22 LR - "Out Of Stock"

[black_cat]

i suppose that's the problem with being the only one in the world who can actually see things for what they are. or maybe it's just that i'm one of very few who don't drink other people's rhetoric kool aid.

The more I read them more I support effective mental health background checks for gun ownership.  I'm not sure if this is incredibly narcisistic or delusional.  I am guessing its a bit from column A and a bit from column B 

Edit:  inductive reasoning is not free from the rules of logic.  It is simply noted that inductive reasoning, vs deductive reasoning, cannot be proven.  Math, for instance, is deductive.  Philosophy is inductive.   Stating that you perceive the world differently then everyone else and that they are mistaken and you are not is not a cogent argument without strong supporting propositions.  If that is the base for your arguments its a poor one.

being correct is being correct. everything else is irrelevant.

[cfsharry]

And that, bc, is why you are irrelavent.

[black_cat]

funny, in about a week i'll be shoving this quote in yer face after you just used it yerself. like last time, and the time before that, and the time etc.


you never cease to shock bore me.

http://youtu.be/-tL4KEuAXyc

[WAC]

Ego boy is off his medications? 

I also usually call a decision made expressly from words out of the mouth of a politician inductive reasoning since it is based on not truths but words out of the mouth of a politician... darn sure not factual or provable. A deduction is what these same politicians are trying to do away with.

[oldguy]

The 2nd notes (not gives) a right. I think it also bestows a duty. A duty to obtain skills and training to use the rights given to us. Our duty demands we protect our rights by being involved in the process! Our military swear to uphold and protect, not the government, but the Consitution and the flag for which it stands.

We the People damm well better all get involved - otherwise the deal that gets made will only reflect the wishes of the powerbrokers and hanger ons.

Skill testing before ownership(taught in school like drivers ed.), mental healthscreening ( part of physical before school enrollment)before ownership, background checks before ownership.

[black_cat]

The 2nd gives us rights. I think it also bestows a duty. A duty to obtain skills and training to use the rights given to us. Our duty demands we protect our rights by being involved in the process! Our military swear to uphold and protect, not the government, but the Consitution and the flag for which it stands.

We the People damm well better all get involved - otherwise the deal that gets made will only reflect the wishes of the powerbrokers and hanger ons.

Skill testing before ownership(taught in school like drivers ed.), mental healthscreening ( part of physical before school enrollment)before ownership, background checks before ownership.

ya idk. it says "inalienable" and "shall not be infringed."

only very loosely does it say "open for negotiation for whatever lets me keep my ar15" just sayin.

[cedarview kid]

The 2nd gives us rights. I think it also bestows a duty.

Actually, I'd say the 2nd Amendment acknowledges those rights, not necessarily gives them. The 2nd Amendment just states that the government shall not infringe upon these rights. We don't get our rights from the government, so the government can't grant us these things, but it's great if they acknowledge them and says they shall not interfere with such things. (But that's probably what you meant?)

Other governments CAN and HAVE infringed upon these rights, mostly because these governments didn't acknowledge these AS rights.

[oldguy]

Naa-... never was a great writer but you got my idea...I agree government didn't give or bestow. They sure will abridge, restrict and bury in red tape...

We need to stay involved. Email, fax, write the elected yahoos. In the old days before internet a written letter was counted and weight as twenty to fifty people in polls. What is the best way to rattle the cage in old DC?

[lohman446]

ya idk. it says "inalienable" and "shall not be infringed."

only very loosely does it say "open for negotiation for whatever lets me keep my ar15" just sayin.

Where does it say inalienable? 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Its not in the preamble to the Bill of Rights either. 

Now we can argue for some time what "well regulated" means.  There is ample evidence that it may have meant provisioned based on word use of the day.  However today the law of the land seems to indicate that it allows actual regulation.  There is some historic argument for this as well. 

That being said I am fairly certain that the word "inalienable" was not in the second amendment at any point.  Now if we went back to other historic documents such as The Causes and Necessities for Taking up Arms we could make an even strong argument for civilian ownership and a defense of Locke's theories about the defense of natural right (specifically to life and property).  However I highly doubt that this argument even crossed your mind. 

[cedarview kid]

I've always been of the opinion that the comma between the "militia part" and the "right to keep and bear arms part" created separate items that were not to be infringed upon, not as a single thing, as people have been talking about. So, we can have militias to protect our local governments from federal or foreign attack. Yup. And we can also have arms for ourselves to protect ourselves and our families. Second yup. Both shall not be infringed. But they are not the same thing.

[black_cat]

ya idk. it says "inalienable" and "shall not be infringed."

only very loosely does it say "open for negotiation for whatever lets me keep my ar15" just sayin.

