ptah13 wrote:

Funny, a majority of folk in Switzerland own FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles in their home. Ask yourself why home invasion gun crime is virtually nonexistant in Switzerland.

Please don't be that easy -

Wikipedia wrote:

The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

Beyond that the very make-up of the Swiss social structure makes it an oranges to apples comparison.

Please pick a more accurate example - oh wait, there isn't one, we are the most violent G7 country.  The honest truth is we are the exact opposite of the Swiss in our approach and execution of all things.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

Emmeran wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Funny, a majority of folk in Switzerland own FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles in their home. Ask yourself why home invasion gun crime is virtually nonexistant in Switzerland.

Please don't be that easy -

Wikipedia wrote:

The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

Beyond that the very make-up of the Swiss social structure makes it an oranges to apples comparison.

Please pick a more accurate example - oh wait, there isn't one, we are the most violent G7 country.  The honest truth is we are the exact opposite of the Swiss in our approach and execution of all things.  Particularly when it comes to weapons.

Ok but I thought the whole point was that no non-military/police person should have a semi-automatic assault rifle? If that is the case, why is it a-ok the Swiss non-military folk have semi-automatic assault rifles in their homes?

Maybe if every household had an AK, we'd be more like the Swiss! I guarantee you home invasion would drop!!

ptah13 wrote:

Maybe if every household had an AK, we'd be more like the Swiss! I guarantee you home invasion would drop!!

Not if they know you don't have any ammunition.

I'm all for legalizing assault rifles....  As soon as inner city gangs get their hands on them they'll totally obliterate one another and make our inner cities nice places to live again....

ptah13 wrote:

Ok but I thought the whole point was that no non-military/police person should have a semi-automatic assault rifle? If that is the case, why is it a-ok the Swiss non-military folk have semi-automatic assault rifles in their homes?

Maybe if every household had an AK, we'd be more like the Swiss! I guarantee you home invasion would drop!!

The Swiss were all trained via mandatory military service (something I think we should have).  But they are eliminating this practice entirely due to domestic murder and suicide.

I am a firearms advocate, but I grew up with them and have had extensive military service, I see weapons in the same light I see a chainsaw.

If you want to let your agression out and de-stress I recommend you find a domestic partner that likes it rough, less chance of fucking up and killing someone that way.

Besides, why does anyone need an assault rifle - if you need more than one shot you don't know what the fuck you're doing anyway.

Emmeran wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Ok but I thought the whole point was that no non-military/police person should have a semi-automatic assault rifle? If that is the case, why is it a-ok the Swiss non-military folk have semi-automatic assault rifles in their homes?

Maybe if every household had an AK, we'd be more like the Swiss! I guarantee you home invasion would drop!!

The Swiss were all trained via mandatory military service (something I think we should have).  But they are eliminating this practice entirely due to domestic murder and suicide.

I am a firearms advocate, but I grew up with them and have had extensive military service, I see weapons in the same light I see a chainsaw.

If you want to let your agression out and de-stress I recommend you find a domestic partner that likes it rough, less chance of fucking up and killing someone that way.

Besides, why does anyone need an assault rifle - if you need more than one shot you don't know what the fuck you're doing anyway.

Umm, I'm extremely careful when I let off on some ammo. I go somewhere where there are no people for miles and find a sink hole or ravine. I walk around and check the area out. Get a little way down in the ravine and always shoot at something deeper in the ravine than I am.

Hoosier National Forest is a great place to shoot. Legal and nobody around. With my method of target practice, not only do I not have to worry about my random bullet hitting some student, 10 miles away at I.U., but I can also see anyone coming long before they are below my line of fire.

I also have a friend who has a target range at his house. It's built into a large hill with layers or railroad ties and sand as a backdrop. It's so nice, a nearby county sheriffs office rents range time from the guy to do their regular qualifications.

Of course, if I'm going to shoot something at home, I'd (most likely) use the shotty, anyway. Safer for the neighbors.

You should come visit!

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-28 21:29:23)

ah297900 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Can you conceive of how an NRA attack ad is different from a statement by Obama?

The first ad in my link is an Obama ad, not a "NRA attack ad". I can see how you would confuse the two 'cept the NRA has more ethics and is generally more honest).

