We have a beer called Punt Gunner - a distasteful brew. The trick is getting guns out of the hand of unworthies. Our local plod has been very successful over the past year, simply by doing something about it. Even punt guns would fail to overthrow governments, but would have some effect in keeping my car clean as we are overflown by geese. This leaves me in favour of rearmament for the same valid reasons Craig supports.
On 30 Jan, 18:21, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > That sucker would shoot a pound of shot at a time?! Holy crap! That > must have been a lot of fun. I can see how that would have a huge > effect on the population of water fowl in no time though. > > I think when you start talking about limitations on firearms in the > United States you run into conundrums. The rationale behind the > second amendment is that the populous be armed with military type > weapons. Reasons being, if the populous is armed with military type > weapons, then they can be at least semi-effective in repelling > invasions, forming militias, and not to mention, overthrowing corrupt > governments. So if you start talking about limiting the weapons and > their abilities, you begin to rationalize away the reasons behind the > constitutional right. > > If anything, under the rationale of the second amendment, limits > placed on handguns would make the most sense. Handguns are worthless > in forming a militia, repelling invasions, or overthrowing corrupt > governments. Pistols are not really military weapons, even though > officers carry them. > > So the so called "assault weapons" bans, I think, are per se > unconstitutional. The weapons included in those bans include all the > weapons that would be used in the military. I'm okay though with the > restriction on fully automatic weapons. Not because I think fully > automatic weapons are significantly more dangerous than semi-automatic > weapons, but on the contrary I think semi-automatic weapons (like my > AR-15) are nearly just as effective as their automatic relatives (the > M-16), and so it doesn't really bother me that they ban the automatic > versions. > > nominal9 wrote: > > I'm not much of a "Gun Guy" myself, but I have good friends who are > > hunters. Which is to say, that I have "moderated" my views even more > > than my own previous somewhat "liberal" , as in let 'em have the guns > > if they want 'em, stance. But still..... what do you more avid > > supporters of gun rights think.... shouild there be any limitations at > > all, in your opinions?.... Fully automatic... how about "calibers" or > > bore size..... I remember reading about "Britsh Punt Guns" for > > hunting..... I always wanted to have been around when one of those > > little pea shooters went off.... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTBC0AfVE > > nominal9 > > > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I got an email today from one of the gun groups I subscribe to and it > > > had embedded in it a video from Britain about gun rights. I was > > > shocked and astonished to learn that there are people in Britain who > > > are fighting for their gun rights. I guess Britain isn't a completely > > > lost cause. Here's the video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
