Anyone here into firearms?

510z · 05-06-2010, 07:22 AM

SmoothZ · 05-06-2010, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 370Zsteve

x2, that didn't go over very well in 1860 and the seditious traitors were pounded into total submission by the Patriots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

So things like banning open carry / concealed carry , banning short barreled guns, DC's ban on having them at all (which was thankfully struck down less than 2 years ago by the supreme court), ammo restrictions, and etcetera don't count as gun control? The reason we have a right to firearms and militias is because it's recognized that the people of the nation may, at some point, need to rise against a tyrannous government, but the government won't let the citizens have access to the same equipment as the military, even with some as basic as automatic weapons. All these restrictions assure that guns are only carried by criminals, because it becomes too tedious for regular people to own and carry them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 370Zsteve

Point is, this "arrest the feds" law won't hold up, state doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is a Federal Republic.

I'd like to see the staties try...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 370Zsteve

Dogs are a good deterrent. If that doesn't work, a nice 12-gauge works well.

Again, I agree. I have 2 dogs and several guns. Woe unto those who dare enter my realm uninvited.

zylont · 05-06-2010, 10:42 PM

Here is my collection...

C4talyst · 05-09-2010, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvfreakazoid

Just wondering if anyone in this forum into firearms. I'm looking to build a AR15 and just wondering if anyone has a ar.

What would you possible need an AR15 for...hunting squirrels? I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I don't think anyone but law enforcement or the military should own guns like that. You should be able to keep a shotgun in your house for self-defense, or a rifle for permitted hunting, but that's it.

bullitt5897 · 05-09-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4talyst

What would you possible need an AR15 for...hunting squirrels? I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I don't think anyone but law enforcement or the military should own guns like that. You should be able to keep a shotgun in your house for self-defense, or a rifle for permitted hunting, but that's it.

So I guess I should not own my 6.8spc ar15 or my tactical 300 win mag and tactical 338 lapua magnum sniper rifles or h&k 45 or my dan wesson valor...By your logic I should only own a shotgun for home defense. Well I got news for you ur in the wrong forum! Personally I like having the best gear I can get my hands on! Just in case I have to defend my home from a foreign or domestic force that feels it has the right to encroach on my God given freedoms of a man. No man or government will tell me what I can own and what is good for me or my family. We have the right to choose and at this moment I choose to be very well armed for any scenario long distance or close quarters! Btw I compete in tower matches and visit the gun range weekly to hone my skills as a tactical shooter and a marksman. You never know when you will be put in a situation where you only have one shot to get that one kill.

semtex · 05-09-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4talyst

What would you possible need an AR15 for...hunting squirrels? I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I don't think anyone but law enforcement or the military should own guns like that. You should be able to keep a shotgun in your house for self-defense, or a rifle for permitted hunting, but that's it.

You say you're all for the Second Amendment, but you seem to lack an understanding as to what the philosophical and historical basis of the Second Amendment is. The founding fathers never predicated the right to keep and bear arms on a need to be able to defend one's self against criminals; it was predicated on the belief that in a free republic, the citizenry must retain the ability to overthrow the government should the need arise due to the government becoming tyrannical. Bear in mind the circumstances of how America came into being in the first place -- it was through revolution against the tyrannical rule of Britain. That's why the language of the Second Amendment makes reference to the maintenance of militias, etc. It wasn't fear of robbers or home invasions that motivated the 2nd Amendment; it was fear of tyranny. To be more precise, it was a fear that over time, unscrupulous individuals would seek to grab power and circumvent the fundamental liberties set forth by our founding fathers. They were acutely aware of the corrupting influence of power, after all. And history is replete with examples of leaders who gain power legitimately, but subsequently suspend or change the rules in order to avoid relinquishing it. Hitler, for example, was democratically elected, then subsequently changed the rules and became a dictator. More recent examples include Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Charles Taylor of Liberia, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, just to name three. In each of these examples, the history of those countries would likely be dramatically different if their citizens were blessed with a right to keep and bear arms. They would have had some fighting chance of standing up to these brutal dictators who took over their countries. Understand that I'm not saying that the end results would have been different. My point is only that this is what motivated the creation of the Second Amendment in our own country. Our founding fathers were prescient enough to foresee the possibility that one day, long after they themselves had departed, the need might arise for Americans to stand up to defend their republic against their own government gone awry.

