Assault Rifle Ban

[Tombstone]

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

IMHO the government does not have the right to take away my second amendment right. My forefathers died for private citizens to own guns to defend ourselves from any threat both domestic and foreign. This is America isn't it?

[ahc4353]

Not an assault rifle kind guy however I do own many guns and support your right to own what you like. Yes, I think this is just another step closer to taking away or Second Amendment right. Sad, very sad.

[elderboy02]

I think it is inevitable :( :fl I stocked up on mags, ammo, and lowers a year ago b/c I could see what was going to happen.

I am going to stop there. I don't want to make this political.

[Tombstone]

Nothing politically wrong with discussing a private citizen’s fundamental right.;)

[St. Lou Stu]

I think it is inevitable :( :fl I stocked up on mags, ammo, and lowers a year ago b/c I could see what was going to happen.

I am going to stop there. I don't want to make this political.

Same approach I took last time.

Most states do not track individual weapon type purchases so it would be very difficult to say "Ok, give up your assault weapons." I still have several purchased before the last ban and may pick up a couple more just in case.

Like Dan, I will stop here before it gets political.

[elderboy02]

Oh, by the way, they aren't "assault rifles" unless they are fully automatic.

They want to ban all rifles. They just use words like "assault rifles" to get all the sheep scared.

[BC-Axeman]

Suppliers are getting cleaned out. Stock is getting low everywhere. I stocked up on ammo and reloading components. I could not find a way to word what I wanted to put next that would pass the censors.

[MikeyC]

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

IMHO the government does not have the right to take away my second amendment right. My forefathers died for private citizens to own guns to defend ourselves from any threat both domestic and foreign. This is America isn't it?

I just wrote a long post in reply to this thread, but decided I would rather pare it down so as not to start any kind of argument or make this thread political. The only thing I really want to say is that:

At the time the 2nd ammendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.

[elderboy02]

Suppliers are getting cleaned out. Stock is getting low everywhere...

Yeah, pretty much every site is out of magazines. On ar15.com they tried to organize a group buy on P-mags. Magpul said it would be AT LEAST a 6 month wait :hm

People are also getting gouged right now. Mag prices doubled and tripled a couple weeks ago. The classified ads on ar15.com are insane right now.

[spooble]

At the time the 2nd ammendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.


The 2nd amendment guarantees a right... it doesn't address a need. There is a distinct difference.

[Tombstone]

I just wrote a long post in reply to this thread, but decided I would rather pare it down so as not to start any kind of argument or make this thread political. The only thing I really want to say is that:

At the time the 2nd ammendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.

You are incorrect. My blood pressure rises when i hear ignorant people speak. "The founders added the 2nd amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, agovernment evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights."

Please study American history.

[chippewastud79]

Well that didn't take long to get a little heated :fl

You are incorrect. My blood pressure rises when i hear ignorant people speak.
...........................................
Please study American history.


I think that he is just as entitled to an opinion (without being called ignorant), just as you are entitled to the opinion that we need assault rifles to protect ourselves. :tu

[pnoon]

You are incorrect. My blood pressure rises when i hear ignorant people speak. "The founders added the 2nd amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, agovernment evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights."

Please study American history.

Feel free to disagree and debate the points. Personal insults are not allowed. Ever see a thread go "poof"?

[Tombstone]

The 2nd amendment guarantees a right... it doesn't address a need. There is a distinct difference.

Exactly!!

[poker]

Keep it civil folks. This thread is lighting up the radar screen.

[elderboy02]

Allright, time to lighten this up a little folks.

What is your favorite magazine to use? I like D&H Black Teflon with the Magpul follower.

[Da Klugs]

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

IMHO the government does not have the right to take away my second amendment right. My forefathers died for private citizens to own guns to defend ourselves from any threat both domestic and foreign. This is America isn't it?

You are incorrect. My blood pressure rises when i hear ignorant people speak. "The founders added the 2nd amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, agovernment evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights."

Please study American history.

The slippery slope we deal with here is much different. :D :ss

From long experience we know that religion and politics are not subjects that engender brotherhood and good cheer on cigar boards. Lot's of places that support those types of discussions. This isn't one of them.

[icehog3]

Insulting other members will not be tolerated.

[ahc4353]

Keep it civil folks. This thread is lighting up the radar screen.

And I didn't do it!!! It is a good day! :D

Sensitive topic on both sides of the fence. But a good one if handled correctly by all involved.

(Congrats on over 1,000 thought provoking posts Kelly!)

[poker]

And I didn't do it!!! It is a good day! :D

(Congrats on over 1,000 thought provoking posts Kelly!)

Thanks! Trying to catch up to tom :)
Im just a junior douche LOL

[funnymantrip]

I don't think it's a ban we have to be concerned about as the main issue. Since the last ban sunsetted there has been legislation in the house consistently to create a new ban. Never had enough support to bring to the forefront. Now during the next 4 years, will there be a push and a try for a new ban, probably 100%. Though I have heard the new president elect talk more on a college football playoff then anything on a gun ban since elected. I do not think it will be a Jan 20th 4pm type super ban and get all you can by then.
The problem will be with new taxes on firearms and ammunition. Some are talking a 500% tax on ammunition and another huge tax on new firearms. That would be a killer for everyone who enjoys shooting as a hobby. Hunters/plinkers/black rifle lovers/handgunners. I don't know how many times I would go to the range and every time I pull the trigger I am sending a few dollars at a paper target.

So I am trying to stock up on ammuntion and mags..If the buying frenzy dies down a little bit, then perhaps a new rifle.

[elderboy02]

... Some are talking a 500% tax on ammunition and another huge tax on new firearms. ...

