High velocity, high magazine capacity, high firing rate.
Everything the military needs, hence the term "military grade". I thought it would've been obvious, apparently not though.
North Seattle mass shooting, at least 4 dead
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
High velocity, high magazine capacity, high firing rate.
Everything the military needs, hence the term "military grade". I thought it would've been obvious, apparently not though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,231
- Location
- North East England
Putting hunting to one side you have unfortunately highlighted the issue.
There is something desperately wrong with any modern society where anyone feels the need to have a firearm in their home as a means of self defence. It does nothing more than highlight the issues America has with guns.
I am so grateful that I live in a country where I don't feel the need to own a firearm for home defence.
(For context: I have no problem with gun ownership)
What a lot of European/UK people fail to appreciate is that the USA is Vast!
There are plenty of places in the US where the nearest police station is well over an hours drive away. You really do have to be in a position to look after yourself if it comes to it.
Added to that, there are critters to worry about. Go for a walk in the woods in the US and there is a very real chance that you might come across an animal that will try to kill you and eat you.
50cal Magnum handguns are not intended for people!
But it doesnt deny the right.
It restricts it to exactly what it was when it was writen.
Muskets.
They already stop you buying assult weapons why would it be a breech to simply extend that?
Well given the justification for the right is the ability to defend the people from the government, heavy weaponary and anti aircraft missiles are totally justifiable. ...cause you'd need them to defend afainst tbe government
I've yet to see a military contract that states "High velocity, high magazine capacity, high firing rate", so no, it's not obvious.
Ok, that's fair... to a point.
Now, do you have a spare tire on your car? A fire extinguisher in your house?
You get the point.
The last thing I want to go through my mind is "I wish I had a gun".
And should you ever encounter a life threatening situation, that will be the last thing that goes through your mind.
(you could get off your high horse a bit though.)
Again, you're wrong. SCOTUS has affirmed that it's a personal right, and is not limited to 'defending the people from the government'.
That's a 1950's argument, and has been thoroughly disproved.
To be fair my thought would be "I wish they didn't have a gun" as they killed me.
I imagine if I'd grown up in the US I'd have a different opinion.
So you can't be killed with a tire iron, baseball bat, screw driver or thrown down a flight of stairs .... etc... ??
Oldest saying in the world: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".
And reasonable is very much in the eyes of the beholder.
Your idea of reasonable restriction on the second amendment will be different to one of someone campaigning or greater restrictions.
Seems strange everyone wants the right to bear arms but no responsibility of being being a part of a well regulated militia
America pacified the natives 100 years ago, there really is little need for "defensive" weapons any more in the wilds of Montana (for example).
Weapons to defend against "critters" can be useful, although I believe it's proven that pepper spray is more effective against bears than a pistol firearm (which usually takes several shots to be remotely effective)*
If all these reasons were really that true Canada would have even more lax laws than the US regarding firearms(larger with significantly less people and far more wilderness)**. It doesn't, in fact they are stricter and gun ownership (especially handguns) is significantly lower, with a third of the gun ownership per capita (even though hunting is still very popular here, due to the amount of wildlife still around).
Also worth noting that Canada has far more dangerous mammals left than the US - 25,000 Grizzlies in Canada compared to around 1,500 in the Contiguous United States(excluding Alaska) for example.
You can get handgun licences for protection from wildlife in many provinces, but they really aren't common (usually for people working full time in the back country). Most people just carry pepper/bear spray, which itself is usually registered.
*http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...pper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzly
O I'm sure they can but it would be a lot harder than pulling a trigger. Since all these ways of killing another already exist why do we need to add another?
The people need to be armed first in order to make a militia at a later date, if necessary. It is very clear in stating the right of the people, not the right of a militia.
Because years of training can be done in a few days, when it's decided the government is overbearing?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,398
- Location
- Northampton
I wish aliens would visit en masse and say to the whole planet -
"Ok you are ALL a bunch of sick hairless killer apes, Either grow up or we're fencing off the entire earth and laying down dense death star like minefields all around your planet to stop you travelling and infecting anywhere else with your nut jobbery."
"Ok you are ALL a bunch of sick hairless killer apes, Either grow up or we're fencing off the entire earth and laying down dense death star like minefields all around your planet to stop you travelling and infecting anywhere else with your nut jobbery."