The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Re this business of magazine capacity, if I may, the following comes to mind.
Bolt action rifles in 30 caliber, more than adequate caliber wise for deer hunting hold 5 or perhaps 6 rounds. Lever action types, mostly 30-30 caliber hold what,7 or 8 rounds.How often does it take more than one, possibly two shots to kill or harvest, whichever term strikes your fancy, a deer?
This entire folderoll over the number of cartridges some type of rifle holds is hogwash, simply something on which to hang another ridiculous anti gun argument. Ladies, if any be here, and gentlemen, do not be fooled by false flags, for re what is at stake is, your right, constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Bolt action rifles in 30 caliber, more than adequate caliber wise for deer hunting hold 5 or perhaps 6 rounds. Lever action types, mostly 30-30 caliber hold what,7 or 8 rounds.How often does it take more than one, possibly two shots to kill or harvest, whichever term strikes your fancy, a deer?
This entire folderoll over the number of cartridges some type of rifle holds is hogwash, simply something on which to hang another ridiculous anti gun argument. Ladies, if any be here, and gentlemen, do not be fooled by false flags, for re what is at stake is, your right, constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms.
22-rimfire
New member
AR's are frequently used for sporting purposes. It is a case of defining sporting purposes. AR's make great varmint rifles regardless of magazine capacity. I was never very keen on them for big game hunting, but different strokes for different folks.
MSR or modern sporting rifle is an attempted PC term which I never liked. But, I suppose it is a lot better than "assault rifle" or "black rifle". So, I'm neutral on that one. Assault rifle is an in corrrect usage of the term. But that never stopped the anti-gun groups.
The NY Times has been very anti-gun for a long time. I dismiss what they say, but I usually read the articles and they are often full of distortions of the facts. But the fact that they write about it, from their point of view makes it fact and their stuff is often quoted as such. The NY Times is not the voice of America. It is only the voice of the liberal minded city and not even the entire state of NY.
Murders are on the rise in many cities this year. It is most often with handguns, black on black crime, and drug or gang related. The police shootings are very troubling. The militarization of the police forces is very troubling. But it's a reaction to the current law enforcement environment and of course federal funding.
MSR or modern sporting rifle is an attempted PC term which I never liked. But, I suppose it is a lot better than "assault rifle" or "black rifle". So, I'm neutral on that one. Assault rifle is an in corrrect usage of the term. But that never stopped the anti-gun groups.
The NY Times has been very anti-gun for a long time. I dismiss what they say, but I usually read the articles and they are often full of distortions of the facts. But the fact that they write about it, from their point of view makes it fact and their stuff is often quoted as such. The NY Times is not the voice of America. It is only the voice of the liberal minded city and not even the entire state of NY.
Murders are on the rise in many cities this year. It is most often with handguns, black on black crime, and drug or gang related. The police shootings are very troubling. The militarization of the police forces is very troubling. But it's a reaction to the current law enforcement environment and of course federal funding.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The term the antis use is "assault weapon," which is an artificially constructed term that has no real definition. "Assault rifle," on the other hand, is a full-automatic rifle used by the military for ... assaults. "Assault rifle" has a meaning, and it describes an M16 or M4 with full-auto or selective fire capability. It does not apply to an AR-15.22-rimfire said:
The antis chose the term "assault weapon" precisely because it creates confusion. As any non-gun person (a fence sitter, not a rabid anti) what an assault weapon is, and sooner or later you'll find they probably believe that ALL civilian AR-15s are fully automatic weapons of war. That's what the antis want them to think, and it's working.
22-rimfire
New member
If you can define the terms, you often control the debate.
winchester1917
New member
Just a thought: people keep saying "constitutional right"
The constitution grants you exactly NOTHING. The founders believed the right to keep and bear arms was a GOD-GIVEN right. The 2nd amendment, along with the other amendments, is there simply to remind the government that they cannot interfere with that God-given right.
People don't like to talk about that much anymore, but I say we have an empty argument without it. Don't forget that our precious 2nd Amendment is just that: an AMENDMENT. If that is your claim to the right to keep your guns, then any new amendment could RIGHTFULLY strip those freedoms away.
We Constitutionalists would do well to remember that in its earliest form, there was no second amendment. Even the Constitution is and was not an unchangeable document. If it were, we'd have no 2A.
I'm not speaking about religion here. Just the foundation for our founding documents.
Those who wrote it were pretty clear about its uselessness among a godless people.
