[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39230408]What you don't get is that the second amendment was made to protect the people from a tyrannical government. A government likely using military grade firearms... so the people would need to have them too.
I'm Canadian too, but the intent of the founding fathers with the 2nd Amendment is pretty easy to understand for me.[/QUOTE]I don't think the military, who have civilian families wouldn't kill innocent civilians, or threaten them, or what have you. (This assumes we live in a non-dictatorship)
I do understand (but appreciate how you didn't say 'yer dumb yer dumb') is that the constitution is to protect against the government. But the constitution is also out of date and doesn't represent our changes in technology as well. I doubt the founding fathers would imagine fully automatic weapons would even fit in the hands of a man.
Aside from the fact that founding fathers actually put out an order for an 'automatic musket' known as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock]Belton Flintlock[/url].
[quote]There are no known surviving examples of Belton's gun; in fact, the only evidence of its existence is the correspondence between Belton and Congress. Belton described the gun as capable of firing up to "sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time". It is theorized that it worked in a manner similar to a Roman candle, with a single lock igniting a fused chain of charges stacked in a single barrel, packaged as a single large paper cartridge.[1] Despite commissioning Belton to build or modify 100 muskets for the military on May 3, 1777, the order was dismissed in May, 15, 1777, when Congress received Belton's bid and considered it an "extraordinary allowance".[2] After the war was over, Belton is reported to have attempted to sell the design to the British Army, also without success.[3] Belton then began making superposed load flintlocks, which used a sliding lock mechanism, with the London gunsmith William Jover, and attempted to sell them to the East India Company. At least two examples survive, of pistols which utilize four touchholes, and these are housed in the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University of Oxford.[4] The Belton sliding lock design was later improved and used in slightly more successful designs, such as Isaiah Jenning's repeating flintlock rifle.[5][/quote]
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230494]I don't think the military, who have civilian families wouldn't kill innocent civilians, or threaten them, or what have you. (This assumes we live in a non-dictatorship)
I do understand (but appreciate how you didn't say 'yer dumb yer dumb') is that the constitution is to protect against the government. But the constitution is also out of date and doesn't represent our changes in technology as well. I doubt the founding fathers would imagine fully automatic weapons would even fit in the hands of a man.[/QUOTE]
As somebody else has said before, it's also doubtful they assumed people would be able to be so connected and say damn near anything online anonymously, or be able to so effectively orchestrate protests via social media. This doesn't mean that the first amendment is outdated. Saying something is bad because it's old is just as wrong as saying it's good because of it's age.
That's ignoring the fact that without tons of red tape and fees you don't even have the ability to pay a few thousand dollars for an automatic weapon in the first place.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230440]You can still obtain handgun's and black rifles, we have black rifles, we use them all at gun clubs.
We use black rifles to hunt in my town so I have no idea what your on about.
Handguns require 10 more hours of training, which costs $100 and a background check (Just like the one you get for getting your firearms license.)
Handguns are only allowed at your house, and at gun clubs. Your not supposed to stop anywhere. Yes, that might be annoying. But where else do you want to use them?
We don't have many gun related deaths in Canada, our training in hunting and just for firearms results in 0 accidental deaths in 2009-2010.
Anyway, I have class ladies. Rate me dumb to show how close minded you are, and Ill live with my firearms in Canada without getting shot up or having metal detectors in our schools.[/QUOTE]
Most black rifles are prohibited by name for no reason other than notoriety and aesthetics, and the RCMP deliberately tries to ban every black rifle that makes its way into Canada by trying to justify it as a converted automatic.
Handguns with short barrels and in .25 and .32 are banned for no reason, and the setting of barrel length just above 4" is deliberately meant to make getting a handgun, many of which are made with 4" barrels, more difficult and expensive.
You can't carry a handgun for self-defense, you can't use them for hunting, and the AT&T is the most useless and annoying piece of shit because it restricts you to one gun range. You also can't shoot a handgun on your own property, but you can shoot a .50 calibre rifle.
I'm Canadian as well, and I adamantly believe that our firearms law is ass-backwards and useless, and scientific research conducted by McMaster University backs me up in my beliefs. We don't have lower homicide numbers because of gun control, it's because we have better social security and healthcare. Mag restrictions are circumvented so easily it's pathetic they still exist, and I can't buy a Walther PPK to take to the range or an AK-47 to take deer hunting, and you cant't take your AR-15 out for Coyote, despite the fact that it'd make an ideal coyote gun. Our gun laws are broken and nonsensical, we are an example of how NOT to do it. Now our gun laws from 1978-1995, those laws were a lot better, and a much better example of how to enact effective gun control.
