Ammunition

Forum for General Topics not covered by other areas.
asterix
Typical Poster
Typical Poster
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:16 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Live in

Re: Ammunition

Postby asterix » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:56 pm

Dirty bomb are illegal, and the last time I checked, only the bad guys have them and they are killing helpless people with them.

If ammunition and guns became illegal then only the bad guys would have them and they would kill helpless people with them.

I see your point. Make the fight fair and give them to everybody, not just the bad guys.

horseguy
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:14 pm
Tie to Tomahawk: resident

Re: Ammunition

Postby horseguy » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:08 pm

asterix wrote:Dirty bomb are illegal, and the last time I checked, only the bad guys have them and they are killing helpless people with them.

If ammunition and guns became illegal then only the bad guys would have them and they would kill helpless people with them.

I see your point. Make the fight fair and give them to everybody, not just the bad guys.


Well, that wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.

You see, the 2nd amendment says, "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".

It doesn't say the "...right to keep and bear guns". Nowhere, in the 2nd amendment, does the word, "guns" appear. So, if one was to hold to a literal reading of the 2nd amendment, as giving each of us, individually, an unrestricted right to "...keep and bear arms", ........... why can't we buy a can of VX nerve agent, or the materials to make a dirty bomb? Those are "arms". Maybe not guns, but definitely "arms".

asterix
Typical Poster
Typical Poster
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:16 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Live in

Re: Ammunition

Postby asterix » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:00 pm

Because when they amended the constitution on December 15th, 1791 not one person there had ever dreamed of such a toxic and vile substance such as vx gas.
A weapon such as a gun or a rifle is designed for use in sport, hunting, killing, and defending one self. VX gas is desingned for mass murder of large groups of people.
True, guns can kill large groups of people, but they also have other uses.
Like I and many people have stated before me, if you take away guns and amunition, you only take it away from the law abiding citizens. How much ammo do you think that gangs and mafia's and people meaning to do harm have stock piled right now? What about the mexican cartell? As Much As They Can. Crime rates go down in states with concealed carry. Proof positive that weapons such as guns help protect. I doubt that giving VX gas to people and villans would do the same. If I accidentally shoot myself, I die, If I accidentally discharge VX gas, how many around me would die? How many first responders would die?

horseguy
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:14 pm
Tie to Tomahawk: resident

Re: Ammunition

Postby horseguy » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:35 pm

All right, I guess it's time to clear up a couple of things.

First, I'm not anti-gun. In fact, I have a couple of them, myself.

Second, I'm not suggesting that we should legalize nerve gas, or dirty bombs, or any such arms.

What I was pointing out, is that if we push to have the courts agree with a totally literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, recognizing that it gives every individual a totally unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, we may get more than we bargained for.

If, as I would guess, you agree that we don't want every nutcase out there to walk around with weapons such as the VX, or radioactive waste, then I would say that we're agreeing that there is a duty, of the government, to restrict that unequivocal "...right to keep and bear arms". The question then becomes one of where to draw the line.

Should we allow just anyone to walk around with a fully automatic weapon? I don't think most people would say so. How about 30-round clips? I really can't see any sporting use for them, myself. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns? Personally, I don't see a problem with them, and kind of prefer them, myself. In fact, I'm not sure where I would draw the line, myself. So, I look at every gun-control proposal that comes up, and decide, just on what's contained in that particular proposal, whether or not I support or oppose it.

I oppose the dollar-per-round tax. It's excessive, by far, and uncalled for. The marking of ammunition? I'd want to look at it, some more, before I make up my mind. I've seen articles written by law enforcement people, who say that identifying who bought particular ammunition could prove invaluable in solving homicides.

User avatar
Nimble
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Work

Re: Ammunition

Postby Nimble » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Almost everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment pertaining to "arms". Someday the Supreme Court may get it right. No one seems to ask why the militia is mentioned or the historical context.

