The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 104
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    And in this Politico article, a UCLA School of Law professor states that...
    It is truly difficult for me to take anyone seriously that uses "Politico" like it was some sort of unbias, reliable source. When I use "National Review" as a source please feel free to call me an idiot.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    The Bill of Rights grants NOTHING. It forbids government from infringing on already existing rights.
    What part of "the Supreme Court already ruled on this" did you not understand?
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    It is truly difficult for me to take anyone seriously that uses "Politico" like it was some sort of unbias, reliable source. When I use "National Review" as a source please feel free to call me an idiot.
    So you are unable to refute anything in my post.

    The UCLA law professor's opinion is not irrelevant simply because you dislike the publication that requested it. If you want to call HIS credentials into question, knock yourself out. But it's his expertise and opinion that matter, not the publication in or website on which it appears.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    What part of "the Supreme Court already ruled on this" did you not understand?
    I understand this subject far better than you do.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    So you are unable to refute anything in my post.
    Not unable just unwilling.

    It's a simple matter of respect for those whom you are engaging. Using a well known overly bias publication in an argument tells me you don't have any, so I'm not interested in taking you seriously.



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    I understand this subject far better than you do.
    And you're demonstrating it so well!

    Be sure to let the Supreme Court know where it went wrong.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    Not unable just unwilling.

    It's a simple matter of respect for those whom you are engaging. Using a well known overly bias publication in an argument tells me you don't have any, so I'm not interested in taking you seriously.
    That's a copout and we both know it.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2001
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    That's a copout and we both know it.
    What we know is that what YOU know is already suspect if you think "Politico" is a legitimate source.

    Secondly, the factual report as to what actually happened in Sandy Hook is not scheduled to be released until this summer. There is currently conflicting reports as to exactly which of the several guns on the scene were used. Any law professor who is making predictions based on "recent high profile events" when the reports concerning those "events" haven't even been published is jumping the gun, so to speak. It's not like the media is ever wrong about these things or anything.

    But once again, don't let facts--or the gathering of them--slow you down! You know if you did that you would lose this marvelous opportunity to use the personal tragedy suffered by these families to push your political agenda...and you might be left having to talk about the economy...


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    What we know is that what YOU know is already suspect if you think "Politico" is a legitimate source.
    Pretty obvious that you keep harping on the source to avoid disputing the substance of the UCLA professor's remarks. Because you can't dispute it.

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    Secondly, the factual report as to what actually happened in Sandy Hook is not scheduled to be released until this summer. There is currently conflicting reports as to exactly which of the several guns on the scene were used. Any law professor who is making predictions based on "recent high profile events" when the reports concerning those "events" haven't even been published is jumping the gun, so to speak. It's not like the media is ever wrong about these things or anything.

    But once again, don't let facts--or the gathering of them--slow you down! You know if you did that you would lose this marvelous opportunity to use the personal tragedy suffered by these families to push your political agenda...and you might be left having to talk about the economy...
    Interesting. You accuse me of exploiting Sandy Hook to push my political agenda, when no one but you has so much as mentioned it in this thread.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    I think the look alike assault rifles are simply toys for stupid boys. Not needed for anything except a "man card". Again silliness at an extreme. The idiots that are stock piling simply amazes me. Do they really want to NEED to defend themselves like Mad Max or The Walking Dead or or or....Yay back to the Dark Ages. As a society we nearly incapable of that lifestyle. The majority of people don't know how to survive anyway, AR 15's be damned. Too rich for too long. It's a dumb argument IMNSHO. Ask a vet how much fun they have had...

    Most of those idiots would also have a bit of difficulty with an MMPI test. If they had to take that test to own a firearm, methinks there would be more than a few that simply could not.



  11. #31
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2008
    Location
    Scranton, PA
    Posts
    728

    Default

    There's no such thing as an Assault Weapon.
    Most don't realize it but there is a huge different between a civilian Ar-15 and a military issued one. That difference being that a civilian AR-15 is semi automatic...one shot per trigger pull....and a military issued AR-15 is fully automatic. Hold the trigger down and the firearm continues to shoot.
    Fully automatic firearms have been highly controlled since the 1930's. They are issued to military an around six moths of background work is required plus interviews etc.

    Now the civilian AR-15's being semi automatic function like a semi automatic hunting rifle would....but no one wants to ban those! This leads me to believe that people are scared by the APPEARANCE of the AR-15 and because it has an adjustable stock it's scary. Really it just makes it more comfortable for people of a variety of heights and sizes. Like me being 5'8 and 140lb and husband being 6'4 and 230 could both shoot it comfortably because it can be adjusted for our body.
    The hand grip is again a comfort thing. It helps the shooter to be able to steady the gun and shoot while standing.
    And the "scary" black stock....weather proof. I have a hunting rifle with a black stock and I use it alot more than my 30.06 with th wood stock. The wood stock is easily damaged and can get water spots easily.


