A lot of those hunting rifles can accept 10 round or higher magazines (or modified to function with), so they're functionally similar to the AR-15 variants and the like.
Back to the false equivalency concerning the intended purposes of things. Just because we have the right to own guns doesn't mean we have the right to own any & all guns, that we don't have to respect their various purposes. I understand the purpose of 22 rimfires, shotguns & big game rifles, even handguns intended for self defense. I don't misunderstand the purpose of military style carbines, either. They're intended to quickly & efficiently kill people, plain & simple.
As a nation, we have the right to decide if we want civilians to be able to buy what really are purpose built implements of mass homicide, or not. It's entirely Constitutional to do that, given existing law wrt automatic weapons & others as well.
Back to the false equivalency concerning the intended purposes of things. Just because we have the right to own guns doesn't mean we have the right to own any & all guns, that we don't have to respect their various purposes. I understand the purpose of 22 rimfires, shotguns & big game rifles, even handguns intended for self defense. I don't misunderstand the purpose of military style carbines, either. They're intended to quickly & efficiently kill people, plain & simple.
As a nation, we have the right to decide if we want civilians to be able to buy what really are purpose built implements of mass homicide, or not. It's entirely Constitutional to do that, given existing law wrt automatic weapons & others as well.
Actually, he is not far off. Unalienable rights were mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers were well read in John Locke, Francis Hutchinson, Hegel and even Martin Luther. These unalienable rights are inherent in our Constitution and the principles behind it. That is, we, the people gain our rights not by Government bestowing them upon us but rather they are inherent - natural - to us. The Bill of Rights are mentioned in several court cases and referred to as unalienable rights.
So before you go off the deep end again, perhaps a bit of fundamental College 101 American History would be good for you. And Natural Philosophy too.
Not sure how those rights are not given to you by the government. You have them because they are in the Constitution. The constitution was written by, and is protected by your countries political machinery.
Those rights are only "unalienable" by agreement, there's nothing intrinsic or natural about them.
No, they were chosen by the founding fathers, guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the ability of the citizenry to protect it, primarily through the capacity to enforce their will in the defense of liberty via arms.
I'm Atheist, so god-given means nothing to me. Natural though, yes. It's defining natural rights, granted by sentience. Maybe 'sentient rights' is more appropriate, as we approach ever-closer to non-human sentience.None of that is saying "natural" or "God given".
As do I, if the citizenry is unable to defend itself and enforce the Constitution however, it mostly becomes a meaningless piece of paper, as nothing in it is enforceable. This is mostly coming to pass now, with advanced weapons, intel, and surveillance systems coming online, and odds are good the Constitution will be unenforceable in the very near future (<100 years, in my prediction).I know a group of Americans where that concept didn't work out so well and the government and citizen militias ran roughshod over them.
I probably should have included the Declaration, since they go part and parcel together.Exactly. I didn't think this part would be so controversial. But, given what happened with Chuck Todd last week, ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/27/chuck-todd-roy-moores-remarks-on-god-indicate-he-d/ ) it's not surprising that a lot of people don't understand this. I thought the use of the word unalienable would kind of be a give away...guess not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is what was so revolutionary (no pun intended) about the American Revolution. The concept that we, as human beings, have certain rights that are not granted by governments. We have them through the natural law (or God for those that believe). We don't have them because they're in the Constitution, the Constitution was written to codify the fact that they exist and to protect them from the government. That is why our Constitution is a document of negative liberties (stating what the government CAN'T do) vs. other constitutions that are of positive liberties (what the government must do).
To put it more simply: if the government gives us our rights (through the Constitution), then it can take them away, too.
No, they were chosen by the founding fathers, guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the ability of the citizenry to protect it, primarily through the capacity to enforce their will in the defense of liberty via arms.
I probably should have included the Declaration, since they go part and parcel together.
I hunt with these "military style rifles," as do many Americans. Quite frankly, when legal, they are generally superior to traditional hunting rifles (even when their magazine capacity is limited to a few rounds based on state laws for hunting with a semi). They are relatively compact and light weight and have great ergonomics. They are easily customized by the end user depending on what sort of distances and game you are hunting (they are also available in a wide array of calibers that will allow you to hunt almost everything on the planet).
Furthermore, it's easier to render a magazine fed rifle safe (unload chamber and magazine) than it is to unload many styles of "traditional" manually operated rifles with blind / tubular magazines that have to be manually racked with multiple rounds chambered to unload.
