tyranny.

But the idea that 200 years after the ratification of the constitution, a few handguns or machine guns in individuals homes is what is keeping the US democracy from turning into a repressive totalitarian state, is ludicrous (IMO).

If a government in a modern democracy was to turn against the people, the only way that could be enforced is if a large enough portion of the people (and the military) supported the regime. If that isn't the case, peaceful demonstrations and grassroots political action is likely to be much more effective than attempting to stand up to the US military.

Sorry - long rambling post.

Condensed: Intent of the 2nd amendment: Protect the people from the government in case democracy fails. Nice idea at the time - not really realistic or necessary nowadays.

[baggss]

Be careful stockpiling. You might be considered an extremist:

NRA-ILA :: DHS: How About An Apology For Gun Owners?

Originally Posted by Aptmunich

Condensed: Intent of the 2nd amendment: Protect the people from the government in case democracy fails. Nice idea at the time - not really realistic or necessary nowadays.

Actually, I completely disagree. I think it's as necessary now just as much as it ever was. I agree that a few handguns and machine guns are not making a difference, but with the amount of attention the subject gets from those who would prefer to remove the right it's never going to go away and it's likely to only increase peoples desire to own them.