I used an AR-10 in .308 last hunting season. Very good platform for long range shots. Used a .308 M1A, the civvie version of the Army M-14 currently serving in Afghanistan for at least 10 years before that.
I only use a 5 round magazine with them because that is the Colorado big game hunting rule, but they can both accept a 100 round drum.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Governments may restrict rights, including the the type, use and transfer of ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment.
Your opinion. I disagree. I'm sure we will find out eventually how the supreme court sees it.
Rights can't be restricted. I know you will say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...but that is just location based. They can't restrict you from yelling fire in general. I would agree that the govt could restrict you from carrying a gun into a govt facility if they chose (and they do).
Rights CAN be restricted; Rights HAVE been restricted; Rights will CONTINUE TO BE restricted...
Something the Dog Said wrote: Governments may restrict rights, including the the type, use and transfer of ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment.
Your opinion. I disagree. I'm sure we will find out eventually how the supreme court sees it.
Rights can't be restricted. I know you will say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...but that is just location based. They can't restrict you from yelling fire in general. I would agree that the govt could restrict you from carrying a gun into a govt facility if they chose (and they do).
It is not my opinion, it is the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. You may disagree, but you are 100% wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled on that very issue. Heller v. DC. Justice Scalia in writing in the majority opinion stated:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
And in the footnote 26:
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
So yes, the Supreme court has ruled on this very issue and found that the 2nd Amendment is subject to many prohibitions, including but not limited to the possession, use, conditions and qualifications of sale of firearms, as well as others.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Governments may restrict rights, including the the type, use and transfer of ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment.
Your opinion. I disagree. I'm sure we will find out eventually how the supreme court sees it.
Rights can't be restricted. I know you will say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...but that is just location based. They can't restrict you from yelling fire in general. I would agree that the govt could restrict you from carrying a gun into a govt facility if they chose (and they do).
It is not my opinion, it is the law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. You may disagree, but you are 100% wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled on that very issue. Heller v. DC. Justice Scalia in writing in the majority opinion stated:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
And in the footnote 26:
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
So yes, the Supreme court has ruled on this very issue and found that the 2nd Amendment is subject to many prohibitions, including but not limited to the possession, use, conditions and qualifications of sale of firearms, as well as others.
Try not to confuse them with FACTS... The NRA has told them what they wanted to hear, and FACTS don't enter into it...
LadyJazzer wrote: Try not to confuse them with FACTS... The NRA has told them what they wanted to hear, and FACTS don't enter into it...
You mean like these facts...
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has been the lead sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines in two Congresses, saying it’s one of her top priorities.
But Tuesday at a Denver Post forum on the gun control debate, the senior congresswoman from Denver appeared to not understand how guns work.
Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
[/b][/i]
:thumbsup:
