Official T4R "Firearms" thread

[RO1973]

Yikes...

The Constitution is not a "living document" that "Changes with the times". It is a an amendable document with legal constructs written within to amend it.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments, my friend. 2A is an amendment added after the Constitution was ratified.

I am absolutely for following the writ/law of our Constitutional Republic, I am not for people changing the meaning of words to fit their agenda or bias.

I am absolutely not for "changing" our founding document and system of governance to "Fit the times" without going through the legal process of amending the document.

I am absolutely against mob rule/Democracy and all for the checks and balances of a Constitutional Republic that utilizes SOME democratic processes.

There are TONS of historically verified documents stating intent of each and every aspect and word of the Constitution. Look into it sometime, I beg you.

I'm not reaching at all, I am utilizing the common meaning of the words as written at the time they were written. I am utilizing several historically accurate and verified documents that have the intent written out in plain words for anyone to understand should they take the time to do so.

Your comparison to Mr. Clintons arguing the meaning of the word "is"; is just incorrect and doesn't apply.

Let's expand upon tings a bit- beyond the Constitution itself, their are inalienable rights that we are all endowed. Sure, the Constitution codifies them and places very solid and legally constructed road blocks in front of those that seek to rid us of these Rights, I am so very glad- but make no mistake, the Constitution does not grant me or anyone else any of these Rights, they are ours as a RIGHT of our existence.

We are so lucky to have founding documents and men who were brave enough to shed blood for such ideals and wisdom, but that document "gives" nothing nor "allows" anything. It merely places certain/limited powers in the hands of the Federal Government and literally says what they CANNOT do.

The idea that "Rights" flow from a governing body- is purely ludicrous. That would be a permission, by definition. We do not have a bill of "permissions".

At the time the Constitution was written, cannons were in private hands, the most destructive military arms of the day, were privately held and the intent of the 2A was absolutely to protect, ALL ARMS. Not just one form over another.

Another logical fallacy, on your part.

In fact, it was meant to keep individuals armed as well as the government itself so as to keep Governments from running wild and enslaving the masses.

If you truly understand the intent of the 2A and most of the BOR and the Constitution itself, and I really believe you do not, Bodie- you would know that the intent behind the 2A was to keep Tyranny in check and keep individual freedom and expression alive and well.

Governments always corrupt and tyranny results, revolutions happen to squash tyranny, wash rinse and repeat- throughout all of history. over and effing over again.

Wether it was the outlawing of swords, or long bows, or cross bows or martial arts, or any form of self defense and the means/tools to fight back against tyranny, governments have been outlawing these things for all of our known history in order to control and subvert and control entire populations and societies.


Our Constitution, and the intent behind it was to keep tyranny at bay for was long as possible and create a legal construct to act as a road block that would be hard to overcome so we as free individuals have the greatest chance of remaining free individuals.

Times do change, but some things never change. If one researches our history it is simple to see what doesn't and won't change- people in power seek to control other people absolutely, some times it's well intended, sometimes. However- it ALWAYS ends badly.

More people have been murdered by their own government, by first being disarmed so they cannot fight back and then being collected like cattle and led to the slaughter than by any other means. Hundreds of Millions.

I, for one am glad the Constitution Wass so well thought out an written. It has taken a long time for it to be subverted, piece by piece it has been, though.

I hope people take the time to truly inform themselves, so we are not always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and allow evil deeds to be visited upon us, constantly by our own actions or inactions.

I hope you're recovering rom the flu and doing well. Take care.

I cannot like this post enough. Well said!!!!

 

[RO1973]

My first single action revolver. Ruger Super Blackhawk in 44 mag.

 

[Charlievee]

I gave myself a timeout from the Internet, ha, and then got the flu. Thanks for bearing with me.

You are reaching, in trying to interpret that phrase. It's like Bill Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word, "is."

I guess the problem is that you don't believe in a changing constitution? I mean, trying to decipher the meaning of the founding fathers based upon non-verified, 200 year old documents is not the most accurate process. They wrote it when the average citizen, even the richest citizens, weren't able to purchase weapons anywhere near today's firepower.

So, do we apply the same logic to health care?

 

[Bodie the Dog]

Jinkies!

So, do we apply the same logic to health care?

