Can you, very specifically and all the details, tell us what you mean by “addressing mental health”?
We set the example by ourselves being responsible.
7 Likes
Exactly! 
5 Likes
Still have my grandfather’s .22 semi pistol. He never used it for self defense (or hunting), nor did his daughter, my mom. The same is true for myself. There’s three generations for you.
So is that even stronger logic for not “needing” a handgun?
8 Likes
2A limits the government
but suggestions from CNN, etc. focus on how to limit me.
8 Likes
This is a case where it’s ok for me, but not for thee. With our inalienable right to self defense along with the 2nd amendment protection against the infringement of that right, I need articulate no reason to purchase an AR 15, less any need to justify such reason if any to a sales clerk. This fellow is a retired LEO and under federal law can carry a concealed weapon as long as it’s lawful for him to possess. Arguably that would include an AR pistol. He wants not only AR’s with shoulder braces, but all AR 15’s be registered under the NFA. As I said, OK for me, but not for thee.
8 Likes
I had absolutely and uncontrovertibly the best reason in the world for my AR purchase: I wanted one! (Actually, one at a time).
12 Likes
When I was in the Military in boot camp we trained on the M! rifle and when I got to Ft Hood Texas we were issued the M 14/308.and when I went to Cambodia/Laos we had the M14 still,and then they started issuing the AR with out cleaning rods,said you didn’t need them,but a lot died in Nam when they jammed,but the whole time my unit had the M14 because of the distance we fired in 2 man missions to N Vietnam,so the M14 is my baby,even built an L-10 308 and still have the original M14 with the cut out for the lever for auto.we made all ours semi because it was hard to be accurate on auto and 20 rounds went fast
10 Likes
Can you please cite the exact place in the Bill of rights and specifically within the 2nd Amendment that the word “Hunting” is used?
It’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
10 Likes
I want to also say, beyond the Constitution, or BoR, or 2A, just, in general
the burden of proof is always on those who want to control others.
Who has a “need” for a house with more bedrooms than occupants? More than one bathroom? Who “needs” air conditioning? Who needs a car that can go faster than the highest public road speed limit in their state or area? Who needs a___. It’s not about need or demonstrating a ‘need’ or explaining a want to anybody else, for pretty much anything.
The burden of proof, and it’s a high one, is on those who wish to control and restrict others
14 Likes
I’m still trying to figure out where the author is buying .223 for ‘over $1.00 a round’. He is trying to imply that it is so expensive that no one could shoot it for the enjoyment or train enough to be proficient. So many things in this article and not allowing comments is one way to make sure it can’t be contradicted.
8 Likes
Let’s see … first of all, Michael Fanone is a former Washington DC police officer. DC, eh? One of the four large metropolitan areas of the United States most-often referenced when quoting high crime and murder rates, along with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Naturally, CNN would have him on staff as a “law enforcement analyst”. Totally understandable, that is, if we were trying to emulate the abysmal statistics for person-on-person crime that is the hallmark of these cities. Or if pushing the Liberally-slanted anti-gun agenda of CNN was the primary reason for printing this nonsense.
Fanone bills himself as “an avid hunter” with specialty guns for specialty purposes. Hunting’s only connection to the 2nd Amendment is that the individual purposes of each use the same tools to accomplish their respective goals. In the case of the 2A, the goal is the preservation of life through self defense, which often involves taking a life to stop the threat. Even Fanone admits that eliminating the threat by the fastest means possible is a priority, as it should be, not only for law enforcement but for responsibly armed civilians as well.
If the protection of hunting was the chief purpose of the 2nd Amendment, literally ALL the water foul hunters like him that I know use semi-automatic shotguns which in most cases have a plug in the magazine to reduce capacity to three rounds per state water foul regulations. That’s still one more than a double barrel SxS or O/U gives you. The same semi-auto’s are used for Turkey hunting. So, I’ll bet $100 to your box of donuts that this ex-cop turned analyst uses semi-automatic shotguns for sport. Yet he spends a large share of his epistle blasting the need for “semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands”.
In his hypocritical haste to discredit the use of semi-automatic rifles, he misrepresented their use in the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997. The bad guys in this case wielded fully automatic Kalashnikov’s, or AK 47’s, against police armed with revolvers, pistols and shotguns. The Border Patrol officers who eventually charged the classroom at Uvalde, TX DID have AR 15’s, which Fanone denies. But the modern law enforcement select fire models are no longer full automatic capable and instead offer single-shot or three round bursts, as do our military’s old M 16’s and, I believe, current M 4’s as well.
