This is NOT about 2nd Amendment rights but is merely a question. I know the Constitution allows gun ownership and if that is your thing, I have no problem with it.

However, I saw an advertisement from Gander Mountain Sports in the Daily Sun yesterday that has me wondering as to the "why these guns are needed". One was a very nice rifle that looked just like an M-16. It even came with a 30 round magazine - and cost $1000. The second was a 12 gauge "tactical pump shotgun" with a tactical stock and pistol grip that held 5 rounds in the magazine plus one in the chamber and had spaces for 5 shells in the tactical stock for easy reloading.

I suppose the shotgun could be used for hunting but seems to me it was clearly meant for "anti-personnel" means. The rifle, with a 30 round magazine, looked totally for "anti-personnel". The rifle was 5.56 NATO which is the same as an M-16. 30 rounds for home defense? Maybe the answer is simply that you might miss with the first 29 shots?

Again, not an anti-gun posting but just why would someone want an M-16 knockoff for home defense? Wouldn't a 9mm pistol with a 10 round magazine be plenty good for that? Same thing for the shotgun. I would think a long gun would be a disadvantage for home defense unless you keep it under the bed. The pistol could be easily kept in a bedside table-except when the grandkids are around, of course.

For the same reason men that live in town feel they need 4 wheel drive expeditions and big pick up trucks. It compensates for other things too small to impress anyone. I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to own a handgun, rifle and a shotgun, But automatic machine guns, 50 cal rifles, assault shotguns etc are the toys of a man or women with a problem.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

For the same reason men that live in town feel they need 4 wheel drive expeditions and big pick up trucks. It compensates for other things too small to impress anyone. I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to own a handgun, rifle and a shotgun, But automatic machine guns, 50 cal rifles, assault shotguns etc are the toys of a man or women with a problem.

Compensates for other things too small to impress anyone! Now, that gave me a laugh! Jay Leno could use you as a writer!

think about paint ball and why people buy the paint ball guns and equipment....for the gaming aspect.

Why do folks buy shot guns? to hunt; to shoot skeet (think game); to shoot trap (think game) and many other shot gun sports.

Why do some of us have 6 shooters and cowboy rifles and cow boy guns from the 1800's? There are clubs that shoot western style competition (think game again).

Now let's go get the high powered military stuff...too many to mention...think competitive shooting based on military ordinance (again think gaming).

And on and on and on.

There are some of us who buy guns to just collect them like everybody else that buys what ever to collect.

The above is only the tip of the ice berg for gun enthusiasts.

It is unfortunate the public, trained by the media and the anti gunners who only think shoot some one....the absolute smallest percent of gun use gets the press. The other 99.9% gets very little if any play.....ever.

btk

Its interesting to hear liberals same in the same breathe I understand your
2nd Amendment Rights but do you really need.................

I read in this morning's paper wherein doctors operated on a 17 week old fetus to remove what they determined was a tumor. And then I asked myself I understand why liberals believe a woman's body belongs to her but why.....

In both instances here neither agrees that people are entitled to those claimed rights. In the first instance authority is granted by the U.S. Constitution. In the second instance authority is granted by the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade. In the second instance left open was the question of when life begins. Rand Paul has a bill circulating through Congress to answer that question to be at conception.

In the first instance liberals cite the number of senseless deaths resulting from the more sophicated automatic and repeating rifles.

Rand Paul cites government statictics that explain 54 million babies have been aborted since the inception of Roe v Wade. And to add insult to injury
the subject of that case eventually rejected abortion and admitted she had made a serious mistake. The loss of life clearly should not be occuring in either case but the losses from guns pale in comparison of those from abortions.

I opine others to decide.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Its interesting to hear liberals same in the same breathe I understand your
2nd Amendment Rights but do you really need.................

I read in this morning's paper wherein doctors operated on a 17 week old fetus to remove what they determined was a tumor. And then I asked myself I understand why liberals believe a woman's body belongs to her but why.....

In both instances here neither agrees that people are entitled to those claimed rights. In the first instance authority is granted by the U.S. Constitution. In the second instance authority is granted by the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade. In the second instance left open was the question of when life begins. Rand Paul has a bill circulating through Congress to answer that question to be at conception.

In the first instance liberals cite the number of senseless deaths resulting from the more sophicated automatic and repeating rifles.

