HB961

[Warren Mohler]

[thehomelesdepot]

 Sic Semper Tyrannis

[johnj92131]

2 hours ago, thehomelesdepot said:

 Sic Semper Tyrannis

 

Had to Google search that. Interesting history on Wikepedia.

[Jeep Driver]

It's an election year, nothing more. 

 

I wouldn't gloat, the tyrants are not dead. 

[Jeep Driver]

Here is just one of your tyrants- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

 

Read the Garrison complaint. 

 

He's also footing much of the anti-gun bill. 

 

And the farce known at Climate Change. 

[johnj92131]

I understand how decisive this topic can be.  By NO means am I interested in being a provocateur.  So please be gentle in your replies to my question.

 

I don't own a fire arm, but Uncle Sam trained me to use one many years ago.  I have also fired target rifles and done some skeet shooting with a shot gun.  Once upon a time a friend kept a 410 shot gun and a couple of shells at my house.  Shortly after he took the shotgun back, I walked out of my house in the morning only to find a guy trying to steal my Mustang.  My first thought was too bad Allan took his shotgun back.

 

So my understanding of the AR-15 is that it is derived from the M-16 and can be converted to full automatic fire.

 

Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?  How is it useful in hunting?

 

I know the 2nd amendment 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."

But their are legal and accepted limits to just exactly what "arms" the people may lawfully keep.

 

Lastly the first part of the amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"  would seem to suggest some sort off regulation to establish a Milita.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

 

JJ

 

[johnj92131]

16 minutes ago, Jeep Driver said:

Here is just one of your tyrants- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

 

Read the Garrison complaint. 

 

He's also footing much of the anti-gun bill. 

 

And the farce known at Climate Change. 

 

jeep Driver, Read the story when it was first published several days ago.

 

Thanks

[Jeep Driver]

6 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Able bodied men, are the militia. 

 

YOU are the militia. 

 

And you are not prepared. 

 

8 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

How is it useful in hunting?

 

I don't hunt, has nothing to do with hunting. 

The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting. 

 

There is only one reason you are not a Subject. 

 

 

[ftpiercecracker1]

40 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?  How is it useful in hunting?

 

 

I have to agree with Jeep Driver, for the most part.

 

I'm not an expert, i am not an NRA member, i am not a doomsday prepper, i am staunchly middle- -of-the-road, average joe amd this is purely my opinion and should be taken with a heaping tablespoon of salt.

 

In my opinion there is no true need for a semi automatic rifle for hunting, but then again as JD said the 2nd isnt refering to hunting. I am not a hunter either, so if there is a reason for needing a semi-rifle I'm all ears.

 

It is my understanding and belief that a well armed populace is the only thing that can prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. I have faith that America will be here long after i have passed, but ill be damned if i let it fall while i still breathe. Whether foreign domestic. 

 

Nobody needs a semiautomatic rifle, but should they have the freedom to purchase one? In my opinion, yes.

 

A quick google search reveals nearly twice as many people died in motor vehicle accidents as in gun related incidents in 2019. Yet we arent baning cars or even super cars that go 200mph. Nobody needs to go 200mph, heck police are about the only people who might need to go 100mph, yet almost every car made can go over 100mph.

 

So how do we stop people from getting killed in vehicle accidents? We have laws that govern how and when you can drive and there are progressive consequences for violating said laws. The same should be applied to guns. We don't ban sports cars even though nobody needs them and as such we shouldnt ban semi or even fully automatic weapons. There should be and needs to be strict laws surrounding guns, but still allow for personal freedoms.

 

As with 75% of things i think it ultimately should come down to individual states decision. Thats why we have them. America is to big of a country with to many difference of opinions to have sweeping federal laws that arent supported by 2/3 or even 3/4 of the populace. 

 

Its funny, after saying all of that, i have to admit i don't own any guns myself. 

[johnj92131]

Quote

 

 

13 minutes ago, Jeep Driver said:

Able bodied men, are the militia. 

 

YOU are the militia. 

 

And you are not prepared. 

 

 

I don't hunt, has nothing to do with hunting. 

The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting. 

 

There is only one reason you are not a Subject. 

 

 

 

Jeep Driver,

 

I am 72 years old next month, Not quite able bodied.  But my son is. Spent 10 years as an Army reserve special operation soldier. With several combat deployments and lots of combat exercises, including several forward deployed Green Beret operations. 

 

Agree the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.  It has everything to do with a well regulated Militia... My question was:  Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?

 

I was born a British Subject in 1948.  As were all of my forefathers. Came to the U.S. at age of 4. My cousins have the same rights that you and I do.  I have voted ever since I was 21 and consider the vote a duty.

 

There are certain fire arms we, as Americans can not legally own.  My question relates to where do we draw the line?