Anti-God = anti-gun
There's the root of our problem.
The constitution grants you exactly NOTHING. The founders believed the right to keep and bear arms was a GOD-GIVEN right. The 2nd amendment, along with the other amendments, is there simply to remind the government that they cannot interfere with that God-given right.
People don't like to talk about that much anymore, but I say we have an empty argument without it. Don't forget that our precious 2nd Amendment is just that: an AMENDMENT. If that is your claim to the right to keep your guns, then any new amendment could RIGHTFULLY strip those freedoms away.
We Constitutionalists would do well to remember that in its earliest form, there was no second amendment. Even the Constitution is and was not an unchangeable document. If it were, we'd have no 2A.
I'm not speaking about religion here. Just the foundation for our founding documents.
Those who wrote it were pretty clear about its uselessness among a godless people.
Anti-God = anti-gun
There's the root of our problem.
22-rimfire
New member
That is an interesting twist with people who do not believe in a God. Hence there are no God given rights, only rights granted by people.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
I've always considered the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to be a mistake. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or even target shooting.
No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, most people just won't kiss it!
No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, most people just won't kiss it!
dakota.potts
New member
Let's not get into blaming the non religious people here with being anti-gun.
The God-given right argument is a loser to keep our rights. If all amendments to the constitution are God given rights, why do we have the ability to remove them? Was the constitutional amendment banning alcohol a rule from God? Maybe the amendment that repealed it? It's a malleable document for a reason
The constitution is a document from men who believed in a God and were guided by a God, but it's ultimately written by men who may fault. The second amendment should be debated on its own merit
The God-given right argument is a loser to keep our rights. If all amendments to the constitution are God given rights, why do we have the ability to remove them? Was the constitutional amendment banning alcohol a rule from God? Maybe the amendment that repealed it? It's a malleable document for a reason
The constitution is a document from men who believed in a God and were guided by a God, but it's ultimately written by men who may fault. The second amendment should be debated on its own merit
Aguila Blanca
Staff
"Constitutional right" simply means a right enumerated in the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with "Constitutional right" as a term. It is those who say that the Constitution "grants" the right to [___] who are incorrect in their understanding of the Bill of Rights.Winchester1917 said:
But the Constitution as originally enacted might not have been ratified if there had not been an agreement in principle among the founding fathers that a bill of rights would be added. Yes, the RKBA is an amendment that can be removed. The same applies to any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights, to anything in the other amendments (after all, the eighteenth amendment was removed within a decade or so of its enactment), and to anything in the original core Constitution itself. ANY part of the Constitution is open to change or removal by amendment, so it is our job as citizens to protect the Constitution from such shenanigans.
No, people who are Constitutionalists but who do not believe in God hold that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are universal human rights. Whether or not one believes in God, Constitutionalists agree that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not create or grant rights, they enumerate and provide to protect preexisting human rights. The Constitution does not "grant" rights.22-rimfire said:
winchester1917
New member
I apologize. I shouldn't have posted my thought on this thread. I don't mean for a side thought to become the main topic of discussion, so I'll refrain from commenting any more about it here. Don't want to be a hijacker!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Yes, we keep the deity out of our discussions.
Pragmatically, you can argue this but all 'rights etc. are social constructs of the times based on biological predispositions, the philosophical and religious beliefs of people, the special interest groups with power, etc.
Thus, in a debate or legislative action, that's what counts. The right to keep and bear arms convinces some of its validity and others not. Same with who votes, for example - that's changed over the years based on societal constructs.
We have to make a case that is bought periodically. Appeals to authority won't work if the powers in a society want a change.
Pragmatically, you can argue this but all 'rights etc. are social constructs of the times based on biological predispositions, the philosophical and religious beliefs of people, the special interest groups with power, etc.
Thus, in a debate or legislative action, that's what counts. The right to keep and bear arms convinces some of its validity and others not. Same with who votes, for example - that's changed over the years based on societal constructs.
We have to make a case that is bought periodically. Appeals to authority won't work if the powers in a society want a change.
Agiula Blanca in post #64 defines an assault rifle as "full automatic ....".
As I understand the terminology, Assault Rifle is defined as "selective fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration chambered for intermediate cartridge".
Assault Weapon is a term without meaning, as it applies to or describes any thing or object that one person might "attack" another with. Being generally non-specific to the point of being meaningless, it has become the darling of the anti gun lobby
As I understand the terminology, Assault Rifle is defined as "selective fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration chambered for intermediate cartridge".