Rand Paul cites government statictics that explain 54 million babies have been aborted since the inception of Roe v Wade. And to add insult to injury
the subject of that case eventually rejected abortion and admitted she had made a serious mistake. The loss of life clearly should not be occuring in either case but the losses from guns pale in comparison of those from abortions.

I opine others to decide.

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

Liberals war on babies.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

I am an old guy, but the CHOICE as you call it should have been made BEFORE !

Buggyone, since you brought it up, here is the reason for owning a M16 with a 30 round mags. I have done and will do again, 3 guns shoots. You can have up to 60 targets that you engage during the course of firewith your rifle. This is a timed competition and the less times that you have to reload the quicker you finish the course of fire. Then you move on to a shotgun. Mine holds 9 rounds, eight in the mag and one in the chamber. Again you may have up to 20 targets to engage. Again reloading takes time. Same reasoning for a high cap pistol.

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

I'm for whatever you want to buy, but I myself feel you need more training if you need more than a couple of shots. As far as a long gun for home defense, a shot gun is considered the best. Pay your money and take your choice.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

Buggyone, since you brought it up, here is the reason for owning a M16 with a 30 round mags. I have done and will do again, 3 guns shoots. You can have up to 60 targets that you engage during the course of firewith your rifle. This is a timed competition and the less times that you have to reload the quicker you finish the course of fire. Then you move on to a shotgun. Mine holds 9 rounds, eight in the mag and one in the chamber. Again you may have up to 20 targets to engage. Again reloading takes time. Same reasoning for a high cap pistol.

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

Figmo, you mean you believe that Joe Citizen should be allowed to have M-60 machine guns, M-79 40 mm grenade launchers, LAWs, a howitzer or two, a Bradley tank, Patriot missles with launcher, and a Nike silo in the backyard? My nomenclatures are outdated, I am sure.

I see nothing wrong with someone having a reasonable number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols for hunting, sport, or personal defense but to say all citizens should be armed with the same weapons as the military, to me, is going beyond the beyonds.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Figmo, you mean you believe that Joe Citizen should be allowed to have M-60 machine guns, M-79 40 mm grenade launchers, LAWs, a howitzer or two, a Bradley tank, Patriot missles with launcher, and a Nike silo in the backyard? My nomenclatures are outdated, I am sure.

I see nothing wrong with someone having a reasonable number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols for hunting, sport, or personal defense but to say all citizens should be armed with the same weapons as the military, to me, is going beyond the beyonds.

Figmo gives you a concise answer, and as usual when you don't like an answer but have no response, you go a bit off.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to pose a deterrent to a government gone wild. This is the genius of our founders vision and forethought. They'll still be in possessions of superior firepower, but the numbers of armed citizens outnumber the forces which can be mobilized against them in the case of a rogue government.

This is why every country who's government devolves into socialism has the number one priority of disarming it's citizens.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Figmo gives you a concise answer, and as usual when you don't like an answer but have no response, you go a bit off.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to pose a deterrent to a government gone wild. This is the genius of our founders vision and forethought. They'll still be in possessions of superior firepower, but the numbers of armed citizens outnumber the forces which can be mobilized against them in the case of a rogue government.

This is why every country who's government devolves into socialism has the number one priority of disarming it's citizens.

I will go along with your post up to the last sentence. I believe that a dictator will first take away guns. Look at the Nazis. Do not tell me that the German Nazis were socialist, either. They were a ultra right wing group.

Look at Switzerland and Israel. Both are pretty socialist. Almost every household has a gun.

Canada is pretty socialist. Lots and lots of guns there.

As I said before, Richie, if you were reading, I have no problem with people who want guns for sport, hunting, or defense.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

The second amendment was most certainly not written during "our war against the mother land" That war ended in 1781 with the surrender in Yorktown, although it took two more years for the treaty to be finalized, so 1783. The bill of rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It is best to have the facts correct before you offer an opinion based on errors in fact as it then appears your opinion is as invalid as your incorrect fact.

Originally Posted by blueash

The second amendment was most certainly not written during "our war against the mother land" That war ended in 1781 with the surrender in Yorktown, although it took two more years for the treaty to be finalized, so 1783. The bill of rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It is best to have the facts correct before you offer an opinion based on errors in fact as it then appears your opinion is as invalid as your incorrect fact.

The 2d Amendment was fresh in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. That was one of the first things that the Brits did was try and disarm the general population. So if you think that the war with the mother land had nothing to do with the 2d Amendment you had better re-read history.

An armed society is a free society, and unarmed society is subject to the wims of the government currently in power.