[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Yep, there are pacifists and there are patriots. Too bad folks do not know anything about firearms and think that anything that has a plastic stock is "military like." By the way, just for S&G's the 2nd talks about firearms in the context of a local militia. Of course, this is a straw man's argument, but I wonder if anyone understands that if you ever have to fight the gov. a "military like" weapon would be most folks choice. Therefore, outlawing "military like" weapons would be construed as violating the theme of the 2nd Amendment, right?
By the way, most pistols now are semi-automatic, not automatic. Most rifles now are semi-automatic, including shotguns. When the 2nd Amendment was written, did they mention what constituted a "military like" weapon and what would just be used for hunting? I don't really think that they were thinking of hunting when they wrote the 2nd.

An assault weapon can be anything, not just a automatic or semi-automatic. They did not have either when they wrote the Amendment. An assault weapon then was a musket or a tomahawk. Now, most define an assault weapon as a fully automatic rifle or machine gun. The only way you can get one is to pay a tax stamp with the federal gov. and fill out a fifteen page document and then a full background investigation. Can you tell me if you can remember in the last fifty years of anyone that committed a crime with a legally owned automatic weapon? Key term "legally owned."

I have known the distinction between semi-auto and fully automatic weapons since 5th grade. That is practically a detail compared to my various larger points. I was not talking about hand guns. But, there are semi-auto except single action would be more analogous to a quick bolt action, or a pump,or lever action than a semi-auto. Plus there are match single action hand guns, even multiple barrel hand guns. Again, I wanted to KISS and deal with only long guns. I have no problem with the 2nd amendment, so barely mentioned it. I would not define a tomahawk as an assault weapon no more than some kung fu artists hands. But, thanks for your input!

[EdFNJ]

Originally Posted by EdFNJ

Don't worry folks. NRA or no NRA you can still keep packin' iron while at City Fire or while dancing at the squares (if it ever comes back) to protect yourselves from all the bad Villages varmints that may be lurkin' behind them thar shrubs. POW POW POW

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Hate to burst your bubble but there are no "safe" places. Some may be or appear to be safer than others but none are immune to violence. Better to be prepared than caught with your pants down.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

Armed piercing bullets specifically designed for this are already illegal to possess. I own a rifle, not bolt action, that fires a 30.06 which I guarantee will penetrate body armor yet it is not designed as an armor piercing round, and is used for hunting.

I bet your experience with silencers is what you see in movies. No gun is silenced. It merely reduces the decibel output from a gun. They are legal.

Red herrings.

A gun that shoots a bullet at less than the speed of sound can be effectively silenced. I believe that it was not too long ago that anyone could buy armour-piercing bullets. There are plenty around. But, I had many, many valid points.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I would not define a tomahawk as an assault weapon no more than some kung fu artists hands. But, thanks for your input!

But in it's day it was a fearsome weapon and even today in the hands of a capable individual it is still a deadly device. To qualify as a "mass shooting" it only requires 3 people to be killed or injured. In a crowded environment such as a mall or school even an average person could kill or severely injure 3 people with a tomahawk. So is it not an assault weapon?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Nearly every hunting rifle round will penetrate the typical body armor worn by police officers. Even the ballistic armor worn by the military will only stand up to certain lower power rounds. Do you know what it takes to legally own a silencer? You don't walk into the nearest Silencers R Us store buy one and take it home. 34 states allow the use of a silencer for hunting, it helps prevent hunters hearing loss. The AR15 has become a popular hunting gun, especially for varmint and destructive pest type animals. Other than a few shootings where a demented individual used an AR or AK, killings by these weapons is way down on the list of firearm deaths. Homicides by rifle are extremely low. Hand guns are the weapon used in the majority of shooting deaths.

You are right about body armour only blocking most pistol rounds. I could have come up with a larger list of why hunting rifles and the normally defined military style long gun are different animals. My main point was that a dedicated hunter would have zero need to carry those added weight, unnecessary items with them. It is just a "Rambo" mentality.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Gizemo33

Retiredguy, your logic is completely flawed. From what you feel or said nonprofits can do all the illegal things in the world and it's OK.

I saw an expose yesterday of the millions and millions that the top four people of the NRA have pilfered. But I guess you and the rest of the Second Amendment people will just continue to send in your membership fees and make "" charitable donations " to the NRA.

Get the true details and maybe you will might change your mind. Oh and by the way nobody is trying to take your guns away -- they're just trying to establish sensible gun ownership.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with sensible or nonsensible gun ownership. The lawsuit has nothing to do with gun ownership at all. The lawsuit has nothing to do with guns. Or the Second Amendment. At all.

