marcelo_malara wrote:In fact according to Barnes (Cartridges of the World) it was so powerful that was overkilling even for elephants, and was only used in extreme danger cases.
I believe it was intended to penetrate the skin of a charging rhino....
marcelo_malara wrote:In fact according to Barnes (Cartridges of the World) it was so powerful that was overkilling even for elephants, and was only used in extreme danger cases.
First you seam to be assuming that guns are primarily for self defence. There is also target shooting, hunting, and collecting.Ramius wrote:...
I do think that there should be restriction laws, semi-auto's and auto's should be banned. Yes, handhelds and rifles (shotguns may be overkill for anything these days ) should be legal for defense of one's home and loved ones.
Both of these events included breaking laws or regulations prior to them. If all had been followed they wouldn't have happened. Adding more laws to charge people with afterwards isn't necessarily going to help. ...There should definitely be restrictions after Colombine (a little old, but it still it sucked) and Virginia Tech on large guns and handhelds with large magazines.
You sound nothing like a redneck. More like a city boy who ... (I better not go there) :)PS: I realize I am a worked up American Redneck (More like a Lumberjack or cowboy, I may live in VA, but I was born in New York and am a true brother of the Northwoods)
Going off somewhat at a tangent, an interesting thought occurred to me on this paragraph.Dave Saxton wrote:
The framers were concerned that individual rights could be infringed by majority rule. Thus there are safe guards to prevent population centers and the populous States from controlling everything at the expense of the rural States, and also individuals. The Government is supposed to have rather limited powers.
Yes, in that particular case the Federal government won in a dispute over whether the individual states have a right to break up the union. That is different from individual rights but it does relate to state's rights. It was controversial then (obviously) and there are some people in the south who still believe it was wrong. They call it the Northern War of Aggression.RF wrote:
Going off somewhat at a tangent, an interesting thought occurred to me on this paragraph.
In 1860 majority rule did prevail over the right of individual states to leave the Union, it triggered the US Civil War in the following year.
Federal law treats them differently. There are different laws pertaining to each. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the threatened intervention in the 60's was related to individual rights being violated. Federal laws, where they exist, trump state laws. For example, during the arab oil embargo a national speed limit was enacted. That has now expired, and the states now again set their own limits.RF wrote:But are individual states rights different from indivudual person's rights?
Again (without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the matter) in the 1960's the federal government intervened in several US states over the issue of bussing where individual states refused to comply with federal legislation, even to the point of threatening to place the Alabama National Guard under direct federal control.
That's not a good example. The federal law didn't mandate that the states change their speed limit to 55. It merely stated that if they didn't they weren't elegible for federal hiway matching funds. I lived in Washington state at the time. They passed a new speed limit law with the rational that it was needed to secure matching funds. The state court over turned it as that wasn't one of the allowed reasons for setting speed limits. The legilature then passed another law setting the speed limit to 55 for safty reasons, one of the allowed or legitamate reasons. The Feds of course didn't care what rational was for resetting the speed just that it was reset.Bgile wrote: .... For example, during the arab oil embargo a national speed limit was enacted. ....