I saw that. I cant imagine paying $1,000 for 500 rounds of XM193 :pu :hn

[shilala]

At the time the 2nd ammendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.
There was a time when my gun fed my kids. It doesn't get much more dire than "no food on the table". Unless, of course, junkies are climbing in your kitchen window to rob you. That has also happened to my family.
I don't see the "need" for anyone to have a turret mounted gatling gun on the roof of their Hummer, or a pile of full automatic ar-15's in their basement. I've never had the desire to own or even understood why guys buy so many of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.
Doesn't matter. It's their right. It's my right, too.
I won't likely own any assault rifles in my lifetime. I've played with them lots of times and they're a lot of fun, but I've never had the desire to own one.
Fortunately for me, if I come to need one, I'm sure one of my brothers will hook me up. :tu

[BigAl_SC]

Just a note for those interested. South Carolina is having a '2nd Amendment tax free weekend' in two weeks. All guns and ammo is tax free. Guess that shows where my state stands on this issue. Getting a new AR custom made to celebrate it.

[Tombstone]

Just a note for those interested. South Carolina is having a '2nd Amendment tax free weekend' in two weeks. All guns and ammo is tax free. Guess that shows where my state stands on this issue. Getting a new AR custom made to celebrate it.

Sweet!!

[elderboy02]

Just a note for those interested. South Carolina is having a '2nd Amendment tax free weekend' in two weeks. All guns and ammo is tax free. Guess that shows where my state stands on this issue. Getting a new AR custom made to celebrate it.

That is cool! I wish Ohio would do that, but I don't forsee that happening anytime soon :(

Think about it.... Lets say you want a 1911 that costs $1000. Ohio sales tax is 6.5% IIRC. 65 dollars would be a very nice savings. :)

[AAlmeter]

http://www.thepeoplehavespoken.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/From_My_Cold_Dead_Hands.jpg


Nuff said :usa

[elderboy02]

http://www.thepeoplehavespoken.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/From_My_Cold_Dead_Hands.jpg


Nuff said :usa

May he rest in peace.

[Flatsix]

It seems crazy to me to put a 500% tax on ammunition. How will this protect anyone from themselves or others. The type of people that stick up liquor stores, do drive by's, car jack or shoot at other gang members won't be affected by a 500% tax on ammo. Who gets affected? people like me!

I have handguns, shotguns, rifles and an assault rifle. I lock all my guns in a safe with the trigger guards on. I transport them according to the law. I'm a responsible gun owner. I go through a 100-200 rounds about once a month at the range. If the (2) boxes of 100 count range rounds that I shoot goes up 500%, I won't be at the range much.

It's a hobby, what's next my flyrod?:fl After all, the fish do get boo boos on their lips from the hooks.

[ahc4353]

What I find amazing is the thought process that stiffer gun laws cuts down on crime and the amount of guns that criminals have. All it does is makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun. When I bought my first hand gun it took 366 days from start to finish. That's right 366 days. I could have went to Newark and had one in less than an hour from a guy on the corner. Amazing.

[Tombstone]

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

[TripleF]

Keck, I just starting shooting a gun after almost 28 years.

Ownership of a gun has nothing to do with the government. Problem is, we have allowed it to be so. Laws pass and we sit and piss and moan.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."


Get involved. Call.. Write. Fight back.

We need a organized gathering for a cup of tea. :D

[elderboy02]

Keck, I just starting shooting a gun after almost 28 years.

Ownership of a gun has nothing to do with the government. Problem is, we have allowed it to be so. Laws pass and we sit and piss and moan.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."


Get involved. Call.. Write. Fight back.

We need a organized gathering for a cup of tea. :D

I have been doing my part. I write to all my representatives, am a life member of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendement Foundation.

I wish more people would join these organizations.

[jaycarla]

I don't see the "need" for anyone to have a turret mounted gatling gun on the roof of their Hummer, or a pile of full automatic ar-15's in their basement. I've never had the desire to own or even understood why guys buy so many of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.
Doesn't matter. It's their right. It's my right, too.
I won't likely own any assault rifles in my lifetime. I've played with them lots of times and they're a lot of fun, but I've never had the desire to own one.
Fortunately for me, if I come to need one, I'm sure one of my brothers will hook me up. :tu

:tpd:

I own a Remington 870 and it is fun to shoot and I keep it loaded and ready to roll. While I agree with Scott above, I also don't like Big Brother telling me what I can and can't buy. My list of things that I can't do becasue of Big Brother is long enough already and it torks me off when they go into "we know best" mode.

Anyway, I am sure many are much more educated on this issue, but thought I would toss in my two cents anyway.

I like to read a good debate.

[pnoon]

I like to read a good debate.

Me, too.
As long as it remains civil.

[ahc4353]

Me, too.
As long as it remains civil.

No worries Peter I'm on it.

[VirtualSmitty]

Keep it civil folks. This thread is lighting up the radar screen.

A thread lighting up the radar screen and i'm not the cause of it? I must be losing my touch :D

Anywho, bans are silly (though I do support the ban on fully automatic weapons).

[webjunkie]

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

I'm for guns, and I've seen this bit on a lot of e-mails and it always gets my goat (mainly because this is the area of history that I study).

The quote from Yamamoto is: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

He was trying to make a point to Tojo, who was for war with the US, that the only way to win a war with the US would be to dictate terms to Washington after having defeated the US militarily and Japan would never successfully invade the mainland US. While they did invade the Aleutian Islands, Japan would never have been able to invade the mainland. Even if the attack at Pearl Harbor hadn't been a strategic failure the Japanese just didn't have the resources to maintain or defend the supply lines required to invade the mainland US. If they had, Yamamoto's point about American's being armed would have mattered very little to the Army's culture of the superiority of Japanese infantry.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Tombstone]

I am lovin the Chuck Norris Fact Generator!!

[Tombstone]

I'm for guns, and I've seen this bit on a lot of e-mails and it always gets my goat (mainly because this is the area of history that I study).

The quote from Yamamoto is: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

He was trying to make a point to Tojo, who was for war with the US, that the only way to win a war with the US would be to dictate terms to Washington after having defeated the US militarily and Japan would never successfully invade the mainland US. While they did invade the Aleutian Islands, Japan would never have been able to invade the mainland. Even if the attack at Pearl Harbor hadn't been a strategic failure the Japanese just didn't have the resources to maintain or defend the supply lines required to invade the mainland US. If they had, Yamamoto's point about American's being armed would have mattered very little to the Army's culture of the superiority of Japanese infantry.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I don't know there are a lot of guns in the US. Come down south and you might agree with Yamamoto.