In political theory terms, our system of government is known as a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy, the authority to govern -- that is, the moral legitimacy of the government -- is derived from the consent of the governed. Now, there are two forms of consent. The first form is known as active consent, which is what happens when we go vote. By voting, we are actively consenting to the system. We are agreeing to play by the rules and accept the outcome. This means that we agree to recognize the winner as having the moral right to govern, even if it's not the individual we voted for. (This is why vote rigging ala ACORN is so dangerous, as it threatens the very legitimacy of the outcome.) The second form is known as tacit consent, aka consent by acquiescence. This second form of consent is the more interesting one, because it addresses those who don't bother voting. Allow me to expand on this briefly.

If you study communist political theory, one of the criticisms leveled against liberal democratic systems is the incidence of low voter turnout. How can the citizenry be said to consent to their governments when so many of them don't even bother voting. Surely those individuals aren't consenting. Well this is where tacit consent comes into play. Individuals are consenting, the argument goes, in so far as they are not actively dissenting. In other words, while those who don't bother voting may not be actively consenting to the system, they are at least not picking up arms in dissent against the system, which in turn means that they are passively, or tacitly, agreeing to be governed.

It makes sense if you think about it. In every day life, how many times do we find ourselves in situations of: 'Did so-and-so agree to this?' 'Well, he didn't object. He didn't disagree, so . . .' Heck, even traditional wedding ceremonies incorporate the concept of tacit consent. 'If anyone knows of a reason these two individuals ought not to be married, speak now or forever hold your peace'. So the mere act of silence, of not objecting, is an act of consent.

Okay, so how does all this relate back to the Second Amendment? Well, tacit consent only works if those who are said to be tacitly consenting have an avenue to express their dissent. Go back to that wedding ceremony. Nobody speaks up. Nobody objects. So they're tacitly consenting, right? Oh but not so fast! What if we discover that everyone in the crowd has had their hands tied and their mouths taped shut? So nobody spoke up because nobody could speak up! That changes things, doesn't it? Suddenly, we're not really convinced that their silence constitutes tacit consent, are we? The salient point here is that in order for tacit consent to work, people must possess the ability to express their dissent. In order for us to be able to say that the citizens are tacitly consenting to their system of government because they are not trying to overthrow it, they must possess the ability to do just that! So, if they have the ability to take up arms and shoot at their political leaders but refrain from doing so, then we can say that their peacefulness does indeed constitute consent. We can't say that if they have no guns, because then we don't know if they're really behaving by choice.

Understood thusly, one could argue that the spirit of the Second Amendment has already been infringed. Why? Because let's face it, weapons technology has progressed to the point that merely possessing assault rifles isn't sufficient to overthrow the government. It can already be argued that tacit consent is no longer possible in this country, as its citizens no longer have the capability to overthrow their government. Or to put it another way, we could already argue that the only reason the citizens of this country haven't waged violent war against the jerks in DC isn't because they consent to how they are being governed, but because they lack sufficient resources and therefore have no choice!

From a purely philosophical standpoint, if we are to stay true to the spirit of the Second Amendment, not only should regular citizens have access to assault rifles, but we should also have access to grenades, tanks, stinger missiles, etc., etc. Anything the military has access to, we should as well. Only then can we be said to be tacitly consenting to our being governed -- by virtue of our possessing such weapons but not using them.

I know I've written a short novel here, and I apologize for being so long-winded. But the net of this is that if the 2nd Amendment were only about home defense and hunting, then I'd completely agree with you. There's no need for anything more than basic firearms. But study your political history. Don't take my word for any of this. Go and study it, and you'll discover the true intent behind the the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the things that makes America so unique in the world. It is what makes American democracy exceptional. Ours is the only country in the world that has a constitutional provision stipulating that its citizens not only have a right, but an obligation, to safeguard their freedoms through force of arms against its own government if necessary.

Togo · 05-09-2010, 04:13 PM

I thought about what I want to reply to what Ben just posted but I think a simple "Well said Ben." sums it all up the best.

That gave me more insight to the Second Amendment than I think I've ever received before, although in HS I'm sure I wasn't as concerned with matters such as this and therefore may not have paid much attention.

stiso · 05-09-2010, 04:23 PM

zylont, looks like you have the sr556 in your pic, I just got one a few weeks ago (cali model), kinda heavy up front, but I love it.

vash_241987 · 05-09-2010, 04:37 PM

Sanded off the old paint job and reduced the grip which IMO feels way better in my small hands than with the texture before. I'll do a stippling job on the grip and paint it FDE.