 

Respectfully

 

JJ

[Jeep Driver]

1 minute ago, johnj92131 said:

 

 

Jeep Driver,

 

I am 72 years old next month, Not quite able bodied.  But my son is. Spent 10 years as an Army reserve special operation soldier. With several combat deployments and lots of combat exercises, including several forward deployed Green Beret operations. 

 

Agree the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.  It has everything to do with a well regulated Militia... My question was:  Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?

 

I was born a British Subject in 1948.  As were all of my forefathers. Came to the U.S. at age of 4. My cousins have the same rights that you and I do.  I have voted ever since I was 21 and consider the vote a duty.

 

There are certain fire arms we, as Americans can not legally own.  My question relates to where do we draw the line?

 

Respectfully

 

JJ

 

 

Full auto is also perfectly legal to own, if I could afford one, I'd have one. 

 

Why? You or the gov may kill me, but not before I give you all I got. 

 

 

[Pete M]

6 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

 My question was:  Can some of you please gently explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?

 

 

they are fun to shoot. 

 

also, most any firearm can be owned by someone in certain states with the right paperwork.  50 cal rifles, full auto guns, etc.  Heck, you can own a tank if you want!  (though I doubt they sell them with functioning main guns)

[JustEmptyEveryPocket]

5 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

My question relates to where do we draw the line?

Your question made me think of THIS question & answer.

 

I think 'the line' is a specious ideal. A continuum would be a better concept. One where it depends. And since this is potential life and livelihood we are defending, we should err on the side of the people. So there should not be a limit. All arms should be available to all people. No documentation, no registration, no licenses, etc. Sure there would be a few bloody years where people learn how it works, but after that it would become common place. Think of the advent of cars for the average joe. There were some terrible accidents and loss of life. But we learned, adapted, and incorporated it into our lives. The same would happen with unregulated guns and firearms.

[Jeep Driver]

And it's Jeep related.  Jump to 5:30

 

 

[johnj92131]

7 minutes ago, Jeep Driver said:

 

 

Full auto is also perfectly legal to own, if I could afford one, I'd have one. 

 

Why? You or the gov may kill me, but not before I give you all I got. 

 

 

 

Jeep Driver,  You have nothing to fear from me.  I am a live and let live guy all my life <BG>

[johnj92131]

Pete,

 

I think you may have hit the nail on the head:  They are FUN to shoot.  Don't think I would mind on a safe firing range.  Even might be happy to see how my Marksmenship would stack up to my son's skill.   Unfortunately not fun to be on the receiving end.

 

Do know my son did not consider it :"fun" when he was in combat.

 

I am going to bow out of the discussion for now.  But am interested in other opinions.

 

Respectfully,

 

JJ

[Dzimm]

54 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

So my understanding of the AR-15 is that it is derived from the M-16 and can be converted to full automatic fire.

 

Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?  How is it useful in hunting?

 

I know the 2nd amendment 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."

But their are legal and accepted limits to just exactly what "arms" the people may lawfully keep.

Any firearm can be converted to full auto fire, it just takes work and knowledge to do so.  Some easier than others.  The AR-15 being an extremely simple firearm, is among one of the easier ones to convert but still not something the average Joe can do.  

 

Nobody needs a semi auto firearm for hunting, but like others have said, there are a lot of things in life we don't need but want because they make life easier.  A semi auto firearm is very useful though as you may miss or wound an animal.  When hunting we want a quick, clean, ethical kill and don't want to see any animal suffer and unfortunately as a human, we can miss our mark and wound something and need a quick follow up shot.  I myself muzzleloader hunt for deer and have had to chase down a deer with a knife to finish it because it was so cold my barrel shrunk to the point I couldn't reload and I had wounded it's leg.  

 

As for the desire, it's just very fun to plink targets with multiple rounds in succession.  It gets expensive with some ammo but man is it a blast.  I have seen multiple people who were skeptical about the AR dump a full magazine in a few seconds and they always at least crack a smile.  My brother in law recently shot one of my handguns for the first time and was hesitant at first but after a few magazines was really having fun.  There is just something about it, like the saying "it's a Jeep thing you wouldn't understand" definitely applies here.

 

The big key word people miss in the second amendment is "infringed".  Infringed means to be encroached upon, and making laws to outlaw certain firearms or accessories is infringing. 

 

The big problem here is that the vast majority of people are so uneducated on guns that the media and certain government officials use scare tactics to make them more fearful of certain firearms.  As someone who knows quite a bit about firearms, it's sad to watch people say we need to outlaw certain things because they look scary or they think it's a "machine gun". 