[coffeemonkey]

A thread lighting up the radar screen and i'm not the cause of it? I must be losing my touch :D

Anywho, bans are silly (though I do support the ban on fully automatic weapons).

Reread your last sentence. You called bans silly and then the very next thing was to agree with a ban. Very kindly, you can't have it both ways. Please choose one. :ss

I agree that bans on inanimate objects are silly. Why? Because in banning some thing or other you are declaring that the thing is the problem. The thing is not the problem. The people abusing that thing is the problem. Fully automatic weapons are not wrong in and of themselves, they can't be, they are objects, just sitting there, doing nothing on their own. It is the people who use them for evil that is the problem.

As long as we insist on labeling things as the problem we aren't going to solve the real issue, bad people.

:cool2:

[Tombstone]

Reread your last sentence. You called bans silly and then the very next thing was to agree with a ban. Very kindly, you can't have it both ways. Please choose one. :ss

I agree that bans on inanimate objects are silly. Why? Because in banning some thing or other you are declaring that the thing is the problem. The thing is not the problem. The people abusing that thing is the problem. Fully automatic weapons are not wrong in and of themselves, they can't be, they are objects, just sitting there, doing nothing on their own. It is the people who use them for evil that is the problem.

As long as we insist on labeling things as the problem we aren't going to solve the real issue, bad people.

:cool2:

Great Point!

[ahc4353]

coffeemoney is + 1


Nicely put. :)

[elderboy02]

coffeemoney is + 1


Nicely put. :)

Yep. Nicely said coffeemoney! :dance:

[webjunkie]

I don't know there are a lot of guns in the US. Come down south and you might agree with Yamamoto.

I am from the south, North Carolina to be exact. Yamamoto's point was about the amount of opposition that they would have faced in an invasion. He was trying to get the Tojo, and the other Imperial Army commanders to see reason when they were planning an attack on the US. The Navy knew that they would lose a protracted war with the US, the main reason being that they were running out of oil and scrap metal (which they had previously gotten from the US). The Army was for a war with the US because they wanted to try to break the US's support of China in the Second Sino-Japanese War (this is why the US had a trade embargo with Japan in the first place). The Army had cultivated a culture of believing that the Japanese infantry was superior to all and would be able to defeat anything because they had superior will and spirit. They would not have cared about the number of guns in the US.

[Da Klugs]

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

Another interesting fact.... 2 out of 3 Americans represent more than 66% of the total. :D Times change. What was important in one era becomes irrelevant in another. Americans having or not having guns in todays world has little impact on national security. Having guns and the types of guns do however have an impact on personal security and safety. Being safer by having a gun and less safe through the ability of the few to harm in greater numbers with "military gear" being the opposite ends of the discussion. I believe assault rifles, automatic weapons etc. fall in the category of WMPD and should not be in private hands. Like nuclear weapons, fighter aircraft, tanks, etc. One on one guns are fine. One to many, too quickly do not serve the public interest and I believe were never envisioned by our founding fathers. Unfortunately, they are not here to ask, just their work product based upon their frame of reference a couple hundred years ago. Slavery is an interesting frame of reference when citing the sanctity of the words written by our founding fathers. Last time I checked women and minorities can vote now. Those words were written on parchment, not engraved in stone. The principles they represented were, by design, adaptable to the evolving nature of the nation. Liberty must always be balanced by justice.

[croatan]

My thoughts on "assault weapons":

1. Just because a firearm looks scary, doesn't make it so. "Assault rifles" aren't automatic weapons--they just look like 'em.

2. A bolt action rifle with a scope in the hands of anyone who's a halfway decent shot is far more deadly than a AR15 with a full magazine.

3. And at close range, give me a pump-action shotgun full of 00 Buck over my MAC-91.

I see as much utility in an "assault weapons" ban as I do in taking my shoes off to get on an airplane. I think prohibitions like that basically come down to making folks feel more safe and secure--even though that feeling is merely illusory. I haven't read about any proposed new legislation or initiatives and hope that they don't appear because, ultimately, I believe that they're pointless.

[tnip23]

The items in the Bill of Rights were written as a protection for the people from the Gov't. The Bill of Rights limits the gov't and what it can do to the individual citizen and that's why each one is so important. If those who support gun control viewed the 2nd amendment as they do the 1st, guns wouldn't be banned, there ownership would be mandatory. Thomas Jefferson is quoted ad infinitum by those on the left side of the political spectrum, yet even Jefferson viewed the gov't as a necessary evil, i.e. something that should be limited in scope and power and subordinate to the rights of the individual.

[VirtualSmitty]

Reread your last sentence. You called bans silly and then the very next thing was to agree with a ban. Very kindly, you can't have it both ways. Please choose one. :ss



VirtualSmitty can have it both ways ;)

[elderboy02]

My thoughts on "assault weapons":

1. Just because a firearm looks scary, doesn't make it so. "Assault rifles" aren't automatic weapons--they just look like 'em.

2. A bolt action rifle with a scope in the hands of anyone who's a halfway decent shot is far more deadly than a AR15 with a full magazine.

3. And at close range, give me a pump-action shotgun full of 00 Buck over my MAC-91.

I see as much utility in an "assault weapons" ban as I do in taking my shoes off to get on an airplane. I think prohibitions like that basically come down to making folks feel more safe and secure--even though that feeling is merely illusory. I haven't read about any proposed new legislation or initiatives and hope that they don't appear because, ultimately, I believe that they're pointless.

Agreed on all accounts. Very nicely put!