Also, don't act like you're somehow morally or intelectually superior and rating you dumb is some kind of redundant, futile statement. Myself and everyone else will rate you disagree if you ha e a consice point we disagree with, we'll rate you dumb I'd we feel you're being dumb, arrogant, and/or condescending.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39230372]Confirmed for not having a frigging clue about what you're spewing. Here, have an explaination in bold letters.
[B]An AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle. It has the exact same rate of fire as any other semiautomatic weapon, starting from those from the late 1800's. Pull trigger = receive boom.[/B]
Also, it's piss easy to un-limit a limited magazine. In most cases it's a rivet, get a drill and enjoy 30 rounds out of your now-converted 5-rounder. Heck, you could even make one fairly easily, it's a metal box with a spring inside.[/QUOTE]Thanks for not understanding the point, the point was the AR15 was clearly made for the military.
@Trunk just because it's standard, doesn't mean it's not high.
10 is standard for some firearms, which is more realistic.
Don't try and discredit my knowledge of firearms just because I'm not used to the 1200 flavors of M4's AR-15's and such.
The point is still the same. Weapons designed for use by military should be used by the military.
Just because you say the AR15 was used for hunting, doesn't mean it was at first.
A lot of my information comes from articles and TV shows (not movies) about weapons and their advances.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230494]I don't think the military, who have civilian families wouldn't kill innocent civilians, or threaten them, or what have you. (This assumes we live in a non-dictatorship)
I do understand (but appreciate how you didn't say 'yer dumb yer dumb') is that the constitution is to protect against the government. But the constitution is also out of date and doesn't represent our changes in technology as well. I doubt the founding fathers would imagine fully automatic weapons would even fit in the hands of a man.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I don't like to assume people are stupid, I prefer to assume they just don't understand.
It's true that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have accounted for everything that would come. I don't imagine they had considered a federally administered army, for example. I bet they thought the states would want to have the autonomy to put together their own militas, as they did during the revolutionary war.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]Thanks for not understanding the point, the point was the AR15 was clearly made for the military.
@Trunk just because it's standard, doesn't mean it's not high.
10 is standard for some firearms, which is more realistic.
Don't try and discredit my knowledge of firearms just because I'm not used to the 1200 flavors of M4's AR-15's and such.
The point is still the same. Weapons designed for use by military should be used by the military.
Just because you say the AR15 was used for hunting, doesn't mean it was at first.
A lot of my information comes from articles and TV shows (not movies) about weapons and their advances.[/QUOTE]
AR-15 was actually made for civilian use before the army picked it up.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230494] But the constitution is also out of date and doesn't represent our changes in technology as well. I doubt the founding fathers would imagine fully automatic weapons would even fit in the hands of a man.[/QUOTE]
While I respect your opinion, I fail to understand how:
"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."
is out of date. It's simply saying that the people are allowed to form into militas, and bear arms. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is this:
The citizens have the right to bear arms that could be used to assault them, by a tyranical government or rouge military. In such an event, the amendment has already been violated in the sense that civilians cannot use military weapons.
The point is the founding father's wouldn't have imagined a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss them.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39230567]Most black rifles are prohibited by name for no reason other than notoriety and aesthetics, and the RCMP deliberately tries to ban every black rifle that makes its way into Canada by tryi g to justify it as a converted automatic.
Handguns with short barrels and in .25 and .32 are banned for no reason, and the setting of barrel length just above 4" is deliberately meant to make getting a handgun, many of which are made with 4" barrels, more difficult and expensive.
You can't carry a handgun for self-defense, you can't use them for hunting, and the AT&T is the most useless and annoying piece of shit because it restricts you to one gun range. You also can't shoot a handgun on your own property, but you can shoot a .50 calibre rifle.
I'm Canadian as well, and I adamantly believe that our firearms law is ass-backwards and useless, and scientific research conducted by McMaster University backs me up in my beliefs. We don't have lower homicide numbers because of gun control, it's because we have better social security and healthcare. Mag restrictions are circumvented so easily it's pathetic they still exist, and I can't buy a Walther PPK to take to the range or an AK-47 to take deer hunting, and you cant't take your AR-15 out for Coyote, despite the fact that it'd make an ideal coyote gun. Our gun laws are broken and nonsensical, we are an example of how NOT to do it. Now our gun laws from 1978-1995, those laws were a lot better, and a much better example of how to enact effective gun control.[/QUOTE]Coyote are often hunted with 22's around here.
I don't know which black rifles are prohibited but we have 3.
Handguns with short barrels can be used at gun clubs for people who do competition shoots, same with the .25 .32 issue. (IIRC)
Why would you hunt with a handgun when you can hunt with a rifle?
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]Thanks for not understanding the point, the point was the AR15 was clearly made for the military.
[/quote]
I don't understand how (even if it was) designed for the military, why that should stop civilian owners from owning a semi automatic version of it?
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]
@Trunk just because it's standard, doesn't mean it's not high.
10 is standard for some firearms, which is more realistic.