Where does it say inalienable?

in the declaration of independence which is the document the constitution is to enforce. 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Its not in the preamble to the Bill of Rights either. 

Now we can argue for some time what "well regulated" means.  There is ample evidence that it may have meant provisioned based on word use of the day.  However today the law of the land seems to indicate that it allows actual regulation.  There is some historic argument for this as well.

there's also plenty argument this doesn't mean the people as much as it does the government. the government being the well regulated militia is regulated by the people who's unalienable rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

That being said I am fairly certain that the word "inalienable" was not in the second amendment at any point.

it is by ipso facto as it is in the declaration of independence and the constitution is designed in such a way as to ensure it's provisions are maintained.

Now if we went back to other historic documents such as The Causes and Necessities for Taking up Arms we could make an even strong argument for civilian ownership and a defense of Locke's theories about the defense of natural right (specifically to life and property).  However I highly doubt that this argument even crossed your mind.

ahh there ya go, guess i wuz. ;)

and therefore you also have a right to life liberty and the persuit of happyness tho it's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

[lohman446]

Now if we went back to other historic documents such as The Causes and Necessities for Taking up Arms we could make an even strong argument for civilian ownership and a defense of Locke's theories about the defense of natural right (specifically to life and property).  However I highly doubt that this argument even crossed your mi!nd.

ahh there ya go, guess i wuz.

and therefore you also have a right to life liberty and the persuit of happyness tho it's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

You lack any shred of intellectual honesty.  If you knew a tenth of what you pretended to you would know that The Causes and Necessities is more true to Locke's works and does not discuss the pursuit of happiness.   

[black_cat]

You lack any shred of intellectual honesty.   

ya idk, i'm not the one trying to argue apples with oranges.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

pretty simple.

[lohman446]

Alright, your journey off of my ignore list was in error.  I am going to lay out a little history lesson that you should at least familarize yourself with if you are going to attempt to sound to have knowledge in this arena.  I will keep it fairly concise.

John Locke (1632-1704 IIRC) was responsible for writing, among other things, the Second Treatise of Government.  It was intended as academic justification for the Whig revolution that would put William and Mary on the the throne of Britian and greatly expand the rights of British property owners.

In the American colonies the colonists were taxed through a tariff system without representation in the British parliment.  They argued, based largely on Locke's writings, that this was a denial of their rights as citizens of the British empire under the agreements put in place after William and Mary took power - specifically in a Bill of Rights dated 1689. 

In 1775, after failing to find a remedy for the situation they felt that the only way for redress was to take up arms.  At this time there was no call for seperation.  This document was meant to give those men taking up arms some protection and some international standing - likely to sue for peace and avoid being hanged for treason.  As these were wealthy land owners, for the most part, instigating this they stuck to Locke's writings of life, liberty, and property thought not so concisely.   

In 1776, partially because there was a realization that they had gone too far and could not expect to sue for peace and had no avenue for success that would allow them to continue being British subjects, the Declaration of Independence was issued.  This was going "all-in" and would require at least some popular support.  Property was replaced with "the pursuit of happiness" in deference to this acknowledgement and it was worded much more concisely. 

1777-1781 (the Revolutionary war was ongoing still).  The Articles of Confederation were drawn up.  This would unite the colonies in a very lose and very informal style of government that left the vast majority of power in the hands of the States.  This would prove unstable though discussions of what a well regulated militia meant can be found within the writings of the Articles and those surrounding it.  The lack of standing armies, a national army, or effective central government meant the articles would be short lived.

1789 - the Constiution replaces the Articles of Confederation.  The Bill of Rights is added to the original draft of the Constitution to get the support of the voting public (white land owners) for ratification as the Constitution moves much more power to the federal government compared to the Articles.  The preamble of the Bill of Rights specifically notes these rights reserved to the people 

BC:  If you are going to continue to state what was in these documents, such as the causes and necessities of taking up arms, I suggest you familarize yourself with them.

[black_cat]

Alright, your journey off of my ignore list was in error.  I am going to lay out a little history lesson that you should at least familarize yourself with if you are going to attempt to sound to have knowledge in this arena.  I will keep it fairly concise.

John Locke (1632-1704 IIRC) was responsible for writing, among other things, the Second Treatise of Government.  It was intended as academic justification for the Whig revolution that would put William and Mary on the the throne of Britian and greatly expand the rights of British property owners.

In the American colonies the colonists were taxed through a tariff system without representation in the British parliment.  They argued, based largely on Locke's writings, that this was a denial of their rights as citizens of the British empire under the agreements put in place after William and Mary took power - specifically in a Bill of Rights dated 1689. 