[Da Klugs]

VirtualSmitty can have it both ways ;)


:r:r:r

[MikeyC]

There was a time when my gun fed my kids. It doesn't get much more dire than "no food on the table". Unless, of course, junkies are climbing in your kitchen window to rob you. That has also happened to my family.
I don't see the "need" for anyone to have a turret mounted gatling gun on the roof of their Hummer, or a pile of full automatic ar-15's in their basement. I've never had the desire to own or even understood why guys buy so many of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.
Doesn't matter. It's their right. It's my right, too.
I won't likely own any assault rifles in my lifetime. I've played with them lots of times and they're a lot of fun, but I've never had the desire to own one.
Fortunately for me, if I come to need one, I'm sure one of my brothers will hook me up. :tu

First, I'm sorry that I obviously touched a sore spot with some people on this thread and I won't be addressing the insults that were hurled my way. However, as already noted I am entitled to have an opinion. My statement was only meant to infer that the second ammendment is antiquated and written during a time when there were no assault rifles or machine guns. Plus, at the time people mostly lived on isolated farms and there was no police force. Firearms were much less powerful and the world was on the whole a more dangerous place.

Also, Al has nothing to do with this post. :D

I'm not saying no one should be allowed to own a gun and I would never say guns in general should be illegal. As Scott points out, there are people who have a definite need for a gun. I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

In the end this is just my opinion and people can take it or leave it.

[ahc4353]

VirtualSmitty can have it both ways ;)


Well, that clears that up!

[spooble]

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.


It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars. :)

[MikeyC]

It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars. :)

Well yeah. There will always be law breakers. Otherwise we wouldn't need a police force right? :D

However, I think everyone can agree that if drugs, machine guns, or even Cuban cigars were legal they would be more prevalent and easier to obtain.

[Genetic Defect]

I'm staying out of this thread

[AAlmeter]

A thread lighting up the radar screen and i'm not the cause of it? I must be losing my touch :D

Anywho, bans are silly (though I do support the ban on fully automatic weapons).

Think of how I feel! :r

[shilala]

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands... So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?


Mikey, at a time, I was opposed to automatic weapons.
Then, for a lot of years, I watched how the government that is supposed to "protect and serve" me did what they do.
The protect me by taking away my rights and everyone else's.
If they get the gatling guns, then they go after the automatic weapons, then the semi-auto's, then the handguns, and keep on going until kids can't carry a cap gun.
I didn't pull that out of my butt. Take a look at how it's happened in England. Our ideas were born there, and you can see a never-ending string of parallels between their lawmaking and ours. They're just way ahead of us because their population density is far ahead of ours and they've had lots more time to do themselves in.

That wasn't my point at all.
My greatest fear is that some disconnected knucklehead who works in Washington and has never seen an ounce of what it's like in the "real world" will be the guy to decide if Scott Shilala has the need of a gun.
Scares me to death.

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

[Da Klugs]

How do you folks feel about the progressive tax system? :D

[AAlmeter]

How do you folks feel about the progressive tax system? :D

Cram it hippie! :D

[MikeyC]

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

Scott,

I agree with many of the points that you are making. However, I definitely don't agree with all of them. I don't think there's a need to debate this issue to death which is what would likely occur. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Now let's get back to talking about something we can all agree are great . . . CIGARS!! :r

[Da Klugs]

Cram it hippie! :D

:r:r

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy! :D

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money? :ss

[shilala]

Scott,

I agree with many of the points that you are making. However, I definitely don't agree with all of them. I don't think there's a need to debate this issue to death which is what would likely occur. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Now let's get back to talking about something we can all agree are great . . . CIGARS!! :r

You got it, my brother. :tu

[ahc4353]

:r:r

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy! :D

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money? :ss


I to have offered a guy food when he had a sign saying he was hungry only to get the same reaction. HOWEVER, Sunday Alina and I had to run into the clown hamburger joint for a fast bite before a hockey game. There was a guy that held the door for my wife and ask if we had any money for a meal. I said no, thanked him for holding the door and went in. We then bought him a meal and handed it to him on the way out. The smile on his face and the genuine thank you that came from that man convinced me to always at least make the offer. One, might really be hungry and be truly thankful for you taking the time.

Sorry for the thread jack.

I now return you to guns or no guns..

[M1903A1]

However, I think everyone can agree that if drugs, machine guns, or even Cuban cigars were legal they would be more prevalent and easier to obtain.

Just :2 (or 7/8 of a cent after taxes and inflation)...machine guns are legal to own provided the gun was registered prior to 1986, the owner has a Class 3-accomodating permit from the BATFE, and pays the $200 transfer tax on purchase. It's been that way since 1934.

And registered legal machine guns have always been a rich man's toy...they have been described as an expensive tool for converting money into noise. (Yes, Dave, there is a hobby more expensive than aged CC's!:ss)

[BC-Axeman]

A thread lighting up the radar screen and i'm not the cause of it? I must be losing my touch :D

Anywho, bans are silly (though I do support the ban on fully automatic weapons).

Fully automatic weapons are not banned. They only require a special license. The 1934 National Firearms Act just made it very difficult to own them. Many people can and do own them.

The way I see it, I NEED enough weapons and ammo of sufficient power to supply myself and anyone else around me who NEEDS one, for whatever reason, for an indefinite amount of time. I will be the one who defines "NEED" for me.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

edit: oops, that's what I get for being called away in the middle of writing a post.

[Ashcan Bill]

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?


As far as the original post, I see:

2009-2010 - Congress starts passing gun bans again.

2011 - Congress has a new look as a result of the 2010 elections.

They seem to have a very steep learning curve.

[M1903A1]

As far as the original post, I see:

2009-2010 - Congress starts passing gun bans again.

2011 - Congress has a new look as a result of the 2010 elections.

They seem to have a very steep learning curve.

Reminds me of something I read in a political mag years ago. In essence:

Gun control grants temporary points, but earns permanent enemies.

[AAlmeter]

:r:r

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy! :D

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money? :ss

I can honestly say I've never killed a damn thing with any of my guns. Closest I've come is to make a mess of some beer cans I've already killed with my gullet. I'm a very odd guy (like you haven't noticed). Its the running joke that I could kill a grizzly nocking a choir boy's candle in my bow, but there won't be a chipmunk in sight when I have a gun in my hand.

I do like the rugged individualist thing though. You gotta tell my girlfriend about that. Maybe she'll think I'm one of those bad ass Davey Crockett types and...well...you know what I'm after. :dr

And I'm always willing and hopefully always able to help anyone who needs it. But needing help is one thing....wanting it is a different.