[/quote] 30 is still the standard for magazines, anything above that is high capacity. [QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]
Don't try and discredit my knowledge of firearms just because I'm not used to the 1200 flavors of M4's AR-15's and such.
[/quote]
I'll discredit it if you try and say all AR-15's are the same and all are built to mil spec, which they're not.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]
The point is still the same. Weapons designed for use by military should be used by the military.
Just because you say the AR15 was used for hunting, doesn't mean it was at first.
A lot of my information comes from articles and TV shows (not movies) about weapons and their advances.[/QUOTE]
Just because a weapon was designed for military use, doesn't mean a civilian can't own a civlianized variant of it. And I certainly hope you're not learning your firearms knowledge from sonsofguns or any of the other shitty Discovery channel firearms shows.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230609]
Why would you hunt with a handgun when you can hunt with a rifle?[/QUOTE]
The same reason people hunt with bows during gun season. Because they want to.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39230573]Yeah I don't like to assume people are stupid, I prefer to assume they just don't understand.
It's true that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have accounted for everything that would come. I don't imagine they had considered a federally administered army, for example. I bet they thought the states would want to have the autonomy to put together their own militas, as they did during the revolutionary war.
AR-15 was actually made for civilian use before the army picked it up.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that?
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230624]Can you prove that?[/QUOTE]
It says it right at the beginning of the Wikipedia article you posted.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230572]Weapons designed for use by military should be used by the military.
Just because you say the AR15 was used for hunting, doesn't mean it was at first.[/QUOTE]
Sir, there is a difference.
There is a military model, and a civilian model. The military model is used by the military, and the civilian model is used by the civilians.
Where in the constitution does it say that firearms are only to be used for hunting and sports? Why is it that people say, "Well that isn't practical for hunting, so why have it?"
Why have it? Because I fucking want it. Why is it anyone's business what I do with my property if I'm not breaking the law?
Why have a car with 500 horse power? You aren't going to use all of them.
Why have an SUV? You don't [I]need[/I] it. Well sir, the bill of rights is not a bill of needs. Shame on anyone and everyone who dicate what others [I]need[/I]. We call that socialism.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230609]Coyote are often hunted with 22's around here.
I don't know which black rifles are prohibited but we have 3.
Handguns with short barrels can be used at gun clubs for people who do competition shoots, same with the .25 .32 issue. (IIRC)
Why would you hunt with a handgun when you can hunt with a rifle?[/QUOTE]
Look up "List of guns banned in Canada" on Google.
And no, short-barreled handguns are banned, there are about 5 specific exemptions, other than that they are outright banned.
And I want to use a handgun in souther Ontario because it's safer than a rifle given how close everything is, more convenient to carry, more lightweight, and it makes it easier to drag to deer out of the bush by hand or in a pack if I don't have to worry about trying to carry my rifle/shotgun as well as the deer on my back and I don't have to worry about the rifle falling off of my back. Not to mention most deer are going to be seen within 50 yards down here, well within range of a long-barreled revolver with a scope.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230624]Can you prove that?[/QUOTE]
Looked into a few sources, they're all over the place. Wikipedia says it was designed for military sale first but I'm not sure that's correct. God damn internet sources
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230611]I don't understand how (even if it was) designed for the military, why that should stop civilian owners from owning a semi automatic version of it?
30 is still the standard for magazines, anything above that is high capacity.
I'll discredit it if you try and say all AR-15's are the same and all are built to mil spec, which they're not.
Just because a weapon was designed for military use, doesn't mean a civilian can't own a civlianized variant of it. And I certainly hope you're not learning your firearms knowledge from sonsofguns or any of the other shitty Discovery channel firearms shows.[/QUOTE]
Good point for the first part.
30 is still high.
I never said they were all the same, just that they are based off of a military weapon. Thank you.
No, from books, WW2 documentarys, online articles, first hand, second hand.
@Dogmachines
I don't know anyone who does that, and I know a lot of hunters. It's a big fine to do that, and people get caught for doing that kinda stuff in my area.
You can't use bows during gun season because rifles shoot further then bows. When it's gun season everyone knows it is and follows guidelines you learn in hunting training.
When it's bow season, you don't have to worry about shooting into a forest and hitting another hunter who's sitting in a tree stand.
Just because they want to, doesn't mean they should. If not for the law, but for their own safety.
Also, the Lee-Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, and SKS were all designed for military use, yet they're 3 of the most popular rifles in Canada. Should they be banned too due to their military history? How about the Winchester 94, used by some homeland defense reserve units during WWII?
The average buckshot round contains 9 pellets. The average tube fed shotgun contains between 6 and 8 rounds.
You can shoot a person 54 times without reloading. Ban shotguns.
Does wikipedia not say that it was created for the American Military?
But then they just changed the name and sold it as the M16.