Before:

Now:

dad · 05-09-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

You say you're all for the Second Amendment, but you seem to lack an understanding as to what the philosophical and historical basis of the Second Amendment is. The founding fathers never predicated the right to keep and bear arms on a need to be able to defend one's self against criminals; it was predicated on the belief that in a free republic, the citizenry must retain the ability to overthrow the government should the need arise due to the government becoming tyrannical. Bear in mind the circumstances of how America came into being in the first place -- it was through revolution against the tyrannical rule of Britain. That's why the language of the Second Amendment makes reference to the maintenance of militias, etc. It wasn't fear of robbers or home invasions that motivated the 2nd Amendment; it was fear of tyranny. To be more precise, it was a fear that over time, unscrupulous individuals would seek to grab power and circumvent the fundamental liberties set forth by our founding fathers. They were acutely aware of the corrupting influence of power, after all. And history is replete with examples of leaders who gain power legitimately, but subsequently suspend or change the rules in order to avoid relinquishing it. Hitler, for example, was democratically elected, then subsequently changed the rules and became a dictator. More recent examples include Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Charles Taylor of Liberia, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, just to name three. In each of these examples, the history of those countries would likely be dramatically different if their citizens were blessed with a right to keep and bear arms. They would have had some fighting chance of standing up to these brutal dictators who took over their countries. Understand that I'm not saying that the end results would have been different. My point is only that this is what motivated the creation of the Second Amendment in our own country. Our founding fathers were prescient enough to foresee the possibility that one day, long after they themselves had departed, the need might arise for Americans to stand up to defend their republic against their own government gone awry.

In political theory terms, our system of government is known as a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy, the authority to govern -- that is, the moral legitimacy of the government -- is derived from the consent of the governed. Now, there are two forms of consent. The first form is known as active consent, which is what happens when we go vote. By voting, we are actively consenting to the system. We are agreeing to play by the rules and accept the outcome. This means that we agree to recognize the winner as having the moral right to govern, even if it's not the individual we voted for. (This is why vote rigging ala ACORN is so dangerous, as it threatens the very legitimacy of the outcome.) The second form is known as tacit consent, aka consent by acquiescence. This second form of consent is the more interesting one, because it addresses those who don't bother voting. Allow me to expand on this briefly.

If you study communist political theory, one of the criticisms leveled against liberal democratic systems is the incidence of low voter turnout. How can the citizenry be said to consent to their governments when so many of them don't even bother voting. Surely those individuals aren't consenting. Well this is where tacit consent comes into play. Individuals are consenting, the argument goes, in so far as they are not actively dissenting. In other words, while those who don't bother voting may not be actively consenting to the system, they are at least not picking up arms in dissent against the system, which in turn means that they are passively, or tacitly, agreeing to be governed.

It makes sense if you think about it. In every day life, how many times do we find ourselves in situations of: 'Did so-and-so agree to this?' 'Well, he didn't object. He didn't disagree, so . . .' Heck, even traditional wedding ceremonies incorporate the concept of tacit consent. 'If anyone knows of a reason these two individuals ought not to be married, speak now or forever hold your peace'. So the mere act of silence, of not objecting, is an act of consent.

Okay, so how does all this relate back to the Second Amendment? Well, tacit consent only works if those who are said to be tacitly consenting have an avenue to express their dissent. Go back to that wedding ceremony. Nobody speaks up. Nobody objects. So they're tacitly consenting, right? Oh but not so fast! What if we discover that everyone in the crowd has had their hands tied and their mouths taped shut? So nobody spoke up because nobody could speak up! That changes things, doesn't it? Suddenly, we're not really convinced that their silence constitutes tacit consent, are we? The salient point here is that in order for tacit consent to work, people must possess the ability to express their dissent. In order for us to be able to say that the citizens are tacitly consenting to their system of government because they are not trying to overthrow it, they must possess the ability to do just that! So, if they have the ability to take up arms and shoot at their political leaders but refrain from doing so, then we can say that their peacefulness does indeed constitute consent. We can't say that if they have no guns, because then we don't know if they're really behaving by choice.

Understood thusly, one could argue that the spirit of the Second Amendment has already been infringed. Why? Because let's face it, weapons technology has progressed to the point that merely possessing assault rifles isn't sufficient to overthrow the government. It can already be argued that tacit consent is no longer possible in this country, as its citizens no longer have the capability to overthrow their government. Or to put it another way, we could already argue that the only reason the citizens of this country haven't waged violent war against the jerks in DC isn't because they consent to how they are being governed, but because they lack sufficient resources and therefore have no choice!