[BamBam]

I am from the south, North Carolina to be exact. Yamamoto's point was about the amount of opposition that they would have faced in an invasion. He was trying to get the Tojo, and the other Imperial Army commanders to see reason when they were planning an attack on the US. The Navy knew that they would lose a protracted war with the US, the main reason being that they were running out of oil and scrap metal (which they had previously gotten from the US). The Army was for a war with the US because they wanted to try to break the US's support of China in the Second Sino-Japanese War (this is why the US had a trade embargo with Japan in the first place). The Army had cultivated a culture of believing that the Japanese infantry was superior to all and would be able to defeat anything because they had superior will and spirit. They would not have cared about the number of guns in the US.

Until that first step onto the mainland :D

All I have to say is "IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

This is more than just a cliche saying. If you start banning guns then the majority of God fearin, law abidin Americans will abide. Then the criminals know that they are the only ones who are armed. Think that might affect the crime rate a touch, and I'm talkin violent crimes here.

I also agree that Americans being free to own guns is a definite deterrent to any invasions from other countries.

An armed society is a polite society.

[webjunkie]

Until that first step onto the mainland :D

:r:r To be fair, they said they would whip the Russians until they ran into the Russians' tanks and artillery.

[houdini]

Two words come to mind in today's political and economic climate regarding the 2nd Amendment: STOCK UP.

[BamBam]

:r:r To be fair, they said they would whip the Russians until they ran into the Russians' tanks and artillery.

Bro, I wish you were closer because we would have an awesome History Herf. I love History, especially war history

[houdini]

The 2nd amendment guarantees a right... it doesn't address a need. There is a distinct difference.

Best qoute of this thread! :usa

[webjunkie]

Bro, I wish you were closer because we would have an awesome History Herf. I love History, especially war history

Oh man, a History Herf would be awesome. Nothing better than history nuts hashing it out, especially when alcohol is involved. Even better when it's alcohol and cigars. :D

[Mikhail]

(puts on flame suite)

I'm a student getting his GED and wants to get into the gun business. so for me to make a retirement I must support the 2'nd amendment and all it stands for.

Most people of my age group have lost sight of what this amendment was put in place to do in my opinion, that is to enforce the checks and balance system.

This is one of my favourite US history quotes by Thomas Jefferson.
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President)

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."


This post was done with homework.

(takes suite off)

[Cigary]

Owning a rifle or handgun is a fundamental right but not sure what is right about owning an assault rifle? If you agree with an automatic weapon then where is the line? RPG's, grenades, etc.? I seriously doubt they will ever outlaw the guns but as was said, ammunitions will be targeted. Sheesh,,,I need my own island!

[Ace$nyper]

I can't sleep so I might as well chime in.

I think the 2nd is pretty simple, it's no if ands or buts. I know some people like to argue well advancements in power have changed that, but back then it was musket to musket. If the gov pulled something that caused a revolt it was a fair match.

Now, pretend tomorrow something that bad goes down, you got your Rem 700 from wal mart vs a F22? Yea, not a fair fight.

I think the founding fathers saw how great ideas even their own were not perfect and if they were wrong with the idea of a democratic republic, the people can fix that if it gets that nasty.

I know things have changed so much by then and I think a ICBM is still a bit much to compete against and the cost kinda keeps it out of the hands of well anyone.

I think it was a way to keep the government in check and through changes in technology culture etc that right has been whittled away.

I think instead of the government spending so much time and effort trying to keep themselves safe from us, how about run well you'd have nothing to feel if so many of us didn't feel trampled on.

I think we all know or can find out about the CA 50 cal ban. They admit it's not been used in a crime ever but still a no no. So what good does that too? Where do you want to draw that line? Why even draw a line? Should we out law the common cold, it's killed a lot of people this year.

I'm trying to expand on the short sightedness of gun bans as you've seen in countries that have had them. Let's pretend, you ban all guns and magically they are gone not even crooks can get them. Now Joe thief comes with a ninja sword, out law them, then he's there with a base ball bat....

Please forgive me if this is a ramble but It's 0320 and I can't sleep lol.

[elderboy02]

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm. :usa

[Starchild]

Owning a rifle or handgun is a fundamental right but not sure what is right about owning an assault rifle? If you agree with an automatic weapon then where is the line? RPG's, grenades, etc.? I seriously doubt they will ever outlaw the guns but as was said, ammunitions will be targeted. Sheesh,,,I need my own island!

This a major misconception on the "Assault" weapons issue. We are not talking about automatic weapons. Those are illegal for all but a few specially licensed people. What we are talking about is semi-automatic weapons that LOOK like their automatic brethren. If you read the definition of "assault" weapon that was used in the previous ban, the only difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault" weapon is how it looks (i.e. two or more features including grip, stock, etc.) and the capacity of the magazine. They function the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The term assault weapon is very subjective and many people believe that it refers to full automatic "machine guns". It does not. Those are already very heavily regulated.

With that clarification, I am totally against the talked about ban. I don't feel the need to own one, but I should have the right if I so choose.

[Smokin Gator]

With that clarification, I am totally against the talked about ban. I don't feel the need to own one, but I should have the right if I so choose.

Well said and that is exactly how I feel.

I have a number of weapons in my house. I have a loaded Mossberg 500 right next to my bed. I have a Ruger 357 in my truck. I carry a SW 38 nearly all the time. I have a concealed weapons permit. I certainly feel like in today's climate that is MORE than enough to defend my property and my family. I see no need to have an "assault" rifle. I certainly hope the day never comes when, in our country, I see the need to have one.
:2

[gettysburgfreak]

I really hope they don't ban assault rifles as I would like to get one once I get a job.

[BC-Axeman]

Just a quick note on the CA 50cal ban. This is ridiculous and is already bypassed by a gun that has identical ballistics. Another rich man's toy, but useful for shooting through concrete walls.

[WyoBob]

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm. :usa

Are these the same guys who ruled that we don't really have any personal property rights? Hmm, I'm not going to sleep any better tonight.

Misc. ramblings. Answer to the question, "Why do you feel it's necessary to carry a gun." Answer, "Because I can't stuff a cop in my pocket".

