MODERN SPORTING RIFLES aka Assault rifles.

[zload]

I always get confused when someone else wants to decide what I don't need, especially when they have the same thing they don't want me to have. Reminds me of Animal Farm and the whole some are more equal than others deal.

I believe that the original purpose and intent of the second amendment was to empower citizens in a SHTF situation involving their own government.

and Gumbo there is only a comma and a wink between your shotgun(s) ( do you really need more than one ) and a Class 3 NFA weapon since it fires multiple projectiles with the single pull of the trigger...

[MudDucker]

Please help me understand this one.

Disclaimer: Yup, I'm a liberal.

Other things: I own a whole safe full of guns, two boats, two kayaks, fish and hunt as often as I can, drive a big ole Ford F150 4 X 4 and have more fishing gear than my wife likes.

I do not get the whole debate about these weapons. Is it the opportunity to shoot them? I have done so with my neighbor and felt like all I did was waste a lot of money on the ammunition. Or is it solely the thought that if these weapons are restricted that that Second Amendment rights will be restricted?

I'm not making judgments. Hope I've made that clear. I burned many rounds the other day at the range with my friend. I am seriously just trying to understand. I think my side-by-side 16 gauge or 12 gauge pump will be plenty if someone is stupid enough to come in the house and the 9mm is plenty to pack when I'm traveling. I have never heard or read of someone using one of these weapons for home defense or hunting.

I hope I don't light a fire here but am seriously wondering about the debate on this one before I make up my mind because I have not.

Okay, now this reminds me of the joke about the blind man who walked into a lesbian bar to get a drink. After his first drink, he asked the bartender if she had heard the joke about the blond lesbian. She said, mister, it is obvious you are blind, so I am going to help you out here. You have walked into a lesbian bar, I am a blond and I love nothing more than whipping butts. Now, do you still want to tell this joke. No, the blind man retorted, it ain't so funny when you have to tell it and then explain it at least 3 times.

So, back to the topic, what part of the 2nd amendment do you fail to understand. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting or home self protection. It has everything to do with a citizen's right to protect himself/herself from a tyrannical government. That means the citizen should be able to own weapons similar to the ones owned by the government forces. Read the federalist papers on the development of the 2nd. It is very liberating. Our founders knew that our government could go bad, but that a well armed citizenry would be a great deterrent. It also knew that a well armed citizenry is a great deterrent to foreign invaders. Read the notes of the Japanese commanders who decided NOT to invade the US for this very reason.

Next, not that it makes a dang bit of difference, because under the 2nd I can own any weapon I choose, but I do know folks who hunt with AR-15's and AK-57's. It would not be my choice, but I sure will not tell them it can't be their choice. That is the biggest difference between a liberal and a conservative. If a liberal doesn't like something, it is okay to tell everyone they can't have it. If a conservative doesn't like something, we just don't buy it, but we don't tell anyone else they can't buy if they want to. We used to be called hippies and such, because we believe in personal freedom. Now we are mean old conservatives who have not been enlightened by the new progressive more government order. What's up with that!

[Gumbo]

I do understand the Constitution, sir. The Second Amendment is not absolute, otherwise I could go out and buy a tank, an aircraft carrier or a cruise missile. Just like the First Amendment freedom of expression is not absolute and does not allow one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits. The question is where is the line drawn on weapons and I was asking for input from folks who obviously have an interest in this topic so I can form my own opinion on an issue that seems to be of great interest these days. It's not about being a liberal or a conservative. It's about gathering all the information before reaching a conclusion.

[reelhandy]

In my opinion no form of American government should attempt to keep law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons equal to or greater than those that criminals, or any other form of enemy could possibly possess. Laws that take weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens only serve to further empower criminals and their enemies against them.
With that being said. I do believe that government has the right to require adequate training prior to possession of whatever firearm the citizen chooses to possess. I don't think that requiring training is unconstitutional.

[RedMann]

The part I don't understand when someone says that they don't understand why I need to have any particular type of firearm is why they think I give a rat's behind about whether they understand or not. I don't have to have a reason, let alone a reason they understand. I have a right to own a firearm, period. Now, move along.

[Gumbo]

So does that include an RPG? Surface to air shoulder launched missile? 50 caliber fully automatic? That's what I'm asking and trying to figure out. Where do you draw the line? Or is there no line? Seriously, I am not trying to take sides, I'm trying to come to my own opinion on where the line is, if there is one. What I'm gathering from the comments is that if it is a personal firearm using conventional ammo, no matter the caliber or magazine size, etc., the Second Amendment should cover it. Correct?

[RedMann]

I understand your point. But, I'm no longer willing to be reasonable. The anti-gun folks have made it clear that they are not stopping at reasonable -- they won't stop until they take away all guns. So, if they're not willing to be reasonable, niether am I. Even restrictions that I might otherwise have no objection to, I will oppose. If the other side won't compromise, niether will I. As for the RPG's, tanks, etc., although those are extreme examples there is a line in there somewhere that I don't know how you draw. But, I am really getting tired of the question "why do you need it?". I suppose it's because most of the time it's not a sincere question, just a prelude to taking my gun away. Not true in your case I know but normally the case.