 

There is a good video out there of two guys with a table full of different firearms and they ask people to pick out which ones should be banned and why.  All of them said the AR style and black colored ones should be banned but the ones with wood stocks were fine cause those are for hunting.  Given they had zero education on firearms, they didn't know that all of them were legal hunting rounds, 22lr, .308, .50 and shotguns.  Most of the ones they said to ban were actually chambered in the smaller and less harmful rounds.

 

It all really comes down to safety and firearms are perfectly safe on their own and in the right hands.  Only the person holding it can make the mistakes or decision to do something harmful with it.  Firearms aren't the problem, people are the problem.

[mjeff87]

55 minutes ago, johnj92131 said:

 

jeep Driver, Read the story when it was first published several days ago.

 

Thanks

 

I think the majority of the country is missing the Bloomberg connection to this whole thing.

 

Solely my opinion, but I think this is how this whole thing is playing out, from a macro-level.  Bear with me.  Our (VA) governor got caught in the crosshairs with the blackface scandal, which was a HUGE deal here when it happened.  Even most of the D party was asking him (and others) to step down.  Then, all of a sudden, the whole thing just flat out disappeared.  Poof, gone.  Several months later, this anti-gun wave blows up here, aided in most part by state elections that give majority control in both the senate ad the house, along with our pathetic, embattled excuse for a governor who had been in exile all the time.

 

Stay with me here, comes now the tie-in.

 

Biden is the party's choice for nomination, but most don't want him as the candidate.  Bloomberg suddenly gets huge, despite party rules, and buys his way into the ticket.  His campaign ads here in VA are overwhelming, to say the least.  He is attempting to buy the nomination, and just might pull it off, and both parties don't approve.  His platform is centered around 2A issues and he's whipping up everyone in an attempt to get the nomination.  The genesis of his campaign is right here in VA.  Why?  Because he got our governor out of all the hot water for his racist press with his money, and the quid pro quo for that was for our governor to be the "sacrificial lamb" to blow up all this new 2A legislation here.  He (Northam) is the patsy to springboard bloom bergs campaign into the spotlight.  A useful idiot, who would otherwise be tried in the court of public opinion (and fact), but is getting cleared by obfuscation and help from the media.  In less than a year, you'll never hear the name Ralph Northam ever again, but he will go on to live out his life in a sense of normalcy, thanks to Bloomberg.  That same man who has plans and the financial wherewithal to make that all happen, as he buys his way into office.

 

There are things happening in ways that joe six-pack voter/citizen just can't comprehend.

[mjeff87]

2 hours ago, johnj92131 said:

 

Had to Google search that. Interesting history on Wikepedia.

 

Thats a shortened version of our full state motto.  It cherry picks the main points, but still gets the main point across.

[Dzimm]

As for the legality of weapons, most people really have no idea what is and isn't legal.  

 

With the right paperwork you can own pretty much anything.  The exception is any "machine gun" made after like 1986 or something like that so unfortunately no electronicly controlled miniguns for a normal citizen but anything is pretty much free game if you have the money.

 

Fully automatic guns made before the 1900s (can't remember the exact date) need no paperwork at all but good luck finding one.

 

Most people don't know you can legally own a Gatling gun without any extra paperwork.  The Gatling gun is the crank operated "machine gun".  They still make them but they are on the more expensive side.  There is even a thing called a gatcrank that attaches to a few different firearms including the AR which allows it to fire at around 600-700 rounds per minute and it's perfectly legal and only costs $60.  For comparison the M16 in auto fires 700-800 rpm.  This right there shows that it's extremely easy and cheap to get roughly full auto capabilities out of an AR but there are absolutely zero crimes committed with it because automatic fire is absolutely no use to a criminal. 

 

Muzzleloaders can be purchased with no paperwork because they aren't classified as a gun.  Even a Cannon falls under the classification of a muzzleloader.  

 

Suppressors arent legal in all states and require extra paperwork and a tax because they are an NFA item.  The movies would have you believe they make the gun silent but that is simply not true.  Even a suppressed gun is pretty loud still, they just cut the noise back to a point you don't need hearing protection when shooting.  It's a safety item that is classified as dangerous.  It's like saying you need to pay an extra tax and pass a more extensive background check to wear a life vest in the ocean, pointless.

 

These are just some of the other fun things we have to enjoy in this hobby/lifestyle besides a semi auto firearm.  It's fun and we like it, plus it's our right to get to have these things for protection, hunting, and just to have fun with.  

[schardein]

I served as a United States Marine for 30 years.  I've handled the M16A2, and later the M16A4, and finally the M4 (among others) as my service weapon in training and in combat.  

 

Some may find it interesting that none of these weapons were full automatic, or "machine guns".  The third setting was a 3 round burst- one trigger pull = 3 rounds down range.  So you have safe, semi-auto, and 3 round burst.  The idea was to provide a weapon capable of laying down a good volume of cover fire, but not full automatic so as to prevent wasting ammunition.

