Strongbow

Pic fail last night. Gonna borrow a camera tonight.

I'll try, but I'm not sure my camera can capture it.

So I picked up a nice rep Fish. Looks great, etc, but this model supposedly comes with "super-lume.". To me, it doesn't seem so super. It's pretty dim. I can see clearly enough once my eyes are dark adapted, and it's readable throughout the night, but I was expecting something a bit more "super." However, I want to ensure my expectations are properly calibrated before I mention it to the vendor.

Not necessarily. Mentally I'll doesn't imply the complete inability to reason. Someone who is paranoid or schizophrenic may be perfectly capable of complex reasoning.

No one can answer this for me: what IS a so-called assault weapon? The 1994 law defined such a weapon by largely cosmetic characteristics... The configuration of the grip.... Whether or not it had a bayonet lug (wtf!? When is the last time some got bayoneted in this country?), colleague/foldable stock.... All completely unrelated to the actual function of the weapon, and simply made the rifle either less comfortable to use, or less useful to genuine collectors. What these folks REALLY want to go after is any semi-auto rifle that can fit an external magazine. They are reluctant to do so, because they know that definition encompasses a LOT of guns used by hunters and competitive shooters. The "large capacity magazine" argument is also a red herring. There are hundreds of millions of large capacity magazines in existence. Unless you make possession of such things illegal (instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felons), they aren't going anywhere. And guess what? The only people who would turn them in, probably without compensation for their sometimes large investments, are the people least likely to use them in a crime. A criminal, who already illegally owns the weapon, isn't going to turn in his 19 round Glock mag.

Maybe in Oz, you see this a good thing... banning semiautos. I see it as relinquishing one of a human's essential rights. I don;t ever want to wonder if I could have saved my family, iof I had been properly armed. And I can't imagine ever hunkering down, wishing the police would arrive, and being greatful that the state decided I could not be trusted to defend myself.

I'd argue you should be able to, based on the plain language of the 2A. But following your argument, what do YOU think the 2A protects? It's clearly meant to protect defensive arms of some type. What type?

Don't worry, as sson as a crazy kills a bunch of kids with one of those, they will be the new boogieman.

And you're perfectly willing to make the same decision for me? No thanks. How often does that happen? I'll tell you, very, VERY rarely. The weapon used in the VAST majority of crimes is the semi-automatic hand gun. And the supreme court has already said those weapons are protected by the Constitution.

Whatever may come. I'm not a "prepper" or some sort of anti-government militia type. I don't know what may happen. But since I don't know, I want a versatile tool, capabl;e of dealing with whatever may be at hand.... be it home invaders, a pack of wild dogs (yes, there are some not far from me), zombies ( ) No one ever went into a gun fight wishing they had less ammo. If I ever have to face that situation, I don't want to do it what what YOU, or ANYONE ELSE considers adequate ammo capacity in my firearm. I want to be limited by what I think is a practical burden/benfit ratio. And while you may think 5 or 9 rounds is sufficient to deal "an" instruder, I'll point out that MOST home invasions involve 2 or more assailants. I do not want to tell the other guy to wait a sec while I do a magazine change. Your choice, of course. But I'd prefer the AR15. I've practiced with it more, and I find it to be more handy in the house. I also think the light recoil means I can put more shots on targetr, more accurately. I also have a sound suppressor for it, so I'm less likely to blow out my eardrums, or those of my family. And yet, the second amednment doesn't limit rights based on the type of weapon. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not b e infringed." Seems pretty clear to me. Are you suggesting that right extends ONLY to those weapons in existence when the 2A was ratified? I doubt it, but I can't see how your argument would otherwise apply. I ask again: What do YOU think an "assualt rifle" IS? A gun which LOOKS like a military rifle, or ANY semiautomatic rifle with a removable magazine? What is "high capacity?" FWIW, I am not a hunter. I do not CARE about hunting. I shoot recreationally (mainly with antique weapons that would be uinaffected by these proposed bans FOR NOW), and am armed in case of need with modern firearms. I can see no reason why my choice of defensive weapons whould be dicatated by others. I can assure you, those who mean harm are not at all concerned by what is legal and what isn't. Not to mention, unless you plan on going door to door confiscating "assault weapons" and "hi-capacity clips" (they are MAGAZINES by the way... not "clips"), that boat has sailed. There are MILLIONS of the weapons and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of the magazines in circulation already.

I don't "expect" such an event, but they do occur, even in nice neighbrohoods (my neighborhood is nice, and extremely safe). But I would hate to be in a situation where there was an intruder in my house and I had to hope beyond hope that they aren't armed, or that the police somehow arrive in time. Perhaps you don;t feel the need to protect against such a possibility. That is your choice. But I am a free man, and think I should be able to defend myself and my family with the tool best suited to doing so. And I ask again.... what is an "assualt rifle?" Just one that looks scarey or is it any semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine?

So, I should only be able to defend my home with a gun holding a maximum of 5 rounds? WTF? And tell, me: what exactly is a "military type, assault rifle type?" You do know that your bolt action "hunting rifle" was state of the art military technology 100-120 years ago, right? Do you really mean that all guns that look scary should be banned? Or do you mean any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting an external magazine should be banned?