You lost me here. Wut are you talking about? Otherwise, we do have a need for universal health care. All the experts (not us keyboard warriors) conclude that the financial cost to society is less, if more people are healthy. And of all the developed nations in the world, why can 80 other nations provide free or heavily-subsidized healthcare, but we can't? Greatest nation on the earth should be able to take care of its citizens, especially the old ones. And yet now McConnel is saying the deficit is so great, the he needs to take hundreds of millions from social security and medicare? WTF? Greatest nation on the earth, and we're killing programs like Meals on Wheels? MOney that came from our paychecks. But he needs it for a fricken wall? I've got an old neighbor who just got a free fridge, two cords of wood, and his house insulated, but still he rants about socialism. As he cashes his SS check every month. Nuts.

 

[Bodie the Dog]

Yikes...

The Constitution is not a "living document" that "Changes with the times". It is a an amendable document with legal constructs written within to amend it.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments, my friend. 2A is an amendment added after the Constitution was ratified.

I am absolutely for following the writ/law of our Constitutional Republic, I am not for people changing the meaning of words to fit their agenda or bias.

I am absolutely not for "changing" our founding document and system of governance to "Fit the times" without going through the legal process of amending the document.

I am absolutely against mob rule/Democracy and all for the checks and balances of a Constitutional Republic that utilizes SOME democratic processes.

There are TONS of historically verified documents stating intent of each and every aspect and word of the Constitution. Look into it sometime, I beg you.

I'm not reaching at all, I am utilizing the common meaning of the words as written at the time they were written. I am utilizing several historically accurate and verified documents that have the intent written out in plain words for anyone to understand should they take the time to do so.

Your comparison to Mr. Clintons arguing the meaning of the word "is"; is just incorrect and doesn't apply.

Let's expand upon tings a bit- beyond the Constitution itself, their are inalienable rights that we are all endowed. Sure, the Constitution codifies them and places very solid and legally constructed road blocks in front of those that seek to rid us of these Rights, I am so very glad- but make no mistake, the Constitution does not grant me or anyone else any of these Rights, they are ours as a RIGHT of our existence.

We are so lucky to have founding documents and men who were brave enough to shed blood for such ideals and wisdom, but that document "gives" nothing nor "allows" anything. It merely places certain/limited powers in the hands of the Federal Government and literally says what they CANNOT do.

The idea that "Rights" flow from a governing body- is purely ludicrous. That would be a permission, by definition. We do not have a bill of "permissions".

At the time the Constitution was written, cannons were in private hands, the most destructive military arms of the day, were privately held and the intent of the 2A was absolutely to protect, ALL ARMS. Not just one form over another.

Another logical fallacy, on your part.

In fact, it was meant to keep individuals armed as well as the government itself so as to keep Governments from running wild and enslaving the masses.

If you truly understand the intent of the 2A and most of the BOR and the Constitution itself, and I really believe you do not, Bodie- you would know that the intent behind the 2A was to keep Tyranny in check and keep individual freedom and expression alive and well.

Governments always corrupt and tyranny results, revolutions happen to squash tyranny, wash rinse and repeat- throughout all of history. over and effing over again.

Wether it was the outlawing of swords, or long bows, or cross bows or martial arts, or any form of self defense and the means/tools to fight back against tyranny, governments have been outlawing these things for all of our known history in order to control and subvert and control entire populations and societies.


Our Constitution, and the intent behind it was to keep tyranny at bay for was long as possible and create a legal construct to act as a road block that would be hard to overcome so we as free individuals have the greatest chance of remaining free individuals.

Times do change, but some things never change. If one researches our history it is simple to see what doesn't and won't change- people in power seek to control other people absolutely, some times it's well intended, sometimes. However- it ALWAYS ends badly.

More people have been murdered by their own government, by first being disarmed so they cannot fight back and then being collected like cattle and led to the slaughter than by any other means. Hundreds of Millions.

I, for one am glad the Constitution Wass so well thought out an written. It has taken a long time for it to be subverted, piece by piece it has been, though.

I hope people take the time to truly inform themselves, so we are not always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and allow evil deeds to be visited upon us, constantly by our own actions or inactions.

I hope you're recovering rom the flu and doing well. Take care.

Clearly you do spend a lot of time debating this, and yet sheer volume of simple sentences does not make right. No matter what term is used for the mechanism of change, it IS still change. The Founding Fathers recognized a need to change our laws could arise in the future, thus the amendment process. Good people also complained about women's suffrage, using the same kind of argument as yourself.

