The Blog Heard 'Round The Industry

Chattanoogan.com ^ | February 20, 2007 | Jim Shepherd

[SAJ]

Her's a tip, genius. The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

[Candor7]

Guess Zumbo doesn't like top do any reloading.

Hunting what?

Hey , I should be able to hunt whatever I want, and if it takes a semi auto with a large capacity mag, its none of HIS bidness.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Another lie from the Horndog. He was never a Life Member of NRA.

[DBrow]

I've seen that, but with 69 or 77 gr HPs, not the military ball 55's. Handloads, too. Some states don't allow .223 as a deer round due to lack of (perceived) one-shot effectiveness, which is why I didn't mention it above.

The 30 cal AK round has a bit more energy.

[Rakkasan1]

it's the "Goldilocks Gun Theory" proposed by the libs: "it's too small" (concealable),
"it's too big"(it could shoot down airliners,etc)

"jussst right" you ask? (no such gun)

about the same answer you'd get if you ask a lib how much spending per pupil would be enough for public schools.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I guess we should allow people to have tanks in their backyard as well.

There are a number of privately owned tanks.

"There is no reason for any hunter to have a war weapon. With the terrorism that we have to deal with today the risk of allowing such weapons is too great."

EVERY hunting firearm of today was once "a war weapon". But the specific firearms in question are NOT "war weapons"--they just look like them. The difference is that today's "war weapons" have "full automatic fire" capability. The firearms in question do not have such capability.

Study up and relieve your blatant ignorance.

[Courdeleon02]

<> I support the constitution and the right to bear arms.But there must be reasonable restrictions.Only our military should have assault weapons and of course other law enforcement agencies as well.

[Hatteras]

"With the terrorism that we have to deal with today the risk of allowing such weapons is too great."

The point is that if all the bad guys had "war weapons", you, as a law-abiding citizen, will be left with nothing comparable for which to defend yourself. The bad guys (domestic or international) will get the weapons even if they are deemed "illegal". That's what bad guys do.

[holymoly]

There is no reason for any hunter to have a war weapon.

Assuming that comment was not in jest...

You need to educate your self about firearms. I suggest you start with my Freeper homepage, and go from there.

By making statements such as this, you are simply displaying your ignorance.

[ßuddaßudd]

Just as there is no reason to own a vehicle than can exceed the legal speed limit.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I think that line was drawn in the 30's with the NFA. The bazooka argument is specious.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Draw your own line and while you're at it, post a "No Guns Here" sign in your front yard.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Only our military should have assault weapons

Can you even define 'assault weapon'?

[Billthedrill]

There is no reason for any hunter to have a war weapon.

Yes, actually there is - because he or she desires to. That is all the reason necessary.

[norton]

"I guess we should allow people to have tanks in their backyard as well."

Not necessary, there is a guy along side my local off ramp who parks his curbside almost daily.

Cute little thing. (The tank)

PS: I still think this was a Remington attempt to shill it's .17 Cal varmint round that went terribly wrong.

[ctdonath2]

There is no serious difference between the two. Each category may be optimized for certain activities, but lack of optimization does not make them useless for those activities. Plenty of people do a fine job of a given task when using the "wrong" tools, as they all do the job suitably.

And yes, while a tank may be a bit much, I am looking for a howitzer.

It's not about hunting.

[DBrow]

"Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere."

The constitution allows you to assemble a private military force and go after a defined party who aggrieves you.

The same constitution stops government from restricting how you can arm your forces. Simple.

A competent commander would be able to tell what hardware is needed, and nukes are just so fussy to maintain and deploy and so messy in use that I don't think it would be the problem that you imagine. Nukes are practically unusable except at very large scales.

[metesky]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line is what a U.S. infantryman carries for weaponry.

[P8riot]

I guess we should allow people to have tanks in their backyard as well. There is no reason for any hunter to have a war weapon. With the terrorism that we have to deal with today the risk of allowing such weapons is too great.

So we should roll over and play dead when the terrorists that the pacifists let into this country start picking us off in shopping malls? Oh wait, I just read something about that too. It seems that the owners of that mall didn't think anyone had need of a gun either.

The funny thing about rights, that I wouldn't expect one of the sheeple to understand, is that they are not predicated upon what someone else recognizes as another person's "need". The rights are ours based on our humanity, and though the government infringes on them they cannot truly take them away.

[ExSoldier]

Tolerance? Not from me.

Can we get a rousing AMEN? A-M-E-N, Brudder!!! I'm sick and tired of having the folks I volunteer to help get elected turn around and STAB me in the back and tell me it's for the good of the nation. IOW, Don't PI$$ down my back and tell me it's rainin'! That goes double for "journalists" who claim to support the Second Amendment. Zumbo shot himself in the foot on full auto. He deserves to feel our pain for quite awhile.