One that also does not say that Obama will never touch our guns. It shows a hunter, with a voice over saying that Obama supports gun rights and the second amendm---wait. You're fucking with us; you must be now. I get it.

That is the ad they are playing in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and (I think) Ohio. The radio version is similar but also adds something about "Obama's not going to take away your guns". If he signed the above bill into law, he would, indeed, be *trying* to take away guns people currently own legally.

If you don't think Obama would love to see the same laws, nationally, that you see in San Francisco and D.C. you are fooling yourself. If Pelosi believes it, so does Obama.

ptah13 wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

The first ad in my link is an Obama ad, not a "NRA attack ad". I can see how you would confuse the two 'cept the NRA has more ethics and is generally more honest).

One that also does not say that Obama will never touch our guns. It shows a hunter, with a voice over saying that Obama supports gun rights and the second amendm---wait. You're fucking with us; you must be now. I get it.

That is the ad they are playing in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and (I think) Ohio. The radio version is similar but also adds something about "Obama's not going to take away your guns". If he signed the above bill into law, he would, indeed, be *trying* to take away guns people currently own legally.

If you don't think Obama would love to see the same laws, nationally, that you see in San Francisco and D.C. you are fooling yourself. If Pelosi believes it, so does Obama.

You can be pro-second amendment, and think assault rifles should be illegal. In much the same way, you can be pro-choice and think that those partial birth abortions should be legal.

Dmtdust wrote:

"you can be pro-choice and think that those partial birth abortions should be legal."

You meant illegal?

Don't you fucking dare put words into my mouth. But, yes.

ptah13 wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

That is the ad they are playing in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and (I think) Ohio. The radio version is similar but also adds something about "Obama's not going to take away your guns". If he signed the above bill into law, he would, indeed, be *trying* to take away guns people currently own legally.

If you don't think Obama would love to see the same laws, nationally, that you see in San Francisco and D.C. you are fooling yourself. If Pelosi believes it, so does Obama.

You can be pro-second amendment, and think assault rifles should be illegal. In much the same way, you can be pro-choice and think that those partial birth abortions should be legal.

I think we should be able to have artillery... According to the founding fathers, I should be able to defend myself against my government. Thank god they let me own a few small cannon (legally) or I don't know what I'd do about my left and right flank!

God bless American!

Please save us from B. Hussein Obama!!! (hehe)

(did you know his name comes from "Burak", the name of the ass Muhammad wrode on to get to Heaven)

Sometimes a name says it all!

I don't know if that's true or not but it makes sense seeing as the word mulatto comes from the Latin word for "mule".

In an attempt to reduce the political BS here I give you all video of a guy throwing tacos and McDonald's employees.....

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

So you contend that the founding fathers intended the well-armed militia that the citizens were to form in case of a threat were only going to be allowed to use hunting weapons?

Yes.  I contend that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written very few people had weapons, and those who did had hunting weapons.  I believe that the founding fathers wanted those who had hunting weapons to be able to keep them in their possession without fear of them being confiscated by the government, and also, those same people could use their weapons in defense of country.

At the time, miliary weapons were extremely limited.  You had muskets, cannons, bayonets, pistols and rifles.  The founding fathers could not have envisioned the combat weapons available today. Cannons were used in combat.  I don't even think they envisioned the average citizen owning a cannon for personal protection.

To say that the founding fathers wanted the average citizen to own the same weapons as the military is just silly.

"In the Colonial era, the weapon of choice was the musket, which cost a skilled worker the equivalent of two month's pay. It required constant attention to maintain and was not efficient for either self-defense or hunting. It was difficult to reload and was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet. Most American farmers chose to raise and consume domestic animals, such as chickens and pigs, rather than hunt with a weapon that was of little value. The few homicides that occurred during the Colonial era were committed with knives; guns were simply not a weapon of value to most Americans at the time of the Nation's birth."

I read this book. Paragraphs like the above, while having some truth are mostly BS. The conclusions he made, those in support of  HKG's contentions, are run thorugh with errors and based on  misunderstood aspects of Colonial society He explores lots of interesting things, but in the end doesn't understand how the facts he collects aplied to the society of the day. He gets it wrong on  the technology of the day, how it was used, how wars then were supplied and fought and the how the colonial society considered militias in a new country where at its inception there was much reluctance to have a standing military.