Then the AR15 became the civilian model, same idea.
Shotguns can't fire those pellets at individual people, just one target.
Another thing we have up here is shotguns with three or less shells.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230808]Does wikipedia not say that it was created for the American Military?
But then they just changed the name and sold it as the M16.
Then the AR15 became the civilian model, same idea.[/QUOTE]
It was originally an AR10, which was made for civilians, then it was rechambered after the M14 was picked over it and the military was looking for a firearm shooting a less aggressive round about half a decade later.
Simply because they both have a history founded in military use doesn't make an AR15 more lethal than, say, an M1 Garand. Hell, the M1 Garand action has been in use for a very long time in battle rifles like the M14.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39230826]It was originally an AR10, which was made for civilians, then it was rechambered after the M14 was picked over it and the military was looking for a firearm shooting a less aggressive round about half a decade later.[/QUOTE]
Now that's a valid point.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230808]Does wikipedia not say that it was created for the American Military?
But then they just changed the name and sold it as the M16.
Then the AR15 became the civilian model, same idea.[/QUOTE]
And the M16 went on to gain multiple firing modes to make it suitable for military use. Additionally, as somebody else pointed out, the AR-15 rifles that you can buy today are not the same as the AR-15 that came before the M16.
Wait no. It was rechambered a decade before that and sold as a civilian model.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230834]Simply because they both have a history founded in military use doesn't make an AR15 more lethal than, say, an M1 Garand. Hell, the M1 Garand action has been in use for a very long time in battle rifles like the M14.[/QUOTE]
And also things like the M1 Carbine. The M1 Carbine was made by a criminal in prison and used as extortion for early release. The US Military endorses criminals making killing machines.
And this was a man who commited MURDER
Okay, what I'd like to say is that semi autos okay, full autos bad.
Pins in magazines good, hard to enforce sometimes, but obvious if it's been removed in a legal settings.
Now, just using smaller magazines would prevent pin removal.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230834]Simply because they both have a history founded in military use doesn't make an AR15 more lethal than, say, an M1 Garand. Hell, the M1 Garand action has been in use for a very long time in battle rifles like the M14.[/QUOTE]
M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, M14/M1A/M21, and the mini 14 are all based on the same action. Many of those rifles are still popular with ranchers and other civilian shooters.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230808]Does wikipedia not say that it was created for the American Military?
But then they just changed the name and sold it as the M16.
Then the AR15 became the civilian model, same idea.
Shotguns can't fire those pellets at individual people, just one target.
Another thing we have up here is shotguns with three or less shells.[/QUOTE]
2+1 limit for shotguns is only for hunting, I handled a detachable-mag fed shotgun yesterday that took 5 shells. As well, federally there is a 5-round limit on semi-autos of all kinds, meaning a semi-auto shotgun can be chambered to fit 5 3.5" shells, it will fit then 6-7 2.75" shells. As well, there are no mag caps on pump-action shotguns, I actually want a modified 870-action gun with a 30-round drum.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230900]M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, M14/M1A/M21, and the mini 14 are all based on the same action. Many of those rifles are still popular with ranchers and other civilian shooters.[/QUOTE]
M1 carbine isn't based on it. Only the exterior frame is so that there would be no extra training to switch over from the Garand to the Carbine.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230893]Okay, what I'd like to say is that semi autos okay, full autos bad.
Pins in magazines good, hard to enforce sometimes, but obvious if it's been removed in a legal settings.
Now, just using smaller magazines would prevent pin removal.[/QUOTE]
And people agree that Full autos are bad. They're destructive and unless they're in a GPMG or a submachine gun, are useless and only cause surrounding damage. No civilian really needs one and the amount of paperwork to get one is a lot and theyre mostly banned. Mostly.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39230915]2+1 limit for shotguns is only for hunting, I handled a detachable-mag fed shotgun yesterday that took 5 shells. As well, federally there is a 5-round limit on semi-autos of all kinds, meaning a semi-auto shotgun can be chambered to fit 5 3.5" shells, it will fit then 6-7 2.75" shells. As well, there are no mag caps on pump-action shotguns, I actually want a modified 870-action gun with a 30-round drum.[/QUOTE]
And it's not like a pump action or a lever action is a drastic difference. Sure, the timing is different from a semi auto to a pump, but the difference is about half a second to a second for pumping, and that time is spent getting a different target anyway.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230893]Okay, what I'd like to say is that semi autos okay, full autos bad.
Pins in magazines good, hard to enforce sometimes, but obvious if it's been removed in a legal settings.[/QUOTE]
Is that even an argument? You sound like you're trying to convey a message about gun control to a toddler.
"Full auto baaad!"
Full autos are so bad that in world war 1, the war they were most effectively used, they weren't even a great source of death.
The FLU killed more people. WE SHOULD COMBAT THE FLU!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