[Mister Mullet]

New World Order, invading armies, maybe. But from a practical standpoint, talk with anyone who went through Hurricane Andrew in Miami and ask them about weeks and weeks without power, food, water, or police. There were roving bands of looters attacking homes for whatever they could get. If you can get a cop to talk about it, there were a lot of murders (of both citizens and looters) that went unreported because the government didn't want to start a panic. I know of one case where two homeowners were standing in front of their destroyed homes when a van pulled up and two perps jumped out with a shotgun and announced they were taking over. In their lust for "stuff" they failed to notice the homeowners were armed. The one with the shotgun was K-5ed straight away and the other ran off. When the cops finally got there they tagged and bagged the bad guy, and were leaving when the distraught shooter asked about filing a report. The officer looked at him and said "what reportl...what shooting...stay safe. So that's why we in Florida need something for defense. I don't plan on holding off a squad of government agents, just some thieves and thugs...IMO.

[Gumbo]

Another good point, MM. My oldest brother who was in New Orleans after Katrina told me there were refrigerated 18-wheelers being brought in to take the bodies of looters. No questions asked. Again, I am just asking what people think because I bet we will have some people seeking elected positions that will take one view or the other on this one and I wouldn't doubt someone tries to come up with an amendment to the State Constitution with a petition drive. I want to be an informed voter. Becoming convinced that any ban on sporting weapons is a really bad idea. Not the right place to draw the line.

On a side note, I have really enjoyed your recent Friday articles. Good stuff. Your editorial staff should give you a mid-week spot for a discussion on general outdoors issues.

[Dubble Trubble]

Dubble

[MudDucker]

I do understand the Constitution, sir. The Second Amendment is not absolute, otherwise I could go out and buy a tank, an aircraft carrier or a cruise missile. Just like the First Amendment freedom of expression is not absolute and does not allow one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits. The question is where is the line drawn on weapons and I was asking for input from folks who obviously have an interest in this topic so I can form my own opinion on an issue that seems to be of great interest these days. It's not about being a liberal or a conservative. It's about gathering all the information before reaching a conclusion.

No, obviously you don't understand the Constitution. Who said you can't buy a tank, an aircraft carrier or a cruise missile? I know three guys off hand that own tanks. Now the carrier might stretch the budget, but there is no legal impediment to owning one. There is also no legal impediment to owning a cruise missile. Again it might be stretch the budget. I know of one extremely rich gentlemen whose private yacht could give a US destroyer a run for the money, oh and it could be called a carrier, as it carries a helicopter with heavy firepower on it. It also has missiles. Maybe not as sophisticated as the US Military's cruise missiles.

It is a liberal vs conservative mindset. You don't see conservatives trying to bend the plain words of the 2nd into some they are not. On the other hand, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, liberals try to bend and even eradicate the 2nd for the safety of the children. Just one look at the cities in the US with the toughest gun laws should be enough for a reasonable person to see that gun control is useless and in fact dangerous to law abiding citizens. The US Supreme Court has slapped down quite a few gun restrictions. Quite frankly, unless there is a Constitutional Convention, what you or I think about the 2nd has no relevancy, because the law can't be changed. You are free to decide what weapons you do or do not want to own, but under the Constitution, any citizen of the US who has not had his rights removed for a felony conviction may own any weapon that the US Military deploys for the purpose of protecting his rights against a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic.

[MudDucker]

So does that include an RPG? Surface to air shoulder launched missile? 50 caliber fully automatic? That's what I'm asking and trying to figure out. Where do you draw the line? Or is there no line? Seriously, I am not trying to take sides, I'm trying to come to my own opinion on where the line is, if there is one. What I'm gathering from the comments is that if it is a personal firearm using conventional ammo, no matter the caliber or magazine size, etc., the Second Amendment should cover it. Correct?

Absolutely and in fact I know of individuals who legally own all of these weapons.

[BayGator]

So can I pick up an M-240B at the new Bass Pro?

[Gumbo]

Mr. Ducker, I sure wish you could avoid the bashing. Happens every time I come on here and ask for input. And always from you. This Country was founded, in part, on the right to debate, discuss and disagree. Respectfully. Frankly, I think you might want to review the rules of the forum.

And I do understand the Constitution, sir, and there are no absolutes as you assert. Many weapons can be legally licensed. The question I asked is which of those should be.

I've stayed away from the site for a while because of this attitude but thought I could get some valuable input on an issue of great importance from people with strong views and deep knowledge. I got tons - thanks everyone for that - but also got your unnecessary insults.

If you do not like our government, keep voting. That's what the Founding Fathers would want.

Good day.

[Dubble Trubble]

Gumbo, let me ask you a question in layman's terms and you answer it the same way.

Why should I as a law abiding red blooded American Citizen be restricted in ANY way as to what weapons I have?

Be it a BB gun to a tank, what is your REAL beef with it?

Dubble