 

Anyone who points out the civilian equivalent (AR-15) as a weapon that is somehow inherently evil is displaying ignorance.  In fact, the AR-15 is easy to handle, even for woman and children.  They can be fired by left or right handed people.  Try that with the stereotypical bolt action "hunting rifle", most of which are expressly designed for right handed individuals.  They can be very accurate right out of the box, and can be made HIGHLY accurate with a little bit of work.  The design lends itself to modification, and many owners do that so the firearm better serves their needs, or simply their wants.  These days they are available in different calibers, making them even more useful for different applications.  I've done extensive marksmanship training while in the Marine Corps with a semi-auto only version of the M16, modified for accuracy, routinely engaging targets out to 1000 yards effectively.

 

Does anyone else see a correlation with the characteristics that make Jeeps so popular?  

 

The 2nd amendment is about we the people having the right to protect ourselves from tyranny.  Plain and simple.  Anyone trying to take away that right can name reason after reason, but the truth is that they are trying to disarm and enslave the people.  Anyone who can't see that is either ignorant, or letting fear influence their thoughts (I don't want to protect myself, someone else should do it for me).  The extension of that thought process is "since I don't want it, no one else should have it either- it wouldn't be fair".  That's why you have so many screaming for gun control, instead of simply saying, "I'm not interested in owning a firearm, but others can and should exercise their right to bear arms".

 

Keep in mind that every politician that advocates for gun control, is protected by... men with guns.

[Eagle]

7 hours ago, johnj92131 said:

So my understanding of the AR-15 is that it is derived from the M-16 and can be converted to full automatic fire.

 

 

 

An AR-15 cannot be converted into a full-auto M16 without replacing the entire fire control group and (I believe) modifying the lower receiver. It's like saying you can convert a half-ton pickup into a deuce-and-a-half ... all you need is enough replacement parts.

 

Quote

Can some of you please gentley explain the desire for a semi automatic rifle?  How is it useful in hunting?

 

 

It depends on what you're hunting, and whether or not you're good enough that you'll absolutely never EVER need a follow-up shot. However, as Jeep Driver and others have pointed out, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

 

Quote

I know the 2nd amendment 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."

But their are legal and accepted limits to just exactly what "arms" the people may lawfully keep.

 

 

The limits on what arms are protected by the Second Amendment are only beginning to be explored by the courts. A strict reading of the Second Amendment clearly says that there are not supposed to be any limits ... "Shall not be infringed." And, until 1934, there were no limits whatsoever. Anyone (who wasn't in prison at the time) could buy a machine gun, a mortar, a howitzer, or whatever he or she wanted. The concept that "Shall not be infringed" could be limited is relatively new in U.S. history.

 

Quote

Lastly the first part of the amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"  would seem to suggest some sort off regulation to establish a Milita.

 

 

The militia is the People. The original Militia Acts date to 1792, and there is still a version on the books in federal law. Under the original Militia Acts of 1792, the law established that each militiaman had to supply his own firearm, and the law went on to specify what caliber that had to be (for uniformity, which is what "well regulated" meant.). That's functionally the equivalent of today requiring every able-bodied male to own an M16.

[Eagle]

11 hours ago, Warren Mohler said:

 

The celebration is premature. The proposed bill has NOT been defeated. It was not voted down. It was not voted at all -- the vote was to table it for a year and look at it again next year (which will, conveniently, be after the elections). Hmmm ...

[Eagle]

6 hours ago, johnj92131 said:

There are certain fire arms we, as Americans can not legally own.  My question relates to where do we draw the line?

 

 

The only reason there are firearms we cannot legally own is that the laws saying we can't own them have not yet been tested in court. As I posted above, until the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, any American could buy any type of firearm he or she wanted. Including fully-automatic machine guns, and beyond. The language of the Second Amendment didn't change in 1934.

[Dzimm]

2 hours ago, Eagle said:

 

The only reason there are firearms we cannot legally own is that the laws saying we can't own them have not yet been tested in court. As I posted above, until the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, any American could buy any type of firearm he or she wanted. Including fully-automatic machine guns, and beyond. The language of the Second Amendment didn't change in 1934.

 

I have a feeling that many of the NFA items would be removed from the list of it were taken to court. 

 

The big reason for the NFA of 1934 was because the police force was greatly outgunned.  Standard police issue at the time was a 6 shot revolver and mobs were running rampant with Thompson machine guns and other various, much more capable weapons.  The quick fix was to put a ban on many weapons.  There were definitely some good things that came out of the NFA but some things could be looked over again.

 

These days, there isn't a reason for so much restriction as the police force has caught up with the times on firepower.  The nice thing though is that the $200 tax to purchase an NFA item hasn't changed since 1934, meaning overtime it became easier for an average citizen to afford them.