Sorry I missed out on the locked 2A thread!!!

[BigIron]

Looked like a lot of fun was had by all!

I may have missed it (I just scanned most of the posts last night), but I didn't see what I think is an important fact that is missed by some in the hunting community.

Many hunters (most hunters) don't hunt with AR-15's or M-60's (full auto), or 30 - 100 round mags. And since they don't see a need for that in either hunting OR in normal self defense, some % of hunters succumb to the temptation to go along with the non hunting non educated public and aquiesce to the "we don't need hi cap mags or full auto or 'assault' weapons argument.

IMO the truth about the origin of the 2A would help keep that from occurring as often as it does.

So, if it was left out of that wonderful spirited thread here's my take on that truth.

The founders had just left tyranny in Europe. They had just fought and won a war against tyranny. Tyranny was THE BIG issue to them.

Hunting?????? Hunting was the furthest thing from their minds when they penned the 2A. Personal protection from a burglar or another citizen with whom they were quarrelling??? Shirley you jest! Hunting and personal protection uses for firearms were givens that they probably couldn't even concieve would EVER be threatened. These guys were still dueling in the streets if you remember. And the majority of their public procured whatever meat they ate with guns.

The core purpose of 2A was to make sure that the citizens of the U.S. could arm themselves with enough lethal modern firepower to prevent tyranny from outside and INSIDE.

So, the next time your neighbor, friend, govt. rep tells you they don't want to take your hunting rifles or your personal protection firearms, just tell them those were never on the negotiation table. And for God's sake tell them what the 2A was penned for!

Of course, those with the "evergreen" philosophy of the constitution/BOR will never understand. Fortunately, those are still the minority.

[rthomas4]

I didn't even know the thread had been locked, until Ms. Badger sent me a pm on another site she and I are both on.

Can anybody tell me why it was locked? I did as I said, and stated my piece and left the conversation, so did something happen after I left?

[BigIron]

That's a good question. From what I could tell, it generated a lot of good discussion.

[Deebz]

I'd have to say due to the fact that it had pretty much degenerated into a pointless exchange of insults and misinterpretations of people's statements the thread had pretty much outlived its usefulness.

[Woods Walker]

Where you been stranger?

I pretty well cover a lot of this here.....

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39000

But thanks for agreeing with me anyway!

[Big Horse]

I missed out too. Read all 13 pages the other day and didn't realize it was locked until I tried to reply.

But since you started this thread, I'll address the question I originally intended to reply to.

I believe it was JPH who asked "What is the necessary level of armament needed for an individual to maintain a reasonable ability to defend oneself and sereve as member of the militia in modern America and what level of armament represents a danger?"

I've been in Law Enforcement for 20 years and one of the 1st things I learned in my training was the necessary level of armament needed is whatever it takes to stop the threat. The answer is no different for the individual than it is for those we hire to protect us.

[JPH]

You only answered half the question.

[Big Horse]

No gun represents a danger on its own. Every gun represents a danger in the hands of the wrong person

[JPH]

I agree with you on the surface Big Horse, I really do. I just think a flaw jumps out of this logic when we follow it in the opposite direction from the one you are pointing it in.

The potential threats are limitless if you have an active imagination. Aircraft could pose a threat. So should we all be able to go out and buy shoulder fired surface to air missiles? By themselves, SAMs pose no threat. Good people could simply hold on to them in case someone tries to use an aircraft for evil. On the other hand, easy access to SAMs might just result in someone taking down the Delta shuttle to LAX. Most of us would agree that while it would be nice to shoot invading Chinese paratroopers out of the sky, the potential benefit does not outweigh the potential; threat.

Now bear with me. I'm not advocating SAMs, claymores, RPGs or tanks, nor am I comparing a high-cap mag to the destructive power of these things. I'm simply suggesting that there may be justification for an open look at the level of firepower and rate of fire available to the militia if a certain level of it is proving to be more dangerous than it is beneficial.

[Deebz]

I don't see how high capacity magazines are proving to be dangerous though. The recent shootings are terrible and inexcusable, but they are far from the norm. The number of deaths caused by people using the weapons they are trying to ban or limit are not statistically significant. Banning and limiting them will not prevent people from committing these atrocities.