And it is laughable to think that an armed citizenry can fight off our federal government. I like that movie, Red Dawn, also (not the second one), and dreamed about being a partisan against overwhelming force, but no, that shit doesn't work. How about we recognize that our nation is one of laws, and we work to fix issues by voting, not by the gun barrel? And if you lose, if too many brown skinned people are immigrating here and passing laws you don't like? Well, bummer. That's democracy. The idea of fighting your own government is called "armed insurrection." The South tried that already, lol.

 

[Charlievee]

You lost me here. Wut are you talking about? Otherwise, we do have a need for universal health care. All the experts (not us keyboard warriors) conclude that the financial cost to society is less, if more people are healthy. And of all the developed nations in the world, why can 80 other nations provide free or heavily-subsidized healthcare, but we can't? Greatest nation on the earth should be able to take care of its citizens, especially the old ones. And yet now McConnel is saying the deficit is so great, the he needs to take hundreds of millions from social security and medicare? WTF? Greatest nation on the earth, and we're killing programs like Meals on Wheels? MOney that came from our paychecks. But he needs it for a fricken wall? I've got an old neighbor who just got a free fridge, two cords of wood, and his house insulated, but still he rants about socialism. As he cashes his SS check every month. Nuts.

Lots of drama in this rant. Universal health care is not in the constitution, just like the "assault weapons" (God that's hard to even type). So if the founders could not imagine ... Modern day "assault weapons"then they could not have possibly dreamed up of modern medical techniques. So, if your willing to subject patriots to muskets then you surely must be willing to accept that there is no right to "universal health care" as it was not considered at the time. As for"the wall" it's a great album and constitutional to defend one's boarder. If it was me, I would use napalm, but it's not. I have no issue taking care of citizens... CITIZENS! One can not do it without controlling or even knowing how many people are in and entering the county. You are under the illusion that These United States are the greatest in the world, but fail to see the corruption, the usurpation of rights and the government greed that takes place in the name of " humane" treatment.

 

[Bodie the Dog]

Lots of drama in this rant. Universal health care is not in the constitution, just like the "assault weapons" (God that's hard to even type). So if the founders could not imagine ... Modern day "assault weapons"then they could not have possibly dreamed up of modern medical techniques. So, if your willing to subject patriots to muskets then you surely must be willing to accept that there is no right to "universal health care" as it was not considered at the time. As for"the wall" it's a great album and constitutional to defend one's boarder. If it was me, I would use napalm, but it's not. I have no issue taking care of citizens... CITIZENS! One can not do it without controlling or even knowing how many people are in and entering the county. You are under the illusion that These United States are the greatest in the world, but fail to see the corruption, the usurpation of rights and the government greed that takes place in the name of " humane" treatment.

Whether or not there is a right to healthcare is rather irrelevant, if it turns out to benefit us individually and as a society. The current system is flawed, worst in all the developed nations. We get the least health services for the most amount of money. Our life expectancy is going down, maternal death rate is increasing, prescription drug overdose is the number one cause of accidental death, but you really don't think we need to change this big time? I'm sorry that makes this a rant. Complex issues require complex explanations. Maybe we need a different thread for health care debate, ha. I do understand off topic.

 

[Inv4drZm]

Whether or not there is a right to healthcare is rather irrelevant, if it turns out to benefit us individually and as a society. The current system is flawed, worst in all the developed nations. We get the least health services for the most amount of money. Our life expectancy is going down, maternal death rate is increasing, prescription drug overdose is the number one cause of accidental death, but you really don't think we need to change this big time? I'm sorry that makes this a rant. Complex issues require complex explanations. Maybe we need a different thread for health care debate, ha. I do understand off topic.

If it needs changed it shouldn't come from the government. They tend to screw up everything they get involved with.

There is no way the government can run healthcare cheaper and better than what we have now.

 

[Charlievee]

Whether or not there is a right to healthcare is rather irrelevant, if it turns out to benefit us individually and as a society. The current system is flawed, worst in all the developed nations. We get the least health services for the most amount of money. Our life expectancy is going down, maternal death rate is increasing, prescription drug overdose is the number one cause of accidental death, but you really don't think we need to change this big time? I'm sorry that makes this a rant. Complex issues require complex explanations. Maybe we need a different thread for health care debate, ha. I do understand off topic.

I have no heart strings to pull. If the system can't sustain the endless masses looking for handouts, maybe it's time to think about thinning the heard ( oh, free health care is out there. I will see you at first formation at 0530). Yes the system is expensive, yes it's not sustainable at current levels, but it's still the best care any place in the world and I can get the best healthcare money can buy and an AR10 or 15 if I want, because that's my right. If the libs want to change the constitution( government ball and chain) then feel free to sign up for the convention of states.