In 1775, after failing to find a remedy for the situation they felt that the only way for redress was to take up arms.  At this time there was no call for seperation.  This document was meant to give those men taking up arms some protection and some international standing - likely to sue for peace and avoid being hanged for treason.  As these were wealthy land owners, for the most part, instigating this they stuck to Locke's writings of life, liberty, and property.   

In 1776, partially because there was a realization that they had gone too far and could not expect to sue for peace and had no avenue for success that would allow them to continue being British subjects, the Declaration of Independence was issued.  This was going "all-in" and would require at least some popular support.  Property was replaced with "the pursuit of happiness" in deference to this acknowledgement. 

1777-1781 (the Revolutionary war was ongoing still).  The Articles of Confederation were drawn up.  This would unite the colonies in a very lose and very informal style of government that left the vast majority of power in the hands of the States.  This would prove unstable though discussions of what a well regulated militia meant can be found within the writings of the Articles and those surrounding it.  The lack of standing armies, a national army, or effective central government meant the articles would be short lived.

1789 - the Constiution replaces the Articles of Confederation.  The Bill of Rights is added to the original draft of the Constitution to get the support of the voting public (white land owners) for ratification as the Constitution moves much more power to the federal government compared to the Articles.  The preamble of the Bill of Rights specifically notes these rights reserved to the people 

BC:  If you are going to continue to state what was in these documents, such as the causes and necessities of taking up arms, I suggest you familarize yourself with them.

ye idk man, yer the only one trying to argue whatever it is yer trying to argue

[black_cat]

"the only one in the who can actually see things for what they are"

slander, misquote, slander. i was not, nor was i ever, a member of The Who.

[CavScout]

<snip>
Now we can argue for some time what "well regulated" means.  There is ample evidence that it may have meant provisioned based on word use of the day.  However today the law of the land seems to indicate that it allows actual regulation.  There is some historic argument for this as well. 
<snip>

This should clear it up, as it should have long ago:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

From source:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

Other reading about intent:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

[lohman446]

ye idk man, yer the only one trying to argue whatever it is yer trying to argue

The argument is against your attempt to hide your mistake.  You stated the word "inalienable" as being part of the 2nd amendment or Bill of Rights.  When your mistake was pointed out rather than showing some shred of intellectual honesty you decided to argue that you meant other documents - perhaps you did and are just that poor at communicating.  When I mentioned the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms you doubled down on your attempt to show intelligence by discussing, among other things, the pursuit of happiness.  I have illustrated, to those who do not perceive the world in some unique way, the lack of intellectual honest that makes you irrelevant to these conversations.  I have spent enough of the boards time doing so and will return you to previous status while moving conversations such as these with those honest enough to have them back to the subforum they belong in. 

[Uncle_Lee]

I was back in Wal-Mart yesterday evening.
Still no ammo.

Now back to the argument.

[lohman446]

I was back in Wal-Mart yesterday evening.
Still no ammo.

Now back to the argument.

The Wal-mart about 60 miles from me had 9MM 115 grain (I would have preferred 124 but beggers cannot be chosers).  I picked up three boxes as did my wife.  They thought they had more coming that night.  On Wal-Mart's website you can search local stock and see which ones have it. 

[black_cat]

ye idk man, yer the only one trying to argue whatever it is yer trying to argue

The argument is against your attempt to hide your mistake.  You stated the word "inalienable" as being part of the 2nd amendment or Bill of Rights.  When your mistake was pointed out rather than showing some shred of intellectual honesty you decided to argue that you meant other documents - perhaps you did and are just that poor at communicating.  When I mentioned the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms you doubled down on your attempt to show intelligence by discussing, among other things, the pursuit of happiness.  I have illustrated, to those who do not perceive the world in some unique way, the lack of intellectual honest that makes you irrelevant to these conversations.  I have spent enough of the boards time doing so and will return you to previous status while moving conversations such as these with those honest enough to have them back to the subforum they belong in.

i never said it was in the exact wording of the second amendment but it's definitely in the bill of rights as per the argument i gave. it was in the definition of what a "right" actually is on the document the constitution was written to ensure. it's a solid argument and not just my own. you tried to nit pick a minor detail and you failed. man up or shut up 

[lohman446]

Moving my response to the proper forum

[black_cat]

zzzzzzzzzz

[boone123]

I have been checking Wal-mart where I live  once or twice a day. In the last 4 days I and my wife have bought 11250 rounds of 22s. I had my supply built up the first of the year, but shoot a lot. Am holding my own. I shoot what I can buy at this time. Not a hoarder, as I can't get that far ahead. Probably be cheaper if I just bought guns, and made safe queens out of them.