Just because every man in the village didn't own a musket, didn't mean that the village didn't consider the ones they did have, both the hunting weapons and the infrantry muskets, as vital implements.

Let me point out an influential basis for debates that occurred in adopting the 2nd amendment. The wording in the 1776 Virginia declaration of Rights:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-29 05:53:17)

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.



Truly a concept that endures well in our modern age.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Because they don't have any ammunition...

Use the right-wing talking points as a starter, then do your own research.

Sorry, I've never even read a "talking point".

sorry

You don't have to read them.  Right-wing talk radio is nothing but talking points.

You must have heard somewhere that the Swiss are armed up, and I'm assuming that it was in the context of arguing that assault rifles should be in the hands of private citizens in this county.  All I'm saying is that every time I hear an argument for something, I usually research both sides of the issue, otherwise I can't have an informed opinion.

Actually, I heard about the Swiss, pretty much non-stop, from my old friend (of Swiss heritage) who passed last year.

Did you know, per-capita, more Swiss homes have an assault rifle inside than Americans? Even if it is semi-automatic, well, so are most of the ones in American homes.

I could tell you more about becoming a Swiss citizen than I even want to remember. My friend hated the computer and was always wanting info on going back to his motherland (he was born here, grandparents immigrated here in the late 1800's). You basically have to have to go on a long visit, have a bunch of people in the town vouch for you, then have the town council say you are ok and finally have written approval from the mayor-like person and then you can apply for citizenship (which helps if you have some cash in the bank).

Sorry, but I haven't heard ANYTHING on talk-radio about the Swiss. Nothing I know of the Swiss is from talk-radio. I didn't learn about the Swiss kicking ass for centuries from talk-radio.... Plus, I like that Swiss Miss instant cocoa... And those watches.... That cheese kicks ass, as well.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-29 07:08:40)

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Note to self: no hiking in the Hoosier National Forest.

Also, I found it difficult to believe that it's legal to fire off an Ak-47 in a national forest.

Well then you'd be wrong!

hehe

Cite some authority.  The web site says hunting is allowed...I don't see anywhere that the National Park Service condones shooting off live rounds with an assault rifle in a national forest.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Let me point out an influential basis for debates that occurred in adopting the 2nd amendment. The wording in the 1776 Virginia declaration of Rights:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

I've underlined the pertinent phrases, these phrases help to explain why this has worked for the Swiss but not for us (thus far).

I fail to see where this holds any bearing on the right of individuals to own weapons.  A "well-regulated" militia can use the armory just like everyone else.   =)

Emmeran wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

I think we should be able to have artillery... According to the founding fathers, I should be able to defend myself against my government. Thank god they let me own a few small cannon (legally) or I don't know what I'd do about my left and right flank!

I'm not sure why you think owning artillery would help you, have you never heard of Counter Fire Radar? 

No matter what type of toy you own you will never fare better than the insurgents in Iraq, you might injure a few of the federal troops but you end up as a bloody smear within minutes.  Why do you think the insurgents have resorted to booby-traps over there?

Oh I agree. I just want the howitzer for July 4th and New Years.

You can own small muzzle loaded cannon, though (and it is considered "just a muzzle loader", like a rifle). That's good enough for me.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

HKG,

Isn't it your area's Hmong community that has popularized hunting with assault rifles?

I moved out of Minnesota 10 years ago.    The poor gook was just have a 'nam flashback.

ptah13 wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

No matter what type of toy you own you will never fare better than the insurgents in Iraq, you might injure a few of the federal troops but you end up as a bloody smear within minutes.  Why do you think the insurgents have resorted to booby-traps over there?

Oh I agree. I just want the howitzer for July 4th and New Years.

You can own small muzzle loaded cannon, though (and it is considered "just a muzzle loader", like a rifle). That's good enough for me.

