Look, gun politics aside, there is a legitimate reason to have more than one hunting rifle.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.
You realize that’s like trying to tell someone to pick up their newly purchased big ticket item from the store using a bicycle, right?
I get you’re trying to limit the use of guns by limiting the availability of guns and their ammo, but where you drew the line is too extrene/limiting.
At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.
Nope. Take it or leave it. I’d even consider allowing multi hunting weapons, eg: shot gun season.
But, only one long gun in the home at a time. The other must be stored at an official gun locker place, eg: police station, gun club, gun sales store, armory… Finger print ID to swap out which long gun you want.
I’m astonished that you’re smart enough to remember to breathe, much less able to read and type.
How, exactly, do you think that you get good with a firearm, good enough to be safe, good enough to ethically hunt? Do you have this pants-on-head removed idea that you can shoot ten shots, total, and suddenly know what you’re doing well enough to not gut-shot a deer? Do you think that 12 shots through a revolver is enough to be competent? Do you understand how ejection systems in rifles work, and that you simply don’t recover all of your brass?
On a short day at the range, I’ll go through about 100 rounds. I’ve been to an IDPA match that had a minimum round count of 120, and a Gun Run match that required a minimum of 50 rifle, and 60 pistol rounds.
Beyond this - what other civil rights are you willing to accept restrictions on based on need? Do you really need to vote? Do you need to have free speech? Would you be okay limiting all of your online comments to just 12, and having to delete all comments before you could post anything new? Perhaps you should have to demonstrate need in order to not have your house searched by the police, or to plead the 5th?
Fuck anyone that wants free speech, voting, religion, or the right to not have their teeth shoved in by cops, amiright?
That is correct; you will not be able to get a tax stamp for an air-to-ground missile, or a laser guided 500# bomb; those are mass weaponry. A rifle or a handgun are not mass weaponry; they aren’t even crew-served weaponry.
“Well-regulated” means TRAINED. That was what it meant when the constitution was written, because the militia–which was all able-bodied men–were expected to muster when called up, and were legally obligated to provide their own arms suitable for military use, and to train on their own. The writers of the constitution explicitly intended for the individual citizens to be armed, and to train. And do you know how you train?
…Beuller?
And you are correct; I do not support any attempts to cut any civil rights, because that’s how the majority gets away with tyranny against the minority. Ask black people, gay people, or women that have been victims of domestic violence just how much the cops have done to protect them.
We have lots & lots of gun nuts here. I hate them.
Want a hunting rifle? Fine. Just one.
Want a hand gun? Must prove a need and can have one 6 shot revolver.
Weapons fully registered with owner finger printed with renewal every 5 years.
Ammo? 10 rounds for rifle. 12 for revolver. All brass brought in to buy new ammo. Each purchase requires finger print confirmation.
Fuck anyone that doesn’t like it.
Look, gun politics aside, there is a legitimate reason to have more than one hunting rifle.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.
You realize that’s like trying to tell someone to pick up their newly purchased big ticket item from the store using a bicycle, right?
I get you’re trying to limit the use of guns by limiting the availability of guns and their ammo, but where you drew the line is too extrene/limiting.
At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.
Nope. Take it or leave it. I’d even consider allowing multi hunting weapons, eg: shot gun season.
But, only one long gun in the home at a time. The other must be stored at an official gun locker place, eg: police station, gun club, gun sales store, armory… Finger print ID to swap out which long gun you want.
Just repeating myself at this point, but …
And for the record, I am pro gun control, but what you’re advocating is too extreme to be practical and workable.
No. It’s people that tolerate more that are the problem.
Don’t confuse understanding for tolerance.
No.
Yes
Ahhh… Racism it is, then.
I’m astonished that you’re smart enough to remember to breathe, much less able to read and type.
How, exactly, do you think that you get good with a firearm, good enough to be safe, good enough to ethically hunt? Do you have this pants-on-head removed idea that you can shoot ten shots, total, and suddenly know what you’re doing well enough to not gut-shot a deer? Do you think that 12 shots through a revolver is enough to be competent? Do you understand how ejection systems in rifles work, and that you simply don’t recover all of your brass?
On a short day at the range, I’ll go through about 100 rounds. I’ve been to an IDPA match that had a minimum round count of 120, and a Gun Run match that required a minimum of 50 rifle, and 60 pistol rounds.
Beyond this - what other civil rights are you willing to accept restrictions on based on need? Do you really need to vote? Do you need to have free speech? Would you be okay limiting all of your online comments to just 12, and having to delete all comments before you could post anything new? Perhaps you should have to demonstrate need in order to not have your house searched by the police, or to plead the 5th?
Fuck anyone that wants free speech, voting, religion, or the right to not have their teeth shoved in by cops, amiright?
Get fucked, dumbass.
“I have no response, therefore I’m going to rely on insults.”
I’ve got plenty of response. Your sorry ass doesn’t like it.
Translation: I don’t have a coherent argument that respects law or civil liberties.
Laws need to change. People don’t have liberty for mass weaponry.
“Well regulated” should mean exactly that. Strict limits and very traceable.
You clearly don’t like the idea. So, Fuck off and just give “thoughts & prayers” to the next batch of murdered people.
I’m done with a gun nut supporter.
That is correct; you will not be able to get a tax stamp for an air-to-ground missile, or a laser guided 500# bomb; those are mass weaponry. A rifle or a handgun are not mass weaponry; they aren’t even crew-served weaponry.
“Well-regulated” means TRAINED. That was what it meant when the constitution was written, because the militia–which was all able-bodied men–were expected to muster when called up, and were legally obligated to provide their own arms suitable for military use, and to train on their own. The writers of the constitution explicitly intended for the individual citizens to be armed, and to train. And do you know how you train?
…Beuller?
And you are correct; I do not support any attempts to cut any civil rights, because that’s how the majority gets away with tyranny against the minority. Ask black people, gay people, or women that have been victims of domestic violence just how much the cops have done to protect them.
Don’t be obtuse. You know I meant large amounts of guns. Not weapons of mass destruction.
Well regulated = well managed, no matter when it’s written. That includes laws limiting ownership.