My 2024 Endorsement for President

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
  • Start date Start date
4everfsu said:
First a soft ban on AR-15 is a slippery slope. Then they will make a hard ban on Ar-15, and maybe a soft ban on semi auto pistol. I will not yield an inch of my 2nd amendments rights EVER!

Once the corral gates are opened , you may never get the animals back in again.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, your statement is a bit of a red herring. I’ve heard this argument for years about not giving an inch when it comes to assault weapons. Gun control laws actually predate the Second Amendment in North America, going back to the old colonial days. Like I said, I have a CWP and I own a few guns, plus I love duck hunting, so I’m far from being anti-gun, but unless you’re having fun at a gun range, I see no problem in restricting high powered assault weapons to the general public.
 
HukNduck said:
In my opinion, your statement is a bit of a red herring. I’ve heard this argument for years about not giving an inch when it comes to assault weapons. Gun control laws actually predate the Second Amendment in North America, going back to the old colonial days. Like I said, I have a CWP and I own a few guns, plus I love duck hunting, so I’m far from being anti-gun, but unless you’re having fun at a gun range, I see no problem in restricting high powered assault weapons to the general public.
Click to expand...
I have found in my limited experience, that defining “assault weapon” for liberals (not calling you a liberal, but you use the term in the way they do apparently) it’s like trying to get them to define what a woman is. Just sayin.

Link
 
ALAYMAN said:
I have found in my limited experience, that defining “assault weapon” for liberals (not calling you a liberal, but you use the term in the way they do apparently) it’s like trying to get them to define what a woman is. Just sayin.

Link
Click to expand...
Well, part of the problem is the classification is dubious due to our government’s lack of ability (intelligence?) to provide concrete definitions. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/lifelong-gun-owners-ar-15s/story?id=85131723 However, I’m sure you know laws are often intentionally written in a vague manner on purpose. I’m not particularly passionate about the gun rights topic, so you won’t get much of an argument from me on either side of the fence, but if I’m just giving my opinion, I’d lean towards a “soft ban” on some of these weapons and limiting them to hobby and/or hunting purposes. I’d also be fine leaving the laws as they are and raising the minimum age for purchase (police/military personnel being excluded from that).
 
HukNduck said:
I see no problem in restricting high powered assault weapons to the general public.
Click to expand...

The problem is with defining "high powered assault weapon"--a supposed category of weapon with no precise definition.

Which one of these rifles would you classify as an assault weapon, and for what reason?

gun2.png

gun1.png
 
HukNduck said:
Top…because of the magazine/ammo quantity.
Click to expand...

The top rifle is a Colt AR-15.

The bottom rifle is a Ruger Mini-14.

They are, in fact, functionally identical. Both are semiautomatic rifles, both are chambered for .223 Remington, and both can accommodate a high-capacity magazine.

I'm curious: to what extent was your choice influenced by the appearance of each rifle?
 
Ransom said:
The top rifle is a Colt AR-15.

The bottom rifle is a Ruger Mini-14.

They are, in fact, functionally identical. Both are semiautomatic rifles, both are chambered for .223 Remington, and both can accommodate a high-capacity magazine.

I'm curious: to what extent was your choice influenced by the appearance of each rifle?
Click to expand...
The mini looks more like a traditional hunting rifle whereas the AR looks more like a combat weapon. I’d assume the AR holds more rounds, but as I’ve previously mentioned, I’m not much of weapons expert outside of shotguns. (My favorite for waterfowl is the break action style…I grew to dislike the pump after too many jams).
 
HukNduck said:
The mini looks more like a traditional hunting rifle whereas the AR looks more like a combat weapon.
Click to expand...

And looks are the crux of the matter, not function. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned the Colt AR-15 specifically, but not the Mini-14, because it does not have a collapsing stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or (LOL) grenade launcher.

Put another way, an AR-15 variant was illegal under the ban, and the Ruger Mini-14 was legal, not because of their capabilities, but their ergonomics. The AR-15 looks like a military weapon, therefore illegal. The Mini-14 looks like a hunting rifle, therefore legal.