Strangely you can still  keep and bear all the weapons that existed when the 2nd amendemnt was written.  I do not think they have changed the rules in the past few years. As far as I know you can own very large smoothbore muzzle loading cannons without any special permits. The problem is, if you have anything larger then a 3 inch ordnance gun you are going to have to explain yourself to the ATF when you start ordering powder by the hundred weight. Though there are no limits on purchasing what you will need.

We used to have 4 six pounders and a 9 pound bow chaser. My firend had an original 12 pound wagon mounted cannon seige peice amongst his collection. It was a thing of beauty. But it weighed a ton and a half and he only had a 2 draft horse team where he needed 6 to 8. It was way to valuable to risk overpressuring by firing shot. But with a few pounds of gunpowder it would still make a hell of a thundering boom if not the crack you get with the high pressure behind a ball. 

How to hunt Wisconsin Whitetail Deer with a 12 pound mountain howitzer



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-29 14:42:44)

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Ok, so you agree hunting is allowed. Then the regulation falls on STATE hunting regulations. I've linked to those. Notice under the small game it says "any rifle".

That's how it works, hun. If I were legal to carry a fully-automatic weapon, I could hunt a rabbit with that. Pests-year around!!! All it takes to own a fully-automatic machine gun is a tax stamp. You also have to agree to let the ATF "inspect" your residence at will... not for me.

Ok, so you can just take your assault rifle into the forest and fire off rounds even if you are NOT hunting?

The particular area we go is Charles Deam Forest, which is right next to Hoosier National. We go through H.N. to a point in Deam that is about 1/2 mile from H.N. 

On the internet page for Deam, they say "hunting ok, target practice no". If you wanted to just fire off a shitload of rounds in a fallen tree (make mulch) then you'd have to claim you were "huntin' rats", I suppose. Where we go, you can see folk coming from quite a distance. By the time they got close enough to see where you were shooting you could say, "darn rat got away, shucks..". It's like, "they're commin' right for us!".

The thing is, DNR doesn't care if you target shoot as long as you are being smart and safe. We've met most of the guys that are stationed at H.N. and they are all cool as hell. Of course, we could go a mile down the road, to the hunting area of Hoosier National, and target shoot all day, legally. There is no rule that says you can't target in the hunting area of Hoosier National. You see, the same rules apply for an AK 47 as would a .22 as far as where you can shoot. Sometimes different game dictate different weapons, but you can shoot small game with assault weapons.

I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for target shooting in Hoosier National or Deam. Deam's website says "no target" but I've been there, with paper targets lining the bottom of a ravine, with 2 DNR guys shooting my ass off.

Of course the better option is my friend who has his own outdoor range.... We usually save the real loud shit for the range (like the .44).

Wanna come shoot, HKG?

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-29 15:03:12)

ptah13 wrote:

Wanna come shoot, HKG?

You're too far south, otherwise I'd take you up on it.  I've never touched a gun in my life, but feel that at some point I should.  Of course, I'm not going out in the woods with anyone from high-street.  It would have to be a legitimate shooting range!

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Wanna come shoot, HKG?

You're too far south, otherwise I'd take you up on it.  I've never touched a gun in my life, but feel that at some point I should.  Of course, I'm not going out in the woods with anyone from high-street.  It would have to be a legitimate shooting range!

Like I said, they use my buddies range to qualify local sheriffs deputies.

Here was the info I was looking for, before, to answer the "can you practice on the National Forrest land:


http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hoosier/recreat … ations.htm

*Hunting, Trapping, Fishing & Firearms:*

  * Hunting is allowed anywhere on National Forest land except in
    recreation areas with designated boundaries, the Pioneer Mothers
    Memorial Forest, or where posted.
  * State laws on hunting, trapping and fishing are enforced on
    National Forest lands, requiring either a resident or nonresident
    license.
  * Discharging a firearm (including a bow and arrow) is prohibited in
    or within 150 yards of a developed recreation site, a residence,
    or any place where people are likely to be. Shooting across roads
    or bodies of water is also prohibited.
  * *_Target shooting is permitted in the general forest area (except
    in the Charles C. Deam Wilderness) as long as other persons in the
    area are not placed at risk and there is no damage to resources
    such as using a tree as a target. _*


Wow, that's pretty much exactly what I said.. haha  (note: I said, "shooting at downed tree" hehe.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-29 19:15:04)