AT
ALL

The lawsuit is about a particular lobby group that serves manufacturers of a particular product, taking money from individual members for dues, while those members may or may not work for those manufacturers, and that lobby group subsequently skims the dues money and other donations to use on things that have nothing to do with the supposed purpose of the organization.

Now, that might not be a horrible crime, to some of you. It is to me. But to make matters worse, this organization has non-profit status under the tax code. Which is to say - it is tax-exempt. They benefit from dues that don't necessarily go to the thing they claim should be tax exempt.

Tax exemption is based on a very strict set of criteria. They have violated that set of criteria - supremely. So they're cheating the government, they're cheating members, they're cheating pretty much everyone, including the manufacturers who "donate" millions to them every year to politically support those manufacturers as a lobby.

If it was widgets that was the product - if it's Doritos. If it's KFC. If it's the cannibis growers foundation. If it's the black shoelace coalition.

Whatever the product is...

this organization exists, at this point in history, to support the manufacture of the product. It has no care for its membership, the individuals who actually pay to be members of it. This is proven by the fact that they have skimmed millions and used that membership money for things that have nothing to do with helping members with anything at all.

That is what this lawsuit is about.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

But in it's day it was a fearsome weapon and even today in the hands of a capable individual it is still a deadly device. To qualify as a "mass shooting" it only requires 3 people to be killed or injured. In a crowded environment such as a mall or school even an average person could kill or severely injure 3 people with a tomahawk. So is it not an assault weapon?

No, not without severely stretching the normal modern definition of "assault weapon". If someone massages words and definitions enough they can TRY to justify anything.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

The CDC has no business researching anything except disease.

Actually no, that is not true. The function of the CDC is to assist in the prevention of health, safety, and security risks. Gun violence falls under the last two categories. Subsequent death as a result of gun violence would fall under the first two categories.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

The 2nd Amendment was not written with game hunting in mind.

No but the NRA (which is what this topic is about, NOT 2A) was founded to support hunters, not human-killers.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

No, not without severely stretching the normal modern definition of "assault weapon". If someone massages words and definitions enough they can TRY to justify anything.

Just like the anti gun element that severely stretches the definition of an assault weapon and "massages words and definitions".

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Typically hunting weapons do not have 30 round banana clips, Police killing, vest penetrating bullets, and silencers. If you are truly a hunter you do not need those HUMAN killing attachments while hunting squirrel and deer - plus it would be awkward and added weight.

People with no knowledge of firearms shouldn't comment about firearms.

There are no such things as "silencers". The technical term is "Sound Suppressor". As the name suggests, it suppresses the sound. It surely doesn't silence it. Even with a suppressor it's recommended that you still wear hearing protection. The only place you can truly silence the report of a firearm is in the movies.

And what in the hell is a Banana Clip? Is that something you attach to your banana to accelerate its ripening? If you're referring to those pesky things that hold those scary bullets, those are called magazines..

Please people.. Know something about a subject before you make an ass of yourselves.

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No but the NRA (which is what this topic is about, NOT 2A) was founded to support hunters, not human-killers.

Wow! Nothing of your statement is correct.

[Number 10 GI]

Clubs, knives, guns, bricks, rebar, iron pipe, and anything else used to kill or injure a person is an assault weapon. If you intentionally injure or kill someone it is an assault. We don't have a gun, knife or bludgeon violence problem in this country, we have a violence problem and that is what needs to be addressed.

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Clubs, knives, guns, bricks, rebar, iron pipe, and anything else used to kill or injure a person is an assault weapon. If you intentionally injure or kill someone it is an assault. We don't have a gun, knife or bludgeon violence problem in this country, we have a violence problem and that is what needs to be addressed.

I give up. It is like talking to petulant 3 year olds who just whine all the time because they want something other people have. Good luck with your efforts in this thread.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

I give up. It is like talking to petulant 3 year olds who just whine all the time because they want something other people have. Good luck with your efforts in this thread.

So I guess this:

Actually the NRA was founded by northerners during the Jim Crow era in the south to assist former slaves in training and arming themselves. It is the oldest civil rights organization in the US.

Wasn't the result of a petulant 3-year-old who whines all the time because they want something other people have.

Here's a clue: you were wrong. Nothing in your statement had any basis in truth. You corrected me with a total fabrication that even the NRA's own website doesn't mention.

And - the oldest civil rights organization in the USA was the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 as an instrumental branch of the abolitionist movement. The NRA wasn't founded until 55 years later, in 1871.

Sadly - the NRA no longer stands for what it was founded to stand for, it no longer supports what it was founded to support, and it no longer acts in the best interests of its members. Instead, it steals from them. Which is the purpose of the lawsuit against them - to determine damages and enforce consequences.