Machine gun shoot

[fatlazyless]

Anyone make it to the machine gun shoot at the Pemigiwasset Fish & Game Club in Holderness, just a short drive up Route 3 from Meredith, yesterday? Understand it was a fund raiser for the local Republican political party, or something.

I just saw the signs as I was driving, drove up to the entrance, saw all the cars parked, and could hear the ratta-tat-tat from a distance away but decided to save my money for the groceries. Apparently, it appeared to be a whole family, oriented event.

There were signs all over....on Route 93.....on Rt 3....in Holderness and surrounds.

Got to ask.....what did the targets look like? What were they shooting at?

Just noticed in the paper edition of today's Union Leader an article on it at the top of the second section, titled "Machine gun shoot draws a crowd" with a photo of someone from Tilton shooting a belt-fed, 30 caliber, military looking gun mounted on a shorty tripod from a prone position, Don't know if the internet UL has it?

[wifi]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

..... What were they shooting at?

Good thing you didn't ask 'Who'

[VitaBene]

Interesting, I wonder if it is the same group that was running this onehttp://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...dentify_6.html- what a tragedy

[Pineedles]

"C.O.P. Firearms & Training, an Amherst company", according to the article. The video gave vey little information about the accident, other than what kind of a boy Christopher was. Very tragic accident. IMHO 10 years old is too young to be operating anything past a 22 caliber, say nothing of a full automatic 9mm or other high caliber weapon. I am an NRA member.

[fatlazyless]

I understand it was run by the Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club in Holderness, at their gun range. It was a fundraiser for the New Hampshire State Republican Party.

Wow, what a party! Wish I was there! Hey, I voted for a Wolfeboro summer White House, last January, honest! I shoulda asked for a receipt when I stepped outta the polling booth cause no one believes me and so's I coulda get into the machine gun shoot.....shazaaaaam!

[jrc]

FLL, the concept of a fundraiser is YOU pay THEM money. They don't care who you voted for last year. Show up with a check and you're in the club.

[Don]

Speaking of machine guns... I picked this up from one of those brochure stands this summer. It seemed a little strange next to the brochures for Polar Caves and Alpine Slides. This thread and the recent tragedy in Mass. made me think of it. It appears that an 8 year old could fire an Uzi there too, as long as an adult was with them.

[GTO]

If they can put Jolly Jays xxx rated video shop right smack dab in the middle of Funspot, why not advertise gun use at other tourist hot spots. I think Jolly Jay should have a brochure he can put in these locations also. We'd definately see a "rise" in tourism.

[SIKSUKR]

Wow.I never knew Woodstock had that kind of firearms available to the public.

[SAMIAM]

Wow,,,,noticed they have a "grease gun" available.Haven't heard that term in many years.It is a .45 cal pistol grip machine gun......could clear a small forrest with one of those.

[Lakesrider]

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-ki...916x1200774080

[dpg]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-ki...916x1200774080

When some common sense is used they are.

[gravy boat]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-ki...916x1200774080

So tragic. IMHO, I believe 8 years old is a little young for an Uzi. However, I am a proponent of teaching gun safety to children and the dangers involved. Just like teaching them to drive a car, which can also be considered a weapon if yielded without common sense or intelligent thought.

[Cobalt 25]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

Obviously, you have never experienced an engagement with an enemy force.

When someone makes a statement regarding the price of freedom, do you query its contribution to the common good?

In January, 2009, you will learn how increased taxes contribute to the common good or at least that's what you will be told and expected to believe.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by GWC...

....... or at least that's what you will be told and expected to believe.

That scares me much more than a machine gun, at least you can hide from a machine gun....

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

Firearms training, and I ask that you look at my original post, is necessary for the common defense of this country. There are too many people who are afraid of firearms just because they never have had any exposure to them. Yes, this is a tragic accident. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are afraid of firearms and don't want anything to do with them, that's OK, you don't have to. However, many of us enjoy the sport of target, hunting, plinking, etc. and don't want your ignorance (not a bad word, perhaps I should say unfamiliarty) to restrict our right to continue enjoying our sense of security in our homes, and our sport and most importantly our right.

I would encourge any of you to seek out a firearms owner and ask them to take you to the range to try shooting. You won't be dissapointed, I would guess that 100% of those who are asked would not only take you, but pay for everything. It is a fun sport, and despite this child's death is a safe one.

