re: Worlds largest caliber rifle in action - The .905

quote:

---

I don't know how people believe the 2nd Amendment protects their rights to own destroyers like that gun.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how people believe the 2nd Amendment protects their rights to own destroyers like that gun.

---

quote:

---

Basically a shoulder fired cannon. I can't believe they weren't using some kind of shoulder pad with that monster.

---

Didn't watch the video, but have seen this gun before. It's very heavy. I think they have a low weight one at 60 lbs. helps with recoil and they shoot it on a bench.

It's neat but totally impractical for real world civilian application. It would be fun to shoot though, so I get it.

quote:

---

Do you shoot? Do you have guns? If so, you'd know there are plenty of 1-shot man-stoppers available right now that are far more practical than this beast. It's simply an impractical firearm to train with and use for malicious intent. You can do more with a cheap 30-06, IMO.

But even so, the point of the 2A is to make sure civilians have access to firearms that would allow them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It's hard to do that with BB guns.

---

I understand what the 2nd covers and why it was included into the Bill of Rights considering if our citizens weren't armed in the late 18th century, then we would have been under British control for a while and not have helped start the chain of revolutions across the world. I also understand many, many gun owners are law abiding citizens, but when has the 2nd actually been used for its real intended purpose besides possibly the Civil War?

We have been exercising that right since it was formally recognized in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Thankfully, we haven't had to exercise that right against our own government, but the right doesn't exist only when it is needed. Its mere existence is meant to prevent the need to use it in such a way.

quote:

---

I know I'm going to get grilled for this stance, but what's wrong with a good debate nowadays?

---

The debate is fine as long as you're not opposed to listening to the other side.

quote:

---

It can be interpreted in a few ways from being able to have the latest and best guns available to owning guns for self defense to having a readily available handgun in case a civilian militia is necessary.

---

Anyone can interpret anything (not just the Constitution) however they want, but it is being dishonest if you do not consider the context of the text, itself.

In this case, the 2A has a lot of supporting text to help us interpret the intent of the clause. It's quite clear that Constitution was intended to preserve the liberty of the people, and the 2A was the "teeth" that ensured that liberty could not be removed by the whims of the type of tyrants that the founders had fought against. Giving all people the ability to bear arms was a way to ensure that they could not be enslaved. The right to personal self-defense was a given, but the framers of our Constitution intended to give the people the permission to fight back to preserve their liberty.

A handgun is a poor weapon for self defense, though it is a very practical one due to easy concealment. Those trained in combat (I am not one of them) will readily agree that a sidearm is meant to help you get to your rifle. A rifle is a better tool to defend yourself, especially against a larger force.

quote:

---

Many European countries have pretty strict guns laws with many saying "self defense" is not a valid excuse to be licensed a gun permit unless you can prove your life is in danger. They still allow hunting and target practice licenses, but those are also strict as well. There are 6 of the top 10 countries with lowest gun related homicide rates are in Europe and the highest is Greece with 3x less the rate per 10,000 people.

---

I'm aware of the kinds of laws many European nations and their justifications for them. However, they don't have our Constitution. Hunting and target practice were not the intent of our Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms, but they were certainly assumed to be part of that right.

Gun-related homicides should be very low in countries with little to no firearms and strict gun laws, but England and Australia (very difficult to get guns there) have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top industrialized nations. Gun crime is actually increasing in England. It's quite amazing if you really think about it. Switzerland, on the other hand, has some of the most lenient gun laws in Europe, yet is on par with England and Wales for homicide rate.

quote:

---

I fully support gun ownership, but there should be stricter rules and regulations be it ammo restrictions, number of firearms one person can own, etc.

---

There are already thousands of federal, state, and local ordinances on the books, but they don't solve the one element that really matters; the human element. But that's not something that can be solved, because humans can't really be controlled, so the argument stays focused on the tool rather than person using it.

For instance, many people have been clamoring to ban "assault weapons" lately, but the FBI statistics show that more people die annually in the US from being beaten with blunt objects like hammers or fists or feet than from all rifles (including the "evil black [assault] rifles). But no one wants to ban hammers because that would be silly, even if one life is saved.

It's an emotional subject where people are more concerned about "doing something" than admitting that the "something" won't do what people want it to do. The assault weapons ban from the 90's didn't do jack to lower crime, which is one reason why it was allowed to expire. When a dozen people are killed because of a mentally-unstable person with a gun goes on a rampage, people are quick to blame the gun rather than the person wielding it. Meanwhile, thousands of kids drown in swimming pools every year and are ignored. I guess it just isn't "sexy" to ban something that was created entirely for recreation, but it is very sexy to ban something specially protected by our Constitution.

quote:

---

I understand what the 2nd covers and why it was included into the Bill of Rights considering if our citizens weren't armed in the late 18th century, then we would have been under British control for a while and not have helped start the chain of revolutions across the world. I also understand many, many gun owners are law abiding citizens, but when has the 2nd actually been used for its real intended purpose besides possibly the Civil War?

---

There is a underlying reason as to why the USA has never really been invaded or had the mainland involved in the modern era.

quote:

---

law abiding citizens,

---

also the underlying message of the constitution and BOR. The citizens are not deemed naturally criminals, despite the government doing their hardest to say otherwise

quote:

---

Looking to pick one of those up before squirrel season.

---

Your better bet instead of shooting the squirrel

with this, is to shoot the tree out from under

the sqirrel and the squirrel will more than

likely dye from a heart attack!