[teaspoon]

I have been checking Wal-mart where I live  once or twice a day. In the last 4 days I and my wife have bought 11250 rounds of 22s. I had my supply built up the first of the year, but shoot a lot. Am holding my own. I shoot what I can buy at this time. Not a hoarder, as I can't get that far ahead. Probably be cheaper if I just bought guns, and made safe queens out of them.

11,250 rounds in 4 days and your not a hoarder..............................really?

[oldguy]

Teaspoon, just the words I was searching for!

[CavScout]

<snip>
11,250 rounds in 4 days and your not a hoarder..............................really?

That wouldn't be hoarding for this guy:

John Huffer

In 1987, at the age of 50, John "Chief AJ" Huffer shot 40,060 consecutive 2½ inch square pine blocks over a period of 8 days without a single miss, shooting blocks he himself tossed into the air, for 14 hours a day. Huffer accomplished this using 18 .22 Long Rifle Ruger 10/22 rifles, which he cycled through as assistants loaded them for him. Huffer also markets a special "Chief AJ" branded Daisy BB gun, based on a modified model Huffer uses for daily practice, and an instruction manual and video for his style of point shooting.[7][8]

In 2008, at the age of 70, Huffer set a Guinness World Record for slingshot shooting, hitting 1,500 flying targets.

From source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_shooting

[oldguy]

If you shoots what you buy it is not hoarding (:to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.).

"11250 rounds of 22s. I had my supply built up the first of the year, but shoot a lot. Am holding my own."

I wish I could shoot 340 rounds a day.

[boone123]

Teaspoon.
I keep track of what I shoot. Since the first of the year I have shot over 11,000 shells in 22, plus about 100 in 357.
To much snow to ride motorcycle, and I get cranky just looking out the window.
I have guns that I have shot more in A month, than some people shoot in a lifetime.
Today I will go shoot a K22 Smith made in 1948, which I shoot double action, and an old TARGET Ruger Mark 1 with a rare
5 1/4 barrel that I picked up at a gun show Sat. Not long ago I had to send in a 617 Smith that is not very old and they replaced the cylinder.Last year I shot just under 50,000 rounds of 22s. Just don't have time to hoard.

[bud]

Was watching Fox news, and Judge Napolitno said that Obama could put a tax on lead due to the price of environmental clean up because of all the lead in ammo that is left in the ground.

I'm going to force myself to watch the State of the Union speech tonight, just to hear what the as*  ho^#  says about gun control!

[CavScout]

The lead contamination approach has been tried many times. Fortunately, there hasn't been enough evidence of harm introduced, so far.

So, we're probably just one "University Study" away from a real threat! 

[OV-1D]

 Hey there boone123 , question is do you work off of a well for drinking water ? How many years you been doing this kind of plinking ?

[boone123]

Ov---
Been shooting a lot, for years.  Got into it pretty heavy in the mid 80s, although  I shot a fair amount in the 70s. I backed off for a few years starting in the early 90s. Had an immune thing I had to whip. After a few years I was back shooting, but didn't start keeping track till 09. Shot 54,000 shells that year, but some less since then. Last year somewhere close to 49,000 including centerfire.  Life is good. I am an addict, and its fun!

[OV-1D]

Hope your water well is much better than a hundred feet with all that lead lying around . Pretty poisonous stuff to consume , that immune thing didn't have something to do with lead consumption .

[boone123]

Ov---
I cast bullets, handled lead, and shot bullets, and the first thing they checked was the lead thing, NOTHING!
I just read this morning in a newspaper that lead from bullets is nothing. The lead in paint is the big to do. Lead from ammo does nothing, as in NOTHING. The whole lead thing started with lead paint, and the antis grabbed that and ran, and are still running.
What ever it takes to get rid of those dirty old guns. Same old chit, different day. The place where I shoot alot will be a lead mine someday. Some guy will be mining lead, and using that money to buy ammo.
Wheel weights are now mostly steel. All those poor birds were living off lead wheel weights on the roads, and it wasn't good for them. BS!

I had people who lived in a house I rented out, and their kid got sick. Was lead poison. City checked the paint etc. in the house, and nothing. After they moved out later, I figured it out. The little -------ate chunks of my green mini blinds in his bedroon that were made in China with lead in the green color.

These were obama type voters as in dumb and poor. Every so often they would tell me the house was to small and they needed more room, and might be moving, I would go over there a carry out about six arm loads of crap from the house to the garbage, and they were good for a couple of more months.House was a mess already anyway, and the rent was paid by the taxpayers.