Northcountryman

Maybe , I’m definitely not opposed to capital punishment , I’m just not sure if Incidents involving injuries Only should result in the death penalty

I don’t know , but it certainly could decrease the likelihood of an accident or careless / negligent killing

No it is not , but in order to drive one legally , you have to take a course and pass a drivers exam .

No arguments here , although I’m not sure about mandatory death penalty for ALL gun related injuries — deaths maybe but injuries ? Maybe , IDK but I’d let the judge have some discretion there , I. Care of extenuating circumstances

I think that cost wise , the purchase of the hand gun itself presents more of a economic barrier than the hand gun safety course. Come on, If she can afford the gun , she caN Afford the course !!

A gun is far different Than a chainsaw as , although it’s not impossible for murders to occur that way, it’s far less likely . Do you believe that you need to take a course in order to operate a motor vehicle ? I think it’s analogous to purchasing — and using — a handgun.

I respectfully disagree; can you explain why ? When if a single woman who’s girlfriend just experienced a home invasion and wanted to purchase a handgun for protection ; however , she knows absolutely NOTHING about firearms , hasn’t even held a gun in her life . Despite this , her record is clean and she has the cash so she is eligible to purchase one . You think that she should be able to without taking a safety course?

No I am saying you should understand the basics. I don't mean this as a deep dig but based on your understanding of "assualt rifles" and what an AR actually is you don't. And since you don't and you want to discuss the point you shoul Perhaps you’re right about this , but’s it’s not like we’re passing legislation here ourselves , making any impactful decisions ; after all , it’s just a discussion forum , correct ? And the purpose of a discussion forum— I think— is to share ideas , thoughts , and well , learn something new isn’t it ? And I’m learning !! I don’t think it needs to be taken That seriously consequently and think anyone who want to can join and offer an opinion .

Forgot something: Based on this part of your reply, are you saying that youre against requiring a handgun safety course in order to purchase a handgun?

Wait: Are you saing that I cant have an opinion unless I'm an expert? Thats a little extreme dont you think? If thats the case, then almost NONE of us should have an opinion on anything pertaining to governent regs/laws because very few of us are experts--are you? I dont think I called for a ban on AR's, I'm just saying that I think its reasonable that theyre sale/ownership and distribution is regulated a bit more fastidiously than say, a rifle or a shotgun. As for the minutiae pertaining to what contitutes an AR, that is up to the "Experts". If-- by your example-- said experts decided that Grandpas 740 30-06 would be included in the designation as an "AR", then I would be against that, certainly.

All 3 of your points are valid ; let me reply: 1. Recreational use- Correct, the 2nd has NOTHING to do with recreation use which, in contemporary times, pretty much includes use for hunting and targetshooting -- perhaps theres another use that I'm not thinking of but I cant think of anything else that would contititute "recreational" use . To the Founding Fathers, using firearms for hunting and shooting was a given --kind of like... "duh!" of course you can have guns to hunt!-- so they didnt even bother to introduce language into the 2nd to secure its protection. 2. You raise a good point; I have no problem w/ that . 3. I honmestly dont know what an AR is and need to educate myself in this area of the gun control debate. Are you saying that an AR is not automatic , then?

No arguments here, but from the perspective of a law abiding red-neck country boy like me, I just cant imagine where the hell they would go to buy a gun illegally! I mean, if I was a scumbag, and wanted to get a gun for nefarious purposes , where would I go? If I couldnt purchase one illegally due to my past and/or psycholigical state, I would say the current gun laws would work very well in terms of preventing me from getting one. I wouldnt know where to get one otherwise; so how do all these other people get them illegally? They cant all be stolen from legal registered gun owners right?

So I’m this vid, which ones are bucks ?

What about the shape ?

Are those imported firearms stats legal or illegal firearms ? Illegal I guess cuz thats what were discussing?

Yeah , but wasn’t that mostly for interdiction if guns going into and not out of Mexico? I’d like to do some poking around and research where the vast majority of criminals , gang members , etc. —basically anyone who couldn’t pass a normal background check to obtain a gun legally —Acquire their guns to commit crimes . I think that the vast majority are originally obtained legally by someone and end up getting stolen, transferred illegally or privately and ultimately, end up in the hands of criminals . Typically , these guns are not new guns and have been out there i circulation for awhile , 10 yrs or more , probably.

So , went out and checked my cams yesterday — got a bunch of pics of deer passin thru but I can’t tell if any are bucks . How do you tell them apart this time of year when they’re walking past perpendicular to your cam ? I would think maybe body size to a certain extent but I’ve seen some awful big does over the years too , so how can you tell ?

Correct

True , but I think that’s only when part of the stream is owned by a club or something

Chef is right ; the. You own it

So You’re Interpretation is not that strict and literal — I agree btw , I just asked you cuz in your initial response , you sounded like your POV was more Literalist . You brought up a great ancillary issue —That of illegal guns. How the hell do illegal guns get hEre in the first place ,l and that many to boot ? Do they all come through Mexico ??

Purpose is not part of the original verbage and should not be included today. I agree — a host of other subsequent issues would arise out of adding language such as that . Seems pretty simple to me. Far to many interpretations for such a simple set of words. Take the words for what that say instead of everyone adding their own interpretation which ultimately leads to controversy. I understand what you’re saying but if your interpretation is that literal , then I would say that absolutely NO gun control measures would be considered constitutional then, right ? I mean , who are the people mentioned here ? American citizens , right ? So , the way I would interpret the language — in the strictest literal sense possible— ALL American citizens have the right to bear arms , irregardless of their past , history of violence or criminality , mental state , etc. Do you believe that ?

Heres the exact wording of the 2nd A. in the Constitution: The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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.” What do these 27 words mean exactly? Of course, the Framers had no way of seeing 245 years into the future--and how could they? Thus, the wording of this inalienable right, as written in 1791, may have a very different meaning when applied to the context of the times year 2021--or maybe not? Back then, militias were viewed as groups of local citizens that would band together ad hoc in order to defend themselves and their property from a myriad of threats; for example, threats including Indian attacks, an invasion force ,etc. but also, from oppression by the govt itself. Circa late 1700's, many people had a legitimate fear that the government would oppress the mass through the use of a federalized standing army--and , of course, history supported such sentiments. Considering this, I do believe that the ORIGINAL intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd was to provide a check on government power and authority by the citizenry; but it is this "check" still necessary today? Some Liberal Scholars -- notorious for favoring a more loosely defined textual interpretation of the Constitution-- claim that the 2nd A. NEVER guaranteed individual gun ownership by the citizenry, citing the word " Militia" in the document. Their position is that the 2nd A. only applies to the right of individual units equivalent to the contemporary National Guard to have guns and that it says nothing about individual gun ownership ; nor does it guarantee the right to have and use weapons for hunting purposes!!

Cool , thank you , I’ll check it out

Which part am I over thinking , the Grouse is a Troll part ? Or calling you on the Dnesh D’Souza has no credibility assertion? Again, I’ll ask you —where did you hear about the D’Souza stuff ? I’m interested in that part of your earlier post and if you can post a link or something , would be great, really. And Finally , you’re right - Grouse is no Troll and neither are you and I but earlier , you said that he was — come on Man !!