If I give up my guns, will the president, vice. pres, movie stars, ceo's and all of the other "anointed" give up their Secret Service agents and body guards?

If you were the present Congress with a 20 percent (give or take) approval rating, would you want the "people" to be armed?

If total government control equals "safety" why are prisons such dangerous places?

WyoBob

[Sancho]

Wyobob, I think I read that same handout somewhere once before ;) Of course all are valid points, and I certainly have made my own decisions on this a while ago.

[theycallmedan'lboone]

My View on automatic weapons :
Waste of ammo, there is always more air than meat....unless the zombies are really really close. :cb but if you want to own one, pay the fee's and you can have your M2.

Q:Why do I need a collapsible stock carbine commonly referred to as an "assault rifle"
A: it's the weapon I have spent the majority of my time with, it can touch 300 meters* if needed, yet I can clear my house with it and ballistic ammunition and not worry about hitting my neighbors
*anything beyond this. Savage Bolt Action .308, you pick which eye.

I have long attempted corrected people's belief that the second Amendment refers to hunting, grocery shopping in the woods, I feel it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but the protection of my land, property and family from those that would do them harm. When referencing the "savages attacking settlers" how are they any different than the man who kicked down the door of the woman living 2 blocks from me and she shot him 3 times with a .38.

The MAN himself said this:

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”-Jeff Cooper Meaning, you try and hurt my family or me, Mel Gibson in all of his Braveheart/The Patriot fury will seem like childs play when I'm done.


Thomas Jefferson said:
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!?;);) Personally I'd go for an A-10.

As far as *THE BAN* goes.. I don't think anyone dressed in black with sunglasses is going to come knock on my door to take my guns, do I think that within the next four years a reprise of the '94 ban' will make a come back? yes. Am I burying my some of my guns and ammo in a concrete bunker hidden in my backyard? no. but now that i think about it... :hm

The right of free speech, assembly, quick trial by jury. They are not considered outdated, why would owning a weapon be?

[MithShrike]

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

[M1903A1]

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!?;);)

Is it pre-embargo? :D

[DPD6030]

If it hasn't been said already...I can tell you from the LEO standpoint that no matter if it is passed or not the criminals will find a way no matter what if they really want to. The criminals have more powerful guns than the police force. A wise officer once told me, if we got it the criminals had it a year ago. I hunt and carry a firearm for work. I too agree that if there is an "assault" weapons ban then it is not fair to lawfully abiding citizens. I used to have an AR-15 but I sold it and wished I didn't.

[ahc4353]

Read the following in my local paper today.

I know it's not about assault rifles but I thought it still "fit" the thread. This has to be the only positive piece of press I have seen in print in my local papers in many years. Made my day, thought I would share.

From the Courier News 11/20/2008

There are a lot of people in New Jersey with open minds and open eyes, but the majority of us have been mentally conditioned to be afraid of guns. The media in general have done an excellent job of demonizing firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.

A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights. Broadcasts of major networks from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories showed the ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was 16 to 1. That means for every one story of someone using a firearm in self-defense or to save the life of another, 16 stories of criminals using their guns to hurt the innocent were aired. That ratio still remains the same today. It seems one-sided and unfair, does it not?

Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than shootings. In a recent three-year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke and other bizarre injuries as compared with students who were murdered by firearms during that same time period.

Why do the majority of our lawmakers think that making it more difficult to own and carry a concealed firearm is going to help quell the rate of violent crime in New Jersey? It's been proven time and time again that criminals in New Jersey do not care about gun restrictions or gun bans. The vast majority of the illegal guns used in crimes come from a few corrupt gun dealers outside the borders of the Garden State.

It seems most of our legislators have this unfounded fear that if A1282 is enacted, everyone will rush to get their concealed carry permit and there will be millions of guns on our streets that will result in a bloodbath the likes of which we have never seen. History shows that after concealed carry legislation was passed in Florida in 1987 only an estimated 3 percent of Floridians chose to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Now, let's return to New Jersey. The latest census estimates the population of New Jersey is 8.7 million. If 2 percent of citizens are granted a concealed carry permit, that would be approximately 174,000 people. That also means there would only be two people per square mile who would have permits to legally carry weapons. There are 10 times more criminals and street gang members in our cities who are illegally carrying concealed weapons right at this very moment. So what exactly are we afraid of?

The majority of us who live in and around urbanized areas in New Jersey believe guns are the problem. We seem to believe this because the mainstream media has trained us to think that way. The truth is there is an estimated 50.6 million households having at least one gun in the United States, totaling approximately 228 million firearms. The total number of firearms that are used by criminals to commit their violent acts is approximately 450,000 nationwide.

Ninety-seven percent of people in Florida have not chosen to obtain their concealed carry permits, but they are getting a huge benefit from the 3 percent who do. Since Florida passed concealed carry legislation, crime has dropped to 4 percent below the national average from 36 percent above the national average before 1987.

Most of us in New Jersey will choose not to apply for a gun, because we have been convinced by our government and the media that guns are evil. But for those upstanding law-abiding citizens who feel differently, they should not be denied their constitutional right to defend themselves, if they feel the need to do so.

[Tombstone]

Great article. That is so true.

[elderboy02]

Great article. That is so true.

:tpd: Thank you for sharing that article.

[cigars_n_scotch]

Great article, and coming from someone who also lives in Jersey I'm very surprised to see an NJ media outlet allowing something like that to be printed. I am one of the individuals who does not listen to our media and does not support the ban or the denial of our right to own one. Interesting facts in those studies. Thank you for sharing.

[Sauer Grapes]

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.
What about when they do take away a right you care about? Who all stand up for your right if you don't stand up for others'?

[spectrrr]

I have a few things to say. They are different enough that I will put them in seperate posts, to break it up and make it a little easier to read for folks. This is an issue that I feel fairly strongly about, so I will probably ramble a bit.


Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm. :usa

unfortunately, now they are just going around the back door. if something like the previously disscussed 500% tax were to go into effect, it would have a very similar effect.

Guns work because people have them. LOTS of people. Make it a rich man's hobby, and now the common person will not be able to afford it, even if "technically" he is still allowed it.

same end result.