By contrast, in Canada, the RCMP puts both rifles in the same category: restricted, then as of 2020, prohibited. That's due to Junior Trudeau overreacting to a particular shooting spree, but at least they're consistent and not just going after scary-looking black guns.
 
Ransom said:
And looks are the crux of the matter, not function. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned the Colt AR-15 specifically, but not the Mini-14, because it does not have a collapsing stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or (LOL) grenade launcher.

Put another way, an AR-15 variant was illegal under the ban, and the Ruger Mini-14 was legal, not because of their capabilities, but their ergonomics. The AR-15 looks like a military weapon, therefore illegal. The Mini-14 looks like a hunting rifle, therefore legal.

By contrast, in Canada, the RCMP puts both rifles in the same category: restricted, then as of 2020, prohibited. That's due to Junior Trudeau overreacting to a particular shooting spree, but at least they're consistent and not just going after scary-looking black guns.
Click to expand...
I understand, there’s always a double standard that can be pointed out. Both of my BILs are gun nuts, one being a combat vet and the other in law enforcement. They were both royally ticked off about the bump stock ban a couple years ago. Me…outside of shotguns, I don’t really care too much one way or the other.
 
Ransom said:
And looks are the crux of the matter, not function. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned the Colt AR-15 specifically, but not the Mini-14, because it does not have a collapsing stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or (LOL) grenade launcher.

Put another way, an AR-15 variant was illegal under the ban, and the Ruger Mini-14 was legal, not because of their capabilities, but their ergonomics. The AR-15 looks like a military weapon, therefore illegal. The Mini-14 looks like a hunting rifle, therefore legal.

By contrast, in Canada, the RCMP puts both rifles in the same category: restricted, then as of 2020, prohibited. That's due to Junior Trudeau overreacting to a particular shooting spree, but at least they're consistent and not just going after scary-looking black guns.
Click to expand...
and the joke was on the banners....... coz the mini-14 actually has more modification possibilities than the ar-15 does... and can be modified from one form to another in a matter of minutes... it;s like the jeep wrangler of rifles... . all one needs is the applicable accessory and some basic tools...

Sturm-Ruger_Mini-14_Rifles.jpeg
 
aleshanee said:
and the joke was on the banners....... coz the mini-14 actually has more modification possibilities than the ar-15 does... and can be modified from one form to another in a matter of minutes... it;s like the jeep wrangler of rifles... . all one needs is the applicable accessory and some basic tools...

View attachment 4916
Click to expand...
.
and.. almost forgot... there is another thing the mini-14 can be modified to do... :cool:
.
 
Last edited:
HukNduck said:
"but I don’t think your average Joe really needs to have easy access to purchasing this weapon for “home defense.”
Click to expand...
Joe Biden couldn't have said it better. Let's be honest, the government has controlled/banned many types of weapons. Example: Cannons. Remember Biden saying you couldn't own a cannon, yet there was a time when you could. Machine guns should be readily available, yet they are controlled. Earthing Americans should be able to freely own the same type of weapons as their government, as that is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment.

RFKJr has garnered the support of several here on Zarus 3. Yes, he is a liberal Democrat, yet he speaks more of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than Trump or any Republican. Everyone should be aware by now that no one person can "save" America. America is doomed to corruption, socialism, and being a police state. RFK, Trump, Newson, etc. will not reverse that.
 
personally i think the best home defense weapons are a baseball bat and a big pack of ill tempered dogs.... ..just so long there is room in your house to swing the bat - your dogs know who feeds them..... and they refrain from biting the hands thereof... ..:sneaky:
 
HukNduck said:
I think it should be acceptable for this type weapon to be available for recreational purposes like popping off shots at a range, but I don’t think your average Joe really needs to have easy access to purchasing this weapon for “home defense.”
Click to expand...
Why?
 
HukNduck said:
Philosophically, I’d consider myself a Blue Dog Democrat. Politically, I’m registered as an independent. The last time I voted for a Democrat was during Obama’s first term. I haven’t voted D since then, but I’m not averse to voting third party if I don’t like the Republican. (I voted Trump for his first run.)
Click to expand...
How can you vote for a party that advocates murder of Infants in the womb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top