For 25m to 300m. Shotgun close in......scoped rifle further out.
With all due respect for the thoughtfulness of the 101 reasons, there is but ONE reason. It is precisely because the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Whether the arms are held by citizens for hunting, personal protection - whatever, the government does not have the right to infringe on the possession. I take this to mean the Federal Government, which is specifically prohibited from infringement as the rest of the BOR discusses free speech, religion, billeting, etc.
Our founders knew exactly what they were doing, saying and writing. The real reason they kept this right foremost (only below free speech) is because they knew a time might come when citizens would have to protect themselves from tyranny. The tyranny of a mutated Federal Government involved in lives they seek to subjugate.
The next time you hear a liberal tell you ‘that gun is an assault weapon and isn’t for hunting’ you tell them “it most certainly is, it is for hunting and defeating bureacrats who seek to enslave you.”
My answer to folks who remark that I don’t “need” an assault rifle has been...
“Maybe. But what if I ever do?”
I don’t need any reason. It isn’t part of the criteria for a right. A right should come without restrictions.
102. Because it liberals democrats off.
While I can appreciate what Nappen is trying to do, he failed even before his list of reasons started. Why? Because he adopted the terminology of the enemy (domestic enemies, actually), which is to call a semi-automatic firearm that takes a box magazine an “assault weapon.” For those that do not know, and “assault weapon” is properly defined as a select-fire weapon that fires an intermediate-sized rifle cartridge. “Select-fire” means “capable of fully automatic fire” i.e. more than one bullet will leave the barrel per trigger pull. By definition, a semi-auto requires one trigger pull per round fired, so NONE of them are “assault weapons” no matter how much they may cosmetically look like a real “assault weapon.”
I wish that Nappen and others on our side would stop using the language and assumptions of our domestic enemies. He who sets the terms of a debate wins it, because the other guy is always on defense.
For the record, if the evil Schumer addition to the cyber security bill is approved by the House, I can guarantee that there will be a LOT of otherwise solid Republican voters that will find it far more convenient to go to the range or reload a bunch of ammo than to vote. YES, that’s a threat to the Republicans in the House - KILL THIS BILL OR RISK LOSING YOUR SEAT!
ANTONIN SCALIA (Supreme Court Justice) "It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated 'Militia.' Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that . There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant." A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton University Press "[T]hey [the Founders] feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights." A Matter of Interpretation
JOSEPH STORY (Supreme Court Justice) "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p.3:746-7, 1833)
CLARENCE THOMAS (Supreme Court Justice) "The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. If the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections" (U.S. v. Printz, 1997)
This is stupid and plays right into the hands of liberals. We’re still trying to play their losing game of answer the charges. They’re controlling to conversation and language. Its our RIGHT to keep and bear arms period, end of discussion, debate over. Its inalienable. Theres no need to justify it.
Northwest Indiana Times
Bystander killed in shooting of 2 officers near Indianapolis
3 hours ago • By The Associated Press
PENDLETON, Ind. (AP) — A man opened fire as police arrived to investigate a reported disturbance at a central Indiana home, killing a bystander in a nearby car and wounding two officers before apparently taking his own life, police said Friday.
Pendleton Police Chief Marc Farrer said the suspected gunman, 59-year-old Jim Kenneth Bailey of New Castle, was found dead Friday morning outside a residence in the town about 25 miles northeast of Indianapolis.
Farrer said police believe Bailey fatally shot himself at some point during an hours-long manhunt that followed the Thursday night shooting, which left the two officers with injuries that were not considered to be life-threatening. The chief said Bailey had been armed with an AK-47 assault rifle.
police dog was struck and killed in the shooting.
To maintain the security of the FREE STATE!