[Winnicandle]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

Who are you to judge what is good for me or anyone else?

Thats the beauty of The United States and a Constitution. I like Freedom.

Firearms of all sorts have been protecting YOUR freedom for many years, they have protected families from sick criminals, have secured our borders, and protected our friends and soldiers abroad.

Firearms are also a great hobby, sporting and collectible for many (including me)

We are teachers, we teach youngsters (and adults new to guns!) how to be responsible gun owners. Responsibilty is something many youth are missing today.

Don't be so quick to lump guns together and start throwing away your rights, complete nations and large parts of races have been wiped out by this mindset!

Look up a local NRA instructor and take some lessons, you might find the shooting sports very rewarding, challenging, and downright fun.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Winnicandle

Don't be so quick to lump guns together and start throwing away your rights, complete nations and large parts of races have been wiped out by this mindset!

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am am a FIRM believer in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is a key provision! The right to bear arms was important enough to our founding fathers as to be listed #2, right behind life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness! The 2nd Amendment prevents an oppressive tyrannical government, allows people to defend thier homes and themselves from criminals. I have no problem with the Brady Bill or backround checks. People who buy guns legally are not the problem...

It was actually the fourth amendment proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The first two just didn't pass (the first, dealing with Congressional representation, never passed; the second, dealing with Congressional pay raises, became the 27th).

Nobody disputes that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was "to provide for the common defense" - "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" - both against outside forces (the regular Continental Army was a fraction of the colonists' armed forces during the Revolution) and against internal rebellion (Shays' Rebellion proved that it was difficult to avoid a standing army and still muster a timely, effective federal response to a threat). Through English common law, weapon ownership was both a right and a responsibility (though limited in the Isles to members of the Church of England; i.e., the establishment).

Paradoxically, a widespread militia was also seen as a check on the power of the central government. The Framers, fresh off their use of arms to overthrow a government that they felt did not have their best interests at heart, wanted to protect the power to do so again. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were sparked by a British attempt to infringe on that power - the Regulars were marching on Concord to confiscate the stores of ammunition that they had learned the militia were stockpiling. Such a need had already proven superfluous, as the Framers had peacefully "overthrown" the ineffective Articles of Confederation and drafted & ratified the Constitution.

The grammar in early versions of "bear arms" clauses, in state constitutions and in draft resolutions in Congress, seems to point more clearly to the militia as the only intent of this clause - but somewhere along the way a comma replaced a semicolon, and here we are.

Until D.C. v. Heller, the Court had never ruled on extensions to the 2nd Amendment in favor of individual self-defense, and they were not explicit in that case's applications to the rest of the country. It will make for interesting debate in the coming years.

On the other hand, we should consider ourselves lucky - spelling was so inconsistent at the time that we might today be debating the meaning of a right to "bare arms!"

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The 2nd Amendment gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. Thats a pretty darn powerful word! The government has HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of laws pertaining to the regulation of firearms. There is no need for additional laws or regulation. In fact I think the laws should be streamlined somewhat.

IMHO, the government shouldnt be telling you what type of firearm you can own... its your RIGHT to posess one. There is no need for firearms to be limited to protection or hunting. I was against the assault weapon ban when it was first implemented and I was glad it was repealed. If you want to limit the use of firearms tax the ammo...

First of all, taxing ammunition wouldn't have any effect on the use of guns in violent crimes. (I think we can all agree that the reason that those who oppose gun ownership do so is because of crime. Accidental deaths are just more "ammunition" for them.) Those who commit gun violence are willing to pay 5 times the market value for guns on the black market. They're not going to care about a 10% tax on their ammunition.

Second, nobody complains about the fact that convicted felons are unable to legally own guns - even those convicted of non-violent crimes. So it's obviously not an absolute right. There is an undeniable qualitative difference between a weapon that could be fired 4 times in a minute and accurate at 100 yards and one that can be fired 100 times in a minute and accurate at 500 yards. Of course, whether that should make a difference is where the debate lies.

I know I'm new here, but I feel like context is important. Can you tell I teach history?

[Airwaves]

Ladies and Gentlemen;
It seems odd to me that some of you folks of NH would criticize gun laws of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has arguably the toughest gun laws in the country.

In the tragic case of the Connecticut father and son that went to the Westfield gun show and the son lost control of a weapon, it is something I would not wish upon anyone. However, the incident does not appear to have violated even Massachusetts strict gun laws.