The fact is our civilian model AR 15’s are single-shot rifles that cycle the bolt to eject the spent round and load a new round in the chamber. But another trigger pull is required to fire the rifle again and repeat the process, thus the term “semi-automatic”. They ARE, in spite of what he says, very effective home defense weapons. More and more home invasions are being committed by multiple perpetrators presenting multiple threats to the life and safety of families. Responsibly armed citizens will select ammunition suited to that close combat purpose, which minimizes danger from over-penetration yet is lethal at close range. Battlefield ammo is for the battlefield and the shooting range. But if the battlefield comes to your door …
My AR 15 can be used for home defense, but I use it primarily for predator hunting … Coyotes specifically. It has capabilities that make it the most popular choice in any one of its many forms for use in this rapidly expanding sport. The ammunition is much more expensive than it was two years ago and is in short supply. So are components for reloading of these rounds made necessary by the shortages, but the AR 15 has multiple uses which help account for its overall popularity. Fanone’s limited experience outside the big city and with other forms of hunting make him as short-sighted and of limited focus as if he had on blinders.
And for his information, the “tin foil hat brigade” he besmirches, denying the 2nd Amendment’s purpose as being self-defense against a tyrannical government and calling it “ludicrous”, his historical ignorance and liberal bias are again being demonstrated. Tyrannical Government is only ONE threat envisioned by the founders against our Natural Law (Human) Rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” given us at Conception by the Creator. Government has no power over “Acts of God”.
7 Likes
By using the NRA member reference in the context of his commentary, he was besmirching the NRA while trying to legitimize his ridiculous arguments and false information.
6 Likes
An ironic aside… as I went back to reference the article, I was of course pummeled with ads throughout. The following was embedded not once, not twice, but seven times:
What’s that I see James Bond holding in the glamorizing, must-see movie ad? My, it looks like… an automatic weapon.
Mixing your message much, Main Stream Media??
7 Likes
The anti gunners seem to have nothing against the automatic weapons that only the wealthy and their armed security can afford. They just want to get rid of the semi autos us unwashed masses use to defend ourselves.
But yes their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
5 Likes
“Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.”
Now that right there is black belt level ignorance…
7 Likes
So to get this straight, thus turd walked away from his oath when he retired…
Come take min first coward. I triple dog dare you!
2 Likes
@Matthew221, you misunderstood him. No one’s going to come take them. People will “voluntarily” ( 
) turn them in so they won’t get arrested for having them which would become a crime.
5 Likes
I’ve seen that justification stance spoke of in social media, and among some peers. Once saw an NRA leader say that in a public interview/video. I think though, for future management/laws, the public look may be looking at semi automatic rifles as “the lower hanging fruit”, not necessarily my personal stance on the emotional laden topic, but I sense that is where half of the public will target first.
As much as I support The A in general, I also realize that We The People of today can actually make laws or interpret laws today – differing from 1791. We actually have already been doing so on all levels, city, state, and federal via the individual laws per se. In some ways, I wonder if those have the same affect as having amended the 2A. IDK.
When I argue against too much firearm control, personally I don’t refer to the 2A, just not my personal choice of defense argument. I Just personally prefer the here and now.
Though I support some firearm rights, it’s the justifications which sometimes I find embarrassing, so I distance myself at times, but mean no intentional disrespect, just a different way to go about it. My apologies. We are diverse. I can see two major sides on the issues of semi auto rifles, but I also see that the arguments has been going on for a long time, and polarizing. As opposed to fighting or using words like “war”, I wonder if there is a solution which is more peaceful.
I think you all know where I stand. I think I know where you stand. Not wanting to ruffle feathers further, I want to find material which brings us common ground. The video attached below might not support commonality, but was new and different “food for thought” for me. It might relate to this original post by Scott361.
A highly sensitive topic, no doubt, rights of owners Vs. rights of non-owners. Bless us all.
Stay safe.
1 Like
You know what happens what all the low hanging fruit is gone? They come back with a ladder.
8 Likes
There is no “right” of a “non-owner” to control what others may possess
6 Likes