 

[dorton]

Clearly you do spend a lot of time debating this, and yet sheer volume of simple sentences does not make right. No matter what term is used for the mechanism of change, it IS still change. The Founding Fathers recognized a need to change our laws could arise in the future, thus the amendment process. Good people also complained about women's suffrage, using the same kind of argument as yourself.

And it is laughable to think that an armed citizenry can fight off our federal government. I like that movie, Red Dawn, also (not the second one), and dreamed about being a partisan against overwhelming force, but no, that shit doesn't work. How about we recognize that our nation is one of laws, and we work to fix issues by voting, not by the gun barrel? And if you lose, if too many brown skinned people are immigrating here and passing laws you don't like? Well, bummer. That's democracy. The idea of fighting your own government is called "armed insurrection." The South tried that already, lol.

From the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Rights are to limit the Government, not the People.


Armed citizenry fought off the British Army, sent by a Tyrannical government with too much power. Many of the colonials felt just like you, and didn't think it was a revolt that could be won by such a small partisan force. “People don’t think it be like it is, but it do.”

Democracy? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Ben Franklin

How about we recognize we're a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. If we were a Democracy, we would have President Clinton at the helm.

 

[96RedRunner]

I gave myself a timeout from the Internet, ha,..

Bodie, this thread is about firearms that we enjoy owning and shooting why muddy the waters.

 

[dorton]

CZ Bren 802

CZ P-10c

 

[RO1973]

From the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Rights are to limit the Government, not the People.


Armed citizenry fought off the British Army, sent by a Tyrannical government with too much power. Many of the colonials felt just like you, and didn't think it was a revolt that could be won by such a small partisan force. “People don’t think it be like it is, but it do.”

Democracy? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Ben Franklin

How about we recognize we're a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. If we were a Democracy, we would have President Clinton at the helm.

+87 :lmao:

 

[Bodie the Dog]

Ok

Bodie, this thread is about firearms that we enjoy owning and shooting why muddy the waters.

Despite my views, I do know there are way more knowledgable people than myself out there, and so I really do want to understand their view. And I figure this thread is a good place to learn from people with whom I share a few things in common. If you're wheelin in a 4runner, then +100 respect, ha.

Because I don't get it. Guns are awesome, but maybe we can be a little flexible in their regulation, because so many good people are being killed by them.

Thanks, everyone, back to the gungasm now. :happy:

 

[96RedRunner]

because so many good people are being killed by them...

2016-17 75,000 automobile related fatalities, no mention of regulating automobiles or outlawing.
2016 11,000 gun homicides, this number excludes suicides includes gang bangers, thugs, crazy people.
If guns and lack of regulations were the problem est 300 mil + guns in US, we would know it.

 

[Battle Born Offroad]

I own about a half dozen guns myself. Bought a couple, inherited more. I like shooting and blowing things up. I like being prepared for the bad guys, whom I do see in my travels. I do hunt mulies and black tails.

But I also recognize certain truths, as much as I don't like them. The 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated milita." How can that part of the amendment be ignored? Words matter. Those were inserted for a reason.

Can we have a civil debate on this subject? What am I missing?

TIA, BTD

No debate needed, and nothing is being ignored. The terms have meant the same thing for over 250 years.

"Well regulated"
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

"Militia" - 10 U.S. Code § 246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 (under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.) under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


TLDR: If you are under 45, or under 64 and a Veteran - you are in the militia.

 

[That_Titanium_4RNR]

Heres my Daniel Defense DDM4V7 Pro
It has a Vortex Optics Strike Eagle 1-8x24 scope with a Vortex QD mount
Some kind of generic MLOK bi-pod that I can't remember the name of currently, and it is my baby.

My other baby is my Benelli M2
It has the 26" bbl and MAX5 camo. It's my go to for duck hunting and clay shooting.

I used to have a Smith and Wesson M&P9 Fullsize in black, but it got stolen about a year and a half after I purchased it. Believe it or not, the theft happened in a church parking lot of all places. The sheriffs dept. was immediately notified and I am hoping one of these days I will get it back if they find someone trying to sell it or something like that.

I have a Mossberg 500 as well. Got it when I was 14 for my first gun. Obviously nothing special but it taught me respect for weapons, and how to clean and take care of my things. It's simple, and has never let me down throughout any of the years I've owned it.

I also plan on picking up a bolt action at some point this year for deer hunting. I really like the Tikka rifles, and will probably end up with one of them.

Also in the future I want an AR pistol as my current one has an 18" bbl on it and isn't very conducive to tight quarters

 

[Charlievee]

So, does anyone else have firearms that they never fired? I have a 22 bolt action marlin that my grandma got me back in the early 80's and more recent Walther PPQ45 brand spanking new. Really need to find a range down here in the swamps.

 

[jordanrb81]

So, does anyone else have firearms that they never fired? I have a 22 bolt action marlin that my grandma got me back in the early 80's and more recent Walther PPQ45 brand spanking new. Really need to find a range down here in the swamps.

No, however I am lucky to be a member of a terrific range www.pemi.org that has both indoor (heated) and outdoor facilities and it's like 15 minutes from my house and on my route to and from work. So any firearm I get has a couple hundred rounds run through it pretty quick. I haven't hit the 1,000 round mark on my newest acquisition; a Springfield Armory 1911 .45 acp if that makes you feel better.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

Clearly you do spend a lot of time debating this, and yet sheer volume of simple sentences does not make right. No matter what term is used for the mechanism of change, it IS still change. The Founding Fathers recognized a need to change our laws could arise in the future, thus the amendment process. Good people also complained about women's suffrage, using the same kind of argument as yourself.

And it is laughable to think that an armed citizenry can fight off our federal government. I like that movie, Red Dawn, also (not the second one), and dreamed about being a partisan against overwhelming force, but no, that shit doesn't work. How about we recognize that our nation is one of laws, and we work to fix issues by voting, not by the gun barrel? And if you lose, if too many brown skinned people are immigrating here and passing laws you don't like? Well, bummer. That's democracy. The idea of fighting your own government is called "armed insurrection." The South tried that already, lol.

Bodie, before I go down this rabbit hole with you any further- please, please, PLEASE answer me this...

What type of regulation /legislation do you want and how would it make a difference/stop atrocities from happening?

Be specific here and exactly how would it have stopped any of the mass murders that have occurred with firearms. Use a specific example of a Mass shooting and specific example of legislation that you believe would have stopped it and why.

I like details, so please lay them on me.

We are not a "democracy". Period. You can think it, write it, chant it, pray for it, masturbate to it even, but we are a Constitutional Republic.

I implore you to think about how less than 9% of our population won an unwindable war against the greatest military force known to man- the British during our Revolutionary war. Outgunned, outmanned, etc- yet we destroyed them and won our Independence; really it's the only reason we are having this conversation right now.

Do some research on our active and retired military. How many of them there are, the oaths they take and the type of people they are and what they believe in and why they fight/fought int he first place.

If the USA every went sideways and declared war on their own people- the people would absolutely win. Sheer numbers of those that would fight against such tyranny would suffice.

You think dudes that swore an oath to defend the Constitution are going to just kill their fellow citizens and brothers because an out of control elitist bunch of morons that control our government tell them to?

Sure, many would follow orders, but many would not.

You think local LEO's are any different?

Once you wage war on Liberty and freedom, you become an enemy to a great number of folks within your own community, you have to sleep and eat and shit sometime, you have to leave your family to do your bidding sometime- with a lot of angry people wanting to harm you- how do you escape that?

Ask anyone who was in AFG or IRAQ recently about the people fighting there with improvised explosives and firearms from the 80's- dudes in caves with AK's and simple explosives were not a day at the park nor easily deterred or defeated by MUCH more advanced tech and weaponry and tactics.

There are more armed citizens in the USA than the next 5 largest standing military force combined. A lot of them military vets and LEO's with knowledge of tactics and improvised weaponry.

If even 3% of them decided to stand together, it is a force that is unbeatable.

There's a lot that you have not even given a modicum of thought about.

I could be wrong, but my guess is the only knowledge of warfare you have comes from TV and books- like Red Dawn as you mentioned.

Look at the DC snipers, look at Chris Dorner, look at the Boston bombers. Just a few dudes that caused mass chaos with simple and effective (Albeit heinous and evil) tactics.

Picture a million+ strong network of folks standing up for their rights and their liberty- and you believe they will be easily dealt with-?!?!?!?

Reality isn't on your side my friend. Not by a long shot.

I'm not advocating any of this, just merely pointing out some truths and details you are completely missing.

So, lets get back to my first paragraph here- name a legislative action/regulation and a specific event/mass shooting that the regulation/legislation you propose would have stopped.