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XX. PUBLIC SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER

CHAPTER 140. LICENSES

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 130. Sale or furnishing weapons or ammunition to aliens or minors; penalty; exceptions

“…Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years…”

It is my understanding that in this tragic incident the child’s father not only gave permission, but was holding his son from behind to help cushion the recoil of the weapon.

Even the toughest gun laws in the country can’t prevent accidents.

Do I think it was appropriate for an 8 year old to fire a mini-Uzi? Absolutely not! My father was in the Army Air Corps and in his training with automatic weapons (pilots don't carry them) he was told to put a strap on his belt, put his arm over the barrel and hold onto the strap on his belt before firing because of the upward recoil.

Stupid is as stupid is...if you fine folks of NH want to criticize then adopt your own tough gun laws.

[SAMIAM]

M/V....Which ones?? Since you teach history,you might remember that Hitler confiscated weapons before murdering 7 million Jews.
Are you sure you're not a politician instead of a teacher?I read your post and still don't know what you said.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

..........

I know I'm new here, but I feel like context is important. Can you tell I teach history?

Welcome M/V,

When you teach history, do you teach that the founders believed that rights are given by their Creator not by the men and documents?

"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"

And that the 2nd amendment just instructs the government not to infringe on one of those rights? It does not grant any rights.

"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"

Further, do you teach that removing an unjust government is also a right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government,..."

How do unarmed citzens abolish destructive goverments?

I saw a car with two bumper stickers "Bush = Hitler" and "1-20-09". So I asked the driver, if he is Hitler, what makes you think he's leaving?

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by jrc

When you teach history, do you teach that the founders believed that rights are given by their Creator not by the men and documents?

"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"

And that the 2nd amendment just instructs the government not to infringe on one of those rights? It does not grant any rights.

"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"

Further, do you teach that removing an unjust government is also a right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government,..."

How do unarmed citzens abolish destructive goverments?

Absolutely we study these documents, and in particular the passages you cite. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of beliefs, not a legal document. It said, for instance, that all men were created equal - but the Constitution institutionalized slavery. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a legal document, and the Second Amendment is the law of the land.

I would also point out that the foundation of the Framers' philosophy was based on Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, all of whom stated that men in nature - the individual - were given liberty by the Creator. But they also agreed that men had to sacrifice some of that liberty for the security provided by a society. The 3 disagreed on how much of that liberty had to be sacrificed - in general, the Framers leaned toward Locke and Rousseau, because both reserved the right to replace a government if it no longer served the interests of the governed.

And therein lies the conflict, as you pointed out. There is a point where the liberty to own a gun can intrude on a neighbor's right to life or property. Eliminating all gun ownership certainly inhibits the ability overthrow an unresponsive government. Is there a middle ground?

I teach the debate. I don't teach a viewpoint. Students learn much more when they actually think about what they believe, instead of telling me what they think I want to hear.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

How does a Cobalt 25? To each his own.

PS I've owned several boats and never owned or fired a real gun, just BB guns.

[fatlazyless]

Say, haven't machine guns been banned from private ownership since Al Capone and 'machine gun' Kelly were out loose in the 1930's. Penalty for possession of one is like a big fat federal felony, or something.

Even here in the 'live free or die' state, it's not like you ever see an Uzi for sale at someone's garage sale. "Why yes, we are returning to Massachusetts, so we need to unload our cherished Thompson sub-machine gun with the walnut handles......pity.....it will be missed.....oh New Hampshire!"

[gtxrider]

Machine Guns-- Private & Corporate Ownership
It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/mach...egalities.html

It might be nice to mount a 50 Cal. on the bow of the boat.

[Cobalt 25]

GWC,

"Obviously, you have never experienced an engagement with an enemy force."

Perhaps you and Pineedles shouldn't make assumptions.

I served with the First Infantry Division in Viet Nam in '68 and '69. I was a machine gunner on an armored personel carrier, complete with a C.I.B. and a Purple Heart.

That was then, this is now. Machine guns served the common good in war time, but what good do they serve in the hands of children now? Machine guns are designed to kill people. Do we put them in the hands of children and adults so that someday they, too, can kill people?

Legitimate hunting is one thing, but I don't understand the need for people to own assault rifles, machine guns, etc. To each his or her own, right, but I still say machine guns in the hands of civilians in peace time is unnecessary.

Maybe I've just had enough of all that. War is not the answer. We can do better.

Peter