As to ammunition purchases, I bought a box of .243 100 grain a couple of weeks ago and it was only about a dollar more than the last box I bought over 2 years ago. I suspect that what is driving up the price to the delight of the manufacturers is the self-induced panic from the the more paranoid of gun owners as well as the resources addressed to supplying two wars.

User avatar
Old Scout
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Born, raised and live in Tomahawk
Location: Tomahawk

Re: Ammunition

Postby Old Scout » Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:25 pm

Almost everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment pertaining to "arms". Someday the Supreme Court may get it right. No one seems to ask why the militia is mentioned or the historical context.


The militia is mentioned because every able bodied male old enough to carry a rifle without dragging it on the ground was part of the militia. They all used their own rifles which is where the part "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" comes in.

Without the people having their personal rifles there would have been no Militia.

There was no standing Army at that time in the Colonies.
The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.
The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

User avatar
Nimble
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Work

Re: Ammunition

Postby Nimble » Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:17 am

Old Scout wrote:
Almost everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment pertaining to "arms". Someday the Supreme Court may get it right. No one seems to ask why the militia is mentioned or the historical context.


The militia is mentioned because every able bodied male old enough to carry a rifle without dragging it on the ground was part of the militia. They all used their own rifles which is where the part "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" comes in.

Without the people having their personal rifles there would have been no Militia.

There was no standing Army at that time in the Colonies.


Exactly. That is why the non-infringement clause. The reason for it no longer exists in a modern society. In fact with more than 32,000 domestic deaths from uncontrolled private use I would say it is time to update this tool for running a society and allow reasonable control of those weapons doing the killing.
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

horseguy
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:14 pm
Tie to Tomahawk: resident

Re: Ammunition

Postby horseguy » Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:52 am

Nimble wrote:Almost everyone has their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment pertaining to "arms". Someday the Supreme Court may get it right. No one seems to ask why the militia is mentioned or the historical context.

As to ammunition purchases, I bought a box of .243 100 grain a couple of weeks ago and it was only about a dollar more than the last box I bought over 2 years ago. I suspect that what is driving up the price to the delight of the manufacturers is the self-induced panic from the the more paranoid of gun owners as well as the resources addressed to supplying two wars.


The militias are mentioned, because they're the reason the 2nd amendment was written, to begin with.

One has to consider that, at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, there was no standing army, in the new United States. The fledgling country depended entirely upon local militias, for its defense. The militias were also necessary to protect communities, especially on the frontiers, from attacks - primarily by Indian tribes. For this reason, each community had a standing militia, consisting of the male members of that community.

Each local militia was responsible for arming their members. While most communities provide the larger armaments, such as cannon, they required each individual member to provide his own personal weapon. As much as possible, these militias were armed with the most modern, powerful, and effective weapons of that time.

The militias were also, individually, responsible for training and providing for their own local group. However, they were under the control of, and subject to activation by, the central government - thus, the reference to a "...well-regulated" militia, in the amendment.

If anything, today, violates the spirit of the 2nd amendment, it's the standing army which our country now maintains. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was perceived that it was a standing army, that posed the greatest danger to the freedom of the people. However, times have changed. Technology has changed. It would be almost inconceivable, that local militias could afford, maintain, and be proficient with the modern arms systems that are necessary to defend a nation, in this day and age.

There are those who would say that, considering the circumstances that exist, today - circumstances that couldn't possibly have been foreseen in the 1700's and early 1800's - the 2nd amendment has become obsolete. No longer can we, or do we rely on local militias for our defense.

I don't agree with them, even though I do recognize that it was because of the need, at that time, for "...well-regulated militia(s)", that the 2nd amendment was written, and ratified into the Constitution. As circumstances have changed, so have the needs of the people, and the 2nd amendment does serve a valuable service to the nation, to give us some measure of protection from tyranny.

User avatar
Old Scout
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Tie to Tomahawk: Born, raised and live in Tomahawk
Location: Tomahawk

Re: Ammunition

Postby Old Scout » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:43 pm

The 2nd amendment is still needed to assure that we don't lose all of the others ! :!:
The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.
The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests

cron