[spectrrr]

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.
Matt, no intention to pick on you here, your post just did the best job summing up some of the other opinions along the same vein in this thread. I'll prolly say "you" from time to time in the post, but I'm addressing everyone.

most of you have probably seen this poem before. It was written after the Nazi rise to power and their purging of certain groups.

---------------------------------------------------
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
---------------------------------------------------


(this is a ramble, forgive me)
We live in an instant use society. Entire epic stories are told in a 2 hour movie. Solutions to social problems are generally accepted only if they will produce results instantly, or within a year. The American people as a whole do not think long term. We always think about the here and now, but not about how things will affect us in the future.

Why don't more Americans pay attention to their health, eat right, excercise more, etc? Certainly some of the problems can be attributed to limited time, money, etc.... BUT the fundamental issue to ask is WHY is there limited time and money? you had time to play that xbox or watch Dancing with the Stars... but not the gym, and not the 20 extra minutes it would have taken to prepare something for dinner that isnt "instant". CLEARLY in many cases, the issue is not time, but our prioritization of it. HEALTH is not a priority for most people because health is a LONG TERM goal, and people do not think about that. Its not important. I don't have diabetus NOW, so I'll continue to cram my face. We far prefere to choose an instant pleasure now and just dont think about the future consequences (why should I, it is not affecting me now)

What the hell does that have to do with gun control? get your ass back on target! ok ok...

The slow and steady erosion of our rights does not happen quickly. It happens very slowly, very methodically. It always seems reasonable to abolish the most extreme thing of a group of items. It is something most people will agree on. So they talk about banning whatever class of weapons that are at the top of the LEGAL food chain at the moment.... and once those are banned and forgotten about, they'll go after the next biggest gun, and so forth.

I'm not fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle NOW. I'm fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle in 20 years. There's plenty of other guns they'll outlaw first, before turning their eyes on a bolt action.... but it will happen. Dont believe me? for all you history buffs, do a little research on the history of other countries that have been down that read and report the statistics back to us :) (PLEASE NOTE, that is not meant as a dig at the earlier folks talking history.. I love history)

Every time that someone says "well, I'm not in that group of people" and does nothing, they are harming themselvesin the long run. because when the witchunt is done with me, they'll come for something YOU love.

OR you'll just be more likely to get mugged on the street or in your own house... because when they're done taking my guns away, the criminals will now know that EVERY house or person on the street is safe to rob, instead of the current game of russian roulette they play everytime they choose to commit a crime.

You may not like guns yourself, and thats ok. If you don't like em, I dont want you to have them! Really.. thats what RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is all about. BUT please recognize that my willingness to own, train with, and use a gun DOES make significant contributions to YOUR safety, and in so recognizing that fact, please support those people for doing their part.

----------------------------------------------------------------
We support the troops because they keep us safe, but most of us are not soliders. We support the police because they keep us safe, but most of us are not officers. Why then do we not support the many gun owners in this nation that keep us safe, even if many of us do not ourselves own guns?
----------------------------------------------------------------

[spectrrr]

Again, I can't post my thoughts on every post, nor would you want to read them. Mikey's post just summs em up, I'm not picking on him.


I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

Said legislation actually does exist... but for some reason, most of the people that are committing crimes don't seem too inclined to follow it... :hm

Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions....

Amen brother. I would even take it a step further and say that its not "often" that the tools end up in the wrong hands, its "always". :tu

....and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Food for thought. I've met a lot of people on both sides of fence, people that grew up with guns, people that didn't, etc. 99 times out of 100, the people that are "inexperienced" or "foolish" around guns and then get into accidents are the people that have been relatively sheltered from guns for most of their life.

A firearm is something that must be treated with the utmost in respect at all times, and damned near anyone who shoots often now or grew up shooting when they were younger knows this. People that live in a house that just tries to ignore their existance, those are the majority of the "inexperienced" people that you refer to.

whats my point? my point is, as you limit guns and drive them further away from the common public eye, and make it less socially acceptable for people to be involved with guns, I would argue that you will see an INCREASE in the number of accident related shootings because the number of inexperienced people will be rising.

[spectrrr]

a few closing ramblings...

In this post I will say the word "utopia" a bit. By that, I am talking about the "end" goal of betterment that most of us would like to see in society. Even though we do not talk about it like this (I certainly don't use the word utopia in my everyday thought and speach), WE ALL, to one extent or another, use this as an unconcious foundation in shaping many of our thoughts and opinions. bear with me, because I think it is important that we recognize where some of our oppinions come from, because then we can judge their merit based on that.

------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone wants a utopian society. I want one. You want one. We all do. Nobody wants crime, no sane person wants violence. Everyone wants to live happily ever after.

Unfortunatly, this goal is NEVER attainable. we can take measures to reduce crime, this is easy. Tougher penalties for breaking the law, more police to catch a guy if he does break the law, better schools so fewer people to turn crime, more armed citizens to deter people that do turn to crime from risking the confrontation, etc.

There are lots of things we can do to lower the number of people committing crimes. BUT there is an inherent evil in this world that will never be fully eliminated. A certain portion of the population will always try to commit a crime against their fellow man. You can never control people to such an extent that it would be possible to eliminate all crime... and if you could, we would have far more troubling things to discuss, if at that point we even had the right could discuss anything....

Trying to take guns away from the hands of private, law abiding citizens by making them difficult and a pain in the ass to own, all in the hopes that you can prevent someone from misusing the gun, or prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, is in my oppinion, an offshoot of the quest for utopia that we often unconciously persue.

We think that if can just get the guns out of the wrong people's hands, we can prevent crime, and we can be one step closer to a perfect, better world. But when we fail to see, accept, and treat the cause of the problem rather than the tool, we are undertaking an excercise in futility. And when our atempts then result in the removal of guns from private citizens (either by legislative banning, or taxing it out of reach), we take one step forward and 5 steps backwards, destableizing more than stableizing, killing more than saving. (Which is NOT what you wanted in the first place when you passed the legislation!)

limiting, banning, or removing guns will never change the people that will laways commit crime (they've been there since Cain and Able, they're not going anywhere). Distrubiting guns into the hands of responsible private individuals however WILL serve to contain the damnage done by those who do not see fit to play by the rules of society.

