The Fudd Manifesto: Ten ‘Responsible’ Gun Control Measures We Can All Get Behind

[OKC03Cobra]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-gun-control-measures-we-can-all-get-behind/

 

[NikatKimber]

LOL!!

 

[Glocktogo]

Derp, X10.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

The "Fudds" who only like hunting rifles/shotguns seem to think that they can protect their weapons by sacrificing AR's and the like. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the anti's want to eliminate ALL weapons. The anti's are willing to take them bit by bit and love to see us in-fighting, but the end result is a disarmed populace.

 

[mugsy]

Funny post but it does highlight one thing I have always hated, when someone says something like "I have no problem with legitimate uses like hunting, in fact, I'm a hunter myself, but...".
I'm not a hunter, never have been. I have nothing against hunters or hunting and have no desire to ban hunting or anything like that. However, any discussion of hunting is irrelevant to discussion of the 2nd Amendment which does not reference hunting and was crafted for reasons that have anything to do with hunting.

 

[Dave70968]

Funny post but it does highlight one thing I have always hated, when someone says something like "I have no problem with legitimate uses like hunting, in fact, I'm a hunter myself, but...".
I'm not a hunter, never have been. I have nothing against hunters or hunting and have no desire to ban hunting or anything like that. However, any discussion of hunting is irrelevant to discussion of the 2nd Amendment which does not reference hunting and was crafted for reasons that have anything to do with hunting.

"...the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad) [emphasis mine]."
Parker v. District of Columbia, aff'd as Heller

 

[mugsy]

Do any of the 2nd Amendment establishment discussions, apart from references to English Common Law,

"...the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad) [emphasis mine]."
Parker v. District of Columbia, aff'd as Heller

I stand corrected the purpose of hunting is one of the purposes behind the 2nd Amendment, but I would characterize it as a secondary or inferior reason. I believe that I am backed up in this by the language of Heller:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution." (Heller, P26, emphasis mine)
Here is the link to Heller Text - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Dave70968]

Do any of the 2nd Amendment establishment discussions, apart from references to English Common Law,


I stand corrected the purpose of hunting is one of the purposes behind the 2nd Amendment, but I would characterize it as a secondary or inferior reason. I believe that I am backed up in this by the language of Heller:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution." (Heller, P26, emphasis mine)
Here is the link to Heller Text - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I agree that hunting is a secondary purpose; I emphasized the part I did to make clear it was the primary. The Heller verdict wasn't quite as explicit about the "tyrannical government" part as Parker was.

I like big, strong language.

 

[TerryMiller]

The "Fudds" who only like hunting rifles/shotguns seem to think that they can protect their weapons by sacrificing AR's and the like. It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the anti's want to eliminate ALL weapons. The anti's are willing to take them bit by bit and love to see us in-fighting, but the end result is a disarmed populace.

Thus the real explanation to the term for those on the left who willingly want to be known as "Progressives." Not because they are progressive in thought to do better things, but as you described, changing things bit by bit.

Anytime someone tells me that they are a progressive, I ask them if they are then proponents of school choice and school vouchers. I usually get blank stares and no responses.