    The only worry I have about military style firearms is that people who have no business with even a .22 will buy one because the military style looks "cool."
    So in that respect, it scares me because the design is attractive to maybe those who aren't educated enough to own a gun. But mechanically they are no different than my semi hunting rifle.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    39,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHunterKid90 View Post
    There's no such thing as an Assault Weapon.
    Most don't realize it but there is a huge different between a civilian Ar-15 and a military issued one. That difference being that a civilian AR-15 is semi automatic...one shot per trigger pull....and a military issued AR-15 is fully automatic. Hold the trigger down and the firearm continues to shoot.
    Fully automatic firearms have been highly controlled since the 1930's. They are issued to military an around six moths of background work is required plus interviews etc.

    Now the civilian AR-15's being semi automatic function like a semi automatic hunting rifle would....but no one wants to ban those! This leads me to believe that people are scared by the APPEARANCE of the AR-15 and because it has an adjustable stock it's scary. Really it just makes it more comfortable for people of a variety of heights and sizes. Like me being 5'8 and 140lb and husband being 6'4 and 230 could both shoot it comfortably because it can be adjusted for our body.
    The hand grip is again a comfort thing. It helps the shooter to be able to steady the gun and shoot while standing.
    And the "scary" black stock....weather proof. I have a hunting rifle with a black stock and I use it alot more than my 30.06 with th wood stock. The wood stock is easily damaged and can get water spots easily.


    The only worry I have about military style firearms is that people who have no business with even a .22 will buy one because the military style looks "cool."
    So in that respect, it scares me because the design is attractive to maybe those who aren't educated enough to own a gun. But mechanically they are no different than my semi hunting rifle.
    You could have saved yourself all that typing if you realized anti-gun people don't want to be informed, they just want to ban guns or else, don't confuse them with facts.

    I have a early 1900's semi-automatic Browning light, little .22 varmint gun Grandma gave me, that fits in the scabbard on a saddle.
    It holds, with one in the chamber, 11 bullets.

    The AR 15 is one step up at .223 and right for the new invasive species feral hogs, that the .22 is not good enough for.

    The only difference in both guns is that the AR 15 is grey and made out of plastic parts and a bit bigger, but it is just the same type gun.
    The clips come in different sizes, but most hunting use the smallest one, less apt to jam.

    I really don't think banning that one AR 15 makes any sense at all, when it comes to wanting to ban it because it is any more of a gun or dangerous or military or any other you want to call it, because it is not, it is just one more gun about like so many others out there.

    To say the AR 15 is anything special as a gun and so dangerous is like saying a Ram pickup is dangerous because it has a ram logo on the front and that makes it more aggressive than other pickups and attracts the kind of people that want to brag of an aggressive pickup.

    I think the people that are aggressive because they own this or that have many other problems than what kind of gun or vehicle they choose.
    They are as dangerous with a Ram pickup or an AR 15 or any other they choose to feel big with.

    We should not take the AR 15's off the hands of millions that use them properly because someone, somewhere may/did misuse one.

    We really need to address this from the people side, not "ban the horrible looking gun".


    6 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    I think the look alike assault rifles are simply toys for stupid boys. Not needed for anything except a "man card". Again silliness at an extreme. The idiots that are stock piling simply amazes me. Do they really want to NEED to defend themselves like Mad Max or The Walking Dead or or or....Yay back to the Dark Ages. As a society we nearly incapable of that lifestyle. The majority of people don't know how to survive anyway, AR 15's be damned. Too rich for too long. It's a dumb argument IMNSHO. Ask a vet how much fun they have had...

    Most of those idiots would also have a bit of difficulty with an MMPI test. If they had to take that test to own a firearm, methinks there would be more than a few that simply could not.

    Who the hell cares what you think we need or why? It's none of your damned business.

    I want to go through your home and possessions and I wil decide what you need and don't need, and I'll refer to you as an idiot every time I see something I don't think you need.
    Last edited by caballero; Feb. 8, 2013 at 07:41 AM.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan. 23, 2006
    Location
    Constant State of Delusion
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    The way I see it, any weapon could be classified as an "assault weapon." Hell, pretty much any object could be classified as a "weapon," if we want to get into semantics here.

    A snubnose .38 special can be used to shoot someone. Shooting someone is "assaulting" them. Thus, a small caliber, single action pistol could very easily be dubbed as an "assault weapon."

    Just like the coffee mug on my desk. I could clock my co-worker in the face with it. Clocking my co-worker in the face with a coffee mug would be considered "assault." Thus, a simple, mass-produced, benign beverage vessel could also very easily be dubbed as an "assault weapon."

    Same goes for the cast-iron skillet in which I pan-sear and broil delicious steaks... Same goes for the sharp knives with which I cut said delicious steaks. Same goes for the snow-shovel in my foyer closet... Same goes for _______ <--- enter any inanimate object here.


    Yes, I realize I'm being facetious, but I'm using my smart-assery to make a point. That point being how the US media, government, and willfully ignorant citizens have inflated the "issue" of guns and gun control in this country with hysteria, propaganda and scare tactics... ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. ANY weapon can be used to ASSAULT someone/something. The issue comes down to personal responsibility. And that, my friends, is NOT something that will or even can be forced/mandated/required by any number of laws, regulation or legislation.