From a purely philosophical standpoint, if we are to stay true to the spirit of the Second Amendment, not only should regular citizens have access to assault rifles, but we should also have access to grenades, tanks, stinger missiles, etc., etc. Anything the military has access to, we should as well. Only then can we be said to be tacitly consenting to our being governed -- by virtue of our possessing such weapons but not using them.

I know I've written a short novel here, and I apologize for being so long-winded. But the net of this is that if the 2nd Amendment were only about home defense and hunting, then I'd completely agree with you. There's no need for anything more than basic firearms. But study your political history. Don't take my word for any of this. Go and study it, and you'll discover the true intent behind the the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the things that makes America so unique in the world. It is what makes American democracy exceptional. Ours is the only country in the world that has a constitutional provision stipulating that its citizens not only have a right, but an obligation, to safeguard their freedoms through force of arms against its own government if necessary.

Beautiful , well written and expressed! rep+

cab83_750 · 05-09-2010, 05:57 PM

Semtex,

you should be a teacher. The composition is awesome! I admire your written skills

C4talyst · 05-09-2010, 10:19 PM

Hehehehehe...just kidding.

By the way, nice write-up Semtex; I read the whole thing.

semtex · 05-10-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4talyst

Hehehehehe...just kidding.

By the way, nice write-up Semtex; I read the whole thing.

OMG. You were yanking our chains?

LOL. Okay, you got me/us, obviously. You got me good! You got me real good!

Togo · 05-10-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

OMG. You were yanking our chains?

LOL. Okay, you got me/us, obviously. You got me good! You got me real good!

Ohhhh shit, he got you good you fucker!

tvfreakazoid · 05-12-2010, 04:04 PM

WOW! I was going to say something about it but i figure if a person thinks like that, I don't want to waste my time trying to explain it to this person.
LOL! this dude got semtex and bullitt all fired up. Good one!

05-09-2010, 04:13 PM	#517 (permalink)
Togo A True Z Fanatic Join Date: May 2009 Location: E. Northport, NY Posts: 7,597 Drives: Stuff Rep Power: 657	I thought about what I want to reply to what Ben just posted but I think a simple "Well said Ben." sums it all up the best. That gave me more insight to the Second Amendment than I think I've ever received before, although in HS I'm sure I wasn't as concerned with matters such as this and therefore may not have paid much attention. __________________ This will decimate all after you put about fifteen grand in it or more, and if we have to, overnight parts from Japan. Joe Clem and Koeppel Nissan

05-09-2010, 04:23 PM	#518 (permalink)
stiso Base Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: z Posts: 42 Drives: z Rep Power: 15	zylont, looks like you have the sr556 in your pic, I just got one a few weeks ago (cali model), kinda heavy up front, but I love it. __________________ ...

05-09-2010, 10:19 PM	#522 (permalink)
C4talyst Base Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 45 Drives: 2008 Ford Escape Rep Power: 15	Hehehehehe...just kidding. By the way, nice write-up Semtex; I read the whole thing. Last edited by C4talyst; 05-09-2010 at 10:25 PM.

05-12-2010, 04:04 PM	#525 (permalink)
tvfreakazoid A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: kommie kali Posts: 1,238 Drives: 2015 Audi S5; 6spd. Rep Power: 10324	WOW! I was going to say something about it but i figure if a person thinks like that, I don't want to waste my time trying to explain it to this person. LOL! this dude got semtex and bullitt all fired up. Good one! __________________ Mudders milk

05-06-2010, 07:22 AM	#511 (permalink)
510z Enthusiast Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Phoenix Posts: 328 Drives: 09 370z Blue M6 Rep Power: 16

05-09-2010, 04:37 PM	#519 (permalink)
vash_241987 Enthusiast Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Corpus Christi, Tx Posts: 443 Drives: '99 corolla Rep Power: 15	Sanded off the old paint job and reduced the grip which IMO feels way better in my small hands than with the texture before. I'll do a stippling job on the grip and paint it FDE. Before: Now:

05-09-2010, 05:57 PM	#521 (permalink)
cab83_750 Track Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: CA Posts: 887 Drives: 09 NISSAN 370Z Rep Power: 417	Semtex, you should be a teacher. The composition is awesome! I admire your written skills