[estrogen]

I agree with you Diamond6. My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter. He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun. Well...flame away all

[Mulder]

My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter.

Oh, so he has an evil "sniper rifle"?

You do realize that most hunting rifles fire rounds MUCH more powerful and with significantly more range than a typical .223 "assault weapon" round.

He doesn't need an assault weapon

That's his problem, not mine.

and I don't think anyone else does

Since 1994, there have been around 1 million AR15's sold to Americans. That doesn't count other semiautos, nor those made before then. So how exactly do you propose to steal millions of rifles from Americans?

[Jesse]

"He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does."


Do we really have to go through what the difference is between a right and a privilege, and a need versus a right?

A right is inherent, God-given, and not dependent upon what another person thinks it is or should be.

A privilege is.

A need is essential for the survival or well being of a person, but is not necessarily a right. For example, you have a need to eat. You do not have a right to force me to feed you.

Why is it you believe that what you think should be, should be for me?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..he doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun....

The Second Amendment isn't about the right to hunt ducks, Estrogen. But you can tell your hubby from me, if he sits out the AWB issue because it doesn't involve him personally, it won't be long until the gun grabbers, energised by success, are coming for his bolt-action .22.

That's what happened here.

[Kadric]

And I enjoy shooting firearms of all types. I also do not see a need for most people to hunt. Not against it just don't see the need for it.

[PuNcH]

My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter. He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun. Well...flame away all

The 2nd amendment isnt a sportsman's right.

What is a sportsman's gun? A bolt action sniper(hunting) rifle firing a bullet 3 times heavier than what is fired from a M16? A scatter gun, streetsweeper, riot gun(shotgun)?

[UbonGhostrider]

The Second Ammendment isn't about anyone's sporting or hunting firearms, it's about our final option to keeping America's liberties.

[Godebert]

"My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter. He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun. Well...flame away all"

Not a flame....just a question. Where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment was created for "sportsmen"?

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I agree with you Diamond6. My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter. He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This Amendment is often misunderstood. A well-regulated militia means a well-maintained and armed body of men composed of the common people. The Amendment emphasizes that such militias are necessary to secure the freedoms of the people.

George Washington said on this subject, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Thomas Jefferson also stated, “"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The Second Amendment is not about sport or hunting, it's about keeping a check against government power. Military type weapons are best to arm peace keeping unorganized militia in the U.S.A. to protect our liberties.

[RogueIsland]

He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does.

Fortunately we have a Constitution to prevent the rest of us from being ruled by what various people with hangups about this or that "think" we need or don't need. Unfortunately, said Constitution is routinely flushed down the toilet by politicians right and left and center, and by a Judiciary more interested in implementing social policy than adhering to the Constitution.

[dirtboy]

He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does.

You can make that argument about EVERY right listed in the Bill of Rights. "Don't need the 4th Amendment, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear." Or, "You don't need to worry about self-incrimination if you haven't broken the law." Should I go on?

The so-called assault weapons ban is nothing but gun control incrementalism - there is nothing special about the lethality of these weapons, but, since they look like military weapons, it is an effort by the gun-control crowd to frame the debate over gun rights into the ability to hunt, not the ability to defend yourself or against a tyrannical government.

[allodialman]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, collecting, or sportsmans guns; Just throw out the Second and then the First; Things change again so....Throw out the Third.....oh we don't need the Fouth either....JUST GIVE US A KING, WE DON'T NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE. Sorry, I find myself yelling.

[lawdog]

The Second Amendment is NOT about "sporting guns". Gun Control isn't about the absence of guns. It's about WHO will have the MONOPOLY on them.