Assault Weapon is a term without meaning, as it applies to or describes any thing or object that one person might "attack" another with. Being generally non-specific to the point of being meaningless, it has become the darling of the anti gun lobby
The semantics of the term "purpose" obviously can be argued from more than one point of view.
My own stance tends toward the strict: An inanimate object cannot be said to have purpose, despite whatever purpose the designer or manufacturer may have envisioned.
I believe that the likely purpose behind the design and manufacture of pretty much every firearm I own was pure and simple profit.
As, I suspect, were both the Walmart decision and the introduction of the term "Modern Sporting Rifle".
My own purpose(s) in owning the things are actually quite varied.
My own stance tends toward the strict: An inanimate object cannot be said to have purpose, despite whatever purpose the designer or manufacturer may have envisioned.
I believe that the likely purpose behind the design and manufacture of pretty much every firearm I own was pure and simple profit.
As, I suspect, were both the Walmart decision and the introduction of the term "Modern Sporting Rifle".
My own purpose(s) in owning the things are actually quite varied.
We can and likely have gone on and on over and or about semantic considerations, playing and perhaps enjoying "word games". That being said, and we forget this at our peril, the unchanging goals of The Anti Gun, Anti Self Defense Lobby have been, and remain the destruction of firearms rights. End of story. They will to lie, cheat, steal, as they determine necessary, in order to achieve the above stated goal. Once again, we forget or disregard this at our peril. Unfortunately, some who should know better seem cursed with short memories.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The inanimate object argument is one for the choir and simply a way to say, I have a nice gun - please don't take it.
That's all there is. It denies the reality of how people categorize and perceive objects. Alan has it right.
Unless you can deal with the lethal nature and purpose of the firearm in the battle for public opinion, you will see bans and restrictions.
A spray can of live anthrax is an inanimate object but I don't want you OC'ing or carrying concealed around town. Do you? It's inanimate.
That's all there is. It denies the reality of how people categorize and perceive objects. Alan has it right.
Unless you can deal with the lethal nature and purpose of the firearm in the battle for public opinion, you will see bans and restrictions.
A spray can of live anthrax is an inanimate object but I don't want you OC'ing or carrying concealed around town. Do you? It's inanimate.
Glenn E Meyer said:
Understanding what it is we are discussing does quite a bit more than say "I have a nice gun - please don't take it."
If we don't clearly understand the topic, we are unlikely to persuade anyone at all into a coherent position. In order for a position to cohere, it may need to be the product of some scrutiny.
The high profile events that have people like Feinstein and Schumer figuratively running through the blood of victims to ban things are events created by people with a purpose to kill. It may be unsatisfying to simply prohibit the bad act; the "there oughtta be a law" reflex pushes people to want to do something. Explaining why that something isn't sensible is a first step to diffusing the busybody reflex.
The persistent busybody will conflate the qualities of the person and the thing and mix it with misunderstanding. The purpose of a pistol grip is to shoot from the hip, unaimed and faster! ARs have one purpose to spray bullets and death!
Where one says that people can have purpose and see utility in things and brings the temperature of discourse down, he may actually do a bit of good and help people think more clearly.
Glenn E Meyer said:
And it is also hard to control the deadly effects and is poorly suited for a legitimate use, unlike a gun. For some people I do want them to be able to transport live anthrax. The fellow who works on treatment needs to work with the material at times. It's the fellow's acts with the material, not the possession of the material that are potentially problematic.
The right to keep and bear arms was not guaranteed to us because of the potential for them to be a benign object.
It is not guaranteed because it may stay in a gun safe its entire life.
It is not a right because it is fun.
Participation in any sport, whether specifically or generally is promised.
To deny the purpose of arms, armaments in essence denies the inherent right to own and use them.
Once it becomes a dangerous sporting activity and implement, it is free for government to infringe upon.
Government can infringe car ownership.
Government can infringe upon smoking and drinking.
Government cannot infringe upon the keeping and bearing of arms (weapons)
It is not guaranteed because it may stay in a gun safe its entire life.
It is not a right because it is fun.
Participation in any sport, whether specifically or generally is promised.
To deny the purpose of arms, armaments in essence denies the inherent right to own and use them.
Once it becomes a dangerous sporting activity and implement, it is free for government to infringe upon.
Government can infringe car ownership.
Government can infringe upon smoking and drinking.
Government cannot infringe upon the keeping and bearing of arms (weapons)