Finally, by virtue of their semi-automatic operation, they absorb quite a bit of recoil and allow for more confident shots (which leads to more accurate shots). Quite frankly, when I bring a new shooter to the range, the first centerfire rifle they shoot (after learning on a rimfire) is always an AR-15. They are easy and fun to shoot for almost anyone and length of pull is almost always adjustable by default (thanks to a collapsible stock).
bullets are a pre-existing condition, you carried them into the ER.GOP PSA:
The right to heavy assault weaponry and unlimited ammunition is an inalienable right bequeathed by God Almighty, enshrined in His Constitution.
The right to medical treatment for bullet and shrapnel wounds from said weapons is solely for access, provided thou hast a good job, credit score and history of good health.
Please. The intent of an armed citizenry at the time was to protect the govt of the people against foreigners. That's what militias were all about, not overthrowing the govt of the people.
Really? You think that the intent of the armed citizenry, codified just after the US independence, had nothing to do with protection from an oppressive government? Right of revolution is defined in the Declaration. It cannot be enforced without armed citizenry, and it's the first thing a government takes from its people when it's intending to prevent them revolting.Please. The intent of an armed citizenry at the time was to protect the govt of the people against foreigners. That's what militias were all about, not overthrowing the govt of the people.
Fair enough, but the Constitution was not developed in a vacuum, and much of the intent is derived from that history, and the documents developed therein.The Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight. All law is based on the Constitution.
Good God. They have spoken? Personally? That is legal proof that they are the same.
Are you trolling? Do you not get that rights can already exist even if the government names them later?Yeah. So they are rights that are chosen and protected by government then?
I think banning certain stock styles is stupid, since that's not where the major issue is. Though the fit is kind of subjective. Some of those hunting rifles are heavy to make you steady. Some like those heavier rifles while others don't. Different strokes for different folks.
Many people use bolt actions for dangerous game.You don't need semi + detachable magazine.
Most hunting rifle calibers are substantially lower in recoil than 12 gauge. This is pretty minor.
Exactly. But it would have taken 1.5 times as long. Automatic weapons are very efficient terror machines. What's interesting is that they are legal. God bless America, eh? Land of the free.He could have done the same with a knife.
This is one of the core problems of any gun regulation, you have to regulate until there's nothing left. The end result is: People want people to stop shooting people, and the gun has damned all to do with that, unless you want it 100% restricted, which is a horrendous breach of rights. Chasing the guns gets you nowhere except running in circles.I've never heard a hunter say "I wish I had a heavier gun to carry around" except in cases where that weight was used to absorb recoil. If you don't want to ban certain stock styles, what DO you want to ban? Semi automatic "military style" rifles are typically identical in function to their semi automatic "hunting" counterparts. They just have "evil" features like adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs (lol cuz I'm gonna use a bayonet), detachable magazines (featured in many common hunting arms), etc... This is why the assault weapons ban was such a farce. Why would an AR-15 be illegal but a mini 14 / mini 30 be legal?
The Government did not give them to us. They are enshrined by we the people. Read the people I listed above to understand the natural rights of all people.Not sure how those rights are not given to you by the government. You have them because they are in the Constitution. The constitution was written by, and is protected by your countries political machinery.
Those rights are only "unalienable" by agreement, there's nothing intrinsic or natural about them.
Countries (Governments) do not. People do.This. Why don't other countries have these 'unalienable' rights then?
Is something a right if its not defined or enforced?Are you trolling? Do you not get that rights can already exist even if the government names them later?
GOP PSA:
The right to heavy assault weaponry and unlimited ammunition is an inalienable right bequeathed by God Almighty, enshrined in His Constitution.
The right to medical treatment for bullet and shrapnel wounds from said weapons is solely for access, provided thou hast a good job, credit score and history of good health.
Economists are interested in prices. They ask questions like what is the right amount of pollution? Having no pollution is obviously too costly to society (it would mean essentially a regression to the Stone age). At the same time having no pollution control is completely unacceptable as well. There is a point in the middle where the cost and drawbacks of pollution control balance each other out.This is one of the core problems of any gun regulation, you have to regulate until there's nothing left. The end result is: People want people to stop shooting people, and the gun has damned all to do with that, unless you want it 100% restricted, which is a horrendous breach of rights. Chasing the guns gets you nowhere except running in circles.
The government are the people. At least in this case.The Government did not give them to us. They are enshrined by we the people. Read the people I listed above to understand the natural rights of all people.