    Check out how successful "banning guns" has worked for Chicago.

    If you think there's not a need for the 2nd Amendment, or for American citizens to own a firearm; do some research on the Battle of Wounded Knee.

    Just to be clear- I'm not saying that everyone should/have to/needs to own a gun. If you don't want one, don't get one. That's the beauty of this country- we have that choice. But we also have our rights. And those rights are to protect US, "we the people." NOT to protect the government.

    And for Christ's sake, stop being afraid to THINK FOR YOURSELVES, people. Newsflash! The media isn't giving us facts. It's feeding us bullshit. And in large part, so is our government.
    Last edited by ReeseTheBeast; Feb. 8, 2013 at 08:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Martha Drum View Post
    ...But I don't want to sit helmetless on my horse while he lies on the ground kicking a ball around without a bridle while Leatherface does an interpretive dance with his chainsaw around us.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2006
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You could have saved yourself all that typing if you realized anti-gun people don't want to be informed, they just want to ban guns or else, don't confuse them with facts.
    .
    Actually, I started this thread stating that while I don't own a gun, I'm not anti-gun! I just didn't understand the need for assault weapons. Yes, I could've googled assault weapons and done my own research, but it's off-topic day so I figured I'd throw it out here. And while some have made it clear that it's none of my business, others have really cleared up what were obviously my misconceptions of what is an assault weapon and I appreciate that!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2002
    Location
    Henrico, NC 36 30'50.49" N 77 50'17.47" W
    Posts
    5,772

    Default

    quote: " others have really cleared up what were obviously my misconceptions of what is an assault weapon and I appreciate that! "


    Thanks for that. It's really such a simple concept. It's a shame so few on either side can put in the effort to bring out the real answer without getting so worked up, making personal attacks about it.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    So you are unable to refute anything in my post.

    The UCLA law professor's opinion is not irrelevant simply because you dislike the publication that requested it. If you want to call HIS credentials into question, knock yourself out. But it's his expertise and opinion that matter, not the publication in or website on which it appears.
    No right is absolute. For example, you have a right to speak freely about things but bear the consequences of that speech (criminal sanctions for yelling "fire" in crowded movie theater or civil damages for slander). Indeed there are even very rare instances of preventive injunctions that "muzzle" a speaker before they've spoken.

    So, yes, there are limits on Second Amendment rights. But when dealing with individual rights any restriction must pass some pretty stringent tests. First, there must be an over-riding governmental interest threatened by the behavior to be restricted. Second, the restriction must be tailored to that over-riding governmental interest. And Third the restriction must be the minimum restriction necessary to preserve that over-riding interest. In my opinion (and I'm an expert, too; the Supreme Court of the State of Texas says so ) the total bans proposed contravene Heller.

    I don't grant the opinion of a UCLA law professor any more weight than I grant to a law professor from any other school who might have a countervailing opinion.

    Could my opinion be in error? Could the learned professor from CA be in error? OF COURSE WE COULD!!!!! That's why the Founding Fathers gave us a court system to resolve disputes!

    The "need" standard does not exist in the words of the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court chooses to "read" one in then whose needs gets put first? The "needs" of the individual or the "needs" of the government?

    And, just to be complete, the Bill of Rights grants nothing to the persons living under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects, preserves, and defends rights that we already have. If you want to be deist then theses rights come from God. If you want to be secular they come from the place where all other "human rights" come from (where ever that might be). But "rights" are NEVER, under our system, a gift from the state.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    12,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subk View Post
    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    This is a misquote. actually This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is innacurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
    George Mason: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    accurate

    Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”

    Adolf Hitler, following the institution of strict gun control legislation in Germany in 1935: “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
    Not exactly http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...han-they-think
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan. 27, 2004
    Location
    Yonder, USA
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You could have saved yourself all that typing if you realized anti-gun people don't want to be informed, they just want to ban guns or else, don't confuse them with facts.
    This attitude is part of the problem.

    Like the OP, there are a LOT of people in the middle. People who support target shooting, hunting, and even home defense. HOWEVER, not being gun people themselves, most of what they know about guns is the outright, blatent disinformation trumpeted all over the news. Hell, if that's all I knew about guns, I'd think most gun owners were wild-eyed loons with a stash of bullets that can shoot through concrete walls and guns that fire 100 rounds in seconds. What rational person thinks that's a good idea?

    So, by refusing to discuss and educate in a rational and respectful manner, too many gun owners are allowing misinformation to form public opinion and get written into laws. I, personally, am very glad the OP is interested in learning more about the topic, and even more appreciative of the people who have given good, solid facts to dispell the made-up term "assault weapon".
    ---------------------------


    3 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    12,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You could have saved yourself all that typing if you realized anti-gun people don't want to be informed, they just want to ban guns or else, don't confuse them with facts.
    Plenty of nonfacts written by the progun people as well.
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 11:18 AM
  3. "Brutal Horse-Mounted Assault" on Portland "Occupiers"
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: Nov. 20, 2011, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec. 11, 2010, 08:08 PM
  5. Psycho Arrested in an Assault by Horse...
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Aug. 13, 2009, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •