[El Gato]

AR-15 rifles are not needed to hunt deer

I don't remember any mention of "need" in the second amendment.

However they are partly correct. They aren't needed, and in some states wouldn't be allowed for hunting deer, because they are not powerful enough.

They are partly incorrect as well, they are needed for hunting.... out of control politicians , as per the intent of the Founding Fathers. Event the very liberal member of the Democrat-Farm-Labor Party, US Senator, and later Vice President of the United States, understood that much.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to bear arms. . . . [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
-Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, "Know Your Lawmakers", _Guns_, Feb. 1960

[El Gato]

Anyone needing an automatic shotgun to hunt pheasants, rabbits or partridge probably needs a prescription from a neurologist to reduce finger tremors or fight off tension.

Fully automatic shotguns, like other full auto weapons, are already tightly regulated at the federal, and by most states. Semiautomatic shotguns are routinely used in hunting pheasants, and in shooting trap, skeet, and most especially sporting clays.

As usual those who would infringe upon our rights are woefully, and willfully, ignorant of the actual uses and technology of firearms.

[tcostell]

Well he's all wrong in the head, but he has a point about not using an AR15 for deer. If you are going to hunt deer you should use something a lot more powerful in my opinion. To shoot a deer with that little bullet is to see it run a long way before it falls. That's hard on the hunter who has to drag it back, and inhumane for the deer who gets to die more slowly.

As for an elk, I'm not sure a cute little .223 would do it unless you hit it just right.

[OXENinFLA]

I believe we should remember that the arms of 1789 were smoothbore Kentucky rifles and that discharge was accomplished by a flint-lock striking a steel, and sending a spark into some gunpowder that ignited the propellant and sent the bullet (or buckshot) on its wiggly way. This was a single shot device (or two shot, with two flint-locks and two barrels). Not even the "six-shooter" was invented at that time. My point is that single-shot weapons, with a long time to re-load, remove school and office massacres that can be caused by automatic weapons.

So by this logic the 1st amendment only applies to Quill pens and paper.

[airborne]

AR-15 rifles not needed to hunt

Depends on who yer huntin'!(sarc)

[Tarpon]

My 2007 predictions ...

Higher taxes to fund donk socialism and gun control so you can't do anything about it. Everything old is new again, the real donk agenda all along.

Check me in 2008, see how close I come.

[webster]

If you would like to reply to Bernard, his address and phone can be found on http://www.zabasearch.com

[lawdude]

Some of the most non-sensical, illogical and baseless arguments I have ever heard.

[nosofar]

Actually, guns aren't needed to hunt at all. All a gun accomplishes is hunting with a bit more efficiency.

[DMZFrank]

Some one oughta tell this idiot that the first printing presses, such as those of the 16th century and earlier, were screw-type presses designed primarily to bring pressure on the printing form, which was placed face up in a flat bed. The paper, generally dampened, was pressed against the type by the movable surface, or platen. The upperparts of the posts of the press often were braced against the ceiling, and after the form was inked the platen was screwed down against the form. The press was equipped with rails on which the form could be slid out of the press and then back onto the bed, so that the platen did not have to be raised far. Nevertheless, the operation was slow and cumbersome; such a press produced only about 250 impressions an hour, printing only one side of the paper at a single impression. So government should have a near unlimited right to govern and censor all these modern forms of high speed communications since they weren't around when the 1st amendment was written, right?


Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.


If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny. We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.

The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.

[abigailsmybaby]

And here all this time I thought the second amendment was all about we the people having the means to take out a government that has forgotten it's a government of the people, by the people, for the people....or something like that. Oh dummy me.

[TLI]

Bernard Roth... My point is that single-shot weapons, with a long time to re-load, remove school and office massacres that can be caused by automatic weapons.

As opposed to the...

The Paoli Massacre is the name Americans have bestowed upon a battle during the American Revolutionary War. It was fought between British and American forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paoli_Massacre

Gnadenhütten massacre on March 8, 1782 was a mass murder of ninety-six Christian Munsee American Indians, including sixty women and children, by American militia from Pennsylvania during the American Revolutionary War. The incident took place near Gnadenhutten, Ohio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenh%C3%BCtten_massacre

2. Sedgwick's sympathy for the Indians who are being destroyed by the English settlers. The Indian massacre repeats an English one; students can be asked to read the "Speech of Chief Seattle" and to compare its rhetoric to the speech of Mononotto in the first selection from Hope Leslie. Sedgwick's sympathy is also shown in the discussion of the marriage of Faith Leslie to an Indian.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/heath/syllabuild/iguide/sedgwick.html

The Effects of The September Massacre on Perceptions of Sans-culottes The savage depiction of the sans-culotte in this image, correlates to the popular opinions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The working class is depicted as violent, uncivilized predators. The caricature followed the September Massacre, a massacre of a group of priests being transferred from prison. During the massacre, three bishops and over two hundred priests were murdered. The British obviously viewed these cruel murders as an act of savagery from the revolutionary French lower class. Since the sans-culotte were associated with the working-man, the caricature portrays the working class and the militant sans-culottes as one in the same.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/page2.html

All carried out with single-shot weapons that took a long time to re-load. The only point the good Mr. Bernard Roth seems to have is the one on top of his tiny little head.

As far as what the Second Amendment means, the words "hunting" and "armory" are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. no matter how lustfull the wet dreams of Mr. Bernard Roth might be.

Proper execution of the Second Amendment, American CITIZENS with modern firearms of the day.





King "George" got his AZZ kicked once. Ought to work again...

[MarkL]

And given this BEM's (Booger Eating Moron) line of "thought" (if you can really call it that), radio, TV, and all forms of electronic communication wouldn't be covered under the First Amendment, since none of these had been invented either...

Mark

[jwalsh07]

A well regulated militia being necessary to hunt squirrels, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall be infringed whenever possible.

[KoRn]

To the author,

STFU you asshat! I use BOTH of my AR-15s for varmints, some leisure target shooting, and plinking. I love loading them up with those evil 30 round mags because I it allows me to shoot a little more without reloading.

PS: My weapons haven't killed anyone.

[NavyCanDo]

I sold my AR-15 long ago to help pay for my Wife's Wedding Ring. How dumb was that? Man I miss that beautiful firearm. I should of put the ring on VISA like everyone else