On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:16:48 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10
seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10
rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit,
cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together
to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire
30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I
could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just
in case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the
north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can
be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one
person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of
people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber
heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm
anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank
destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the
primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most
people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Does that sound like the 2nd Amendment was designed to have a stand-by army?

And for Frank's pleasu

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Frank is crying his heart out that a standing army cannot rule.