Utopia simply is not availlable, because utopia at any cost ceases to be a utopia.



It's late, I'm probably making less and less sense here... I'll retire to bed before my thoughts lose all cohension whatsoever.

-Francis

[elderboy02]

Wow Francis! Nice posts! You make way too much sense. I am sure the heads of the Brady Campaign would be hurting because you are making too much sense. Good job sir! :tu

P.S. I wish I could bump your rep for all your hard work, but it says I have to spread it around again.

[SeanGAR]

The 2nd amendment guarantees a right... it doesn't address a need. There is a distinct difference.

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.

[elderboy02]

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

...

The Internet wasn't around when the 1st Amendment was written. I guess we should still be writing on parchment paper and not the internet.

Just an FYI, I am not making fun of you, just making a point.

[Tombstone]

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.

The liberal media wants you to think that all weapons are used for hunting. The number one reason people own guns including assault rifles is for PROTECTION of their life, property, and freedoms. This is the reason for the second amendment. If a person or government threatens any of these we have the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to defend our freedoms per the second amendment.

[Tombstone]

The Internet wasn't around when the 1st Amendment was written. I guess we should still be writing on parchment paper and not the internet.

Just an FYI, I am not making fun of you, just making a point.

:r:rLOL

[ahc4353]

Francis, it makes me happy that guys like you are around to articulate what I'm thinking but fail so badly at putting to print.

Thank you.

[theycallmedan'lboone]

I want da klugs to tell me he really wouldn't own a Tank or an F-15....:ss:D:D

[atlharp]

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

IMHO the government does not have the right to take away my second amendment right. My forefathers died for private citizens to own guns to defend ourselves from any threat both domestic and foreign. This is America isn't it?

Obama won't be moving on this until the after the midterms in 2010. Believe it or not, this is an area of weakness for Obama that turns the ire of the people against him. Obama will move on this, but until later. His first moves will be economic (and they will not included tax hikes either- more like bail out programs and tax credit incentives for the middle class). The next shift with him will be foreign policy to buck up his world image (he doesn't want to have another Cuban Missle Crisis). Tax Hikes and the AWB are issues that are immediate distractions and liabilities for his administration. This is too expensive right off the bat and will cost WAY too much political capital.

ATL

[atlharp]

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.

Military grade "assault weapons" were available during the time when the second amendment was written. Indeed, the same Short Land Service Musket that was used by the British was used by our soldiers as well. Indeed our soldiers used them to "assault" the British and run them out of our country and back up to Canada or Britain.

The Second Amendment exists to allow citizens to protect themselves from their government. It's a great provision because it does not allow the government to gain imperium over the lives of citizens (like socialized medicine or punitive taxation) with the expectation that we have the ability to push back with the most extreme means. The second amendment exists so that we do not turn into a bunch of sheep (like Europe and Canada) who are made serfs and knaves with the insecure and pathetic promise of "free" healthcare and an assurance that their government will not throw them into concentration camps.

Americans chafe at the notion of being owned by their government and the second amendment is the explicit declaration that we will never be.

ATL

[atlharp]

At the time the 2nd amendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

[Tombstone]

Military grade "assault weapons" were available during the time when the second amendment was written. Indeed, the same Short Land Service Musket that was used by the British was used by our soldiers as well. Indeed our soldiers used them to "assault" the British and run them out of our country and back up to Canada or Britain.

The Second Amendment exists to allow citizens to protect themselves from their government. It's a great provision because it does not allow the government to gain imperium over the lives of citizens (like socialized medicine or punitive taxation) with the expectation that we have the ability to push back with the most extreme means. The second amendment exists so that we do not turn into a bunch of sheep (like Europe and Canada) who are made serfs and knaves with the insecure and pathetic promise of "free" healthcare and an assurance that their government will not throw them into concentration camps.

Americans chafe at the notion of being owned by their government and the second amendment is the explicit declaration that we will never be.

ATL

Preach on Brother!!!! We need more people that think like you in this country.

[Tombstone]

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

You took the words right out of my mouth. :tpd::tpd:

[SeanGAR]

The liberal media wants you to think that all weapons are used for hunting. The number one reason people own guns including assault rifles is for PROTECTION of their life, property, and freedoms. This is the reason for the second amendment. If a person or government threatens any of these we have the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to defend our freedoms per the second amendment.

Liberal media? What are you taking about? I make my own mind up and don't give a rats ass what others think.

And don't presume to lecture me about reasons for owning guns .. I've owned firearms since I was 13 and have more in my house than I can count on my fingers, thank you very much.

My POINT, which I will repeat, is that any "right to bear arms" was written with muzzle loaders in mind. Thus, you should not PRESUME that the founding fathers believed that other weapons, defined as arms, belong in peoples hands. So I get really really tired of that same old baloney when people talk about the second amendment in relation to weapons that were not even dreamed of in the founding fathers time.

Now, I believe that they do belong in the hands of law abiding citizens if they want to own them. And I also believe this assault weapon baloney is a joke. You can be just as easily killed by a "hunting rifle" as "assault rifle", there is no difference except in aesthetics (perhaps mag capacity too, but that is a minor difference). But this is not a belief related to the 2nd amendment, it is a belief related to the freedom of citizens to do whatever the hill they want to without government interference as long as you are not harming others.

[SeanGAR]

Military grade "assault weapons" were available during the time when the second amendment was written. Indeed, the same Short Land Service Musket that was used by the British was used by our soldiers as well. Indeed our soldiers used them to "assault" the British and run them out of our country and back up to Canada or Britain.


How many shots per second you get with one of those? Can you compare that to my Browning BAR .308? Now how about an AR15?

[Resipsa]

I am sooooooooo glad I am staying out of this thread......:r

[spectrrr]

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

well said brother!

[poker]

were still watching.....tread lightly.

[ahc4353]

OK, so did you here the one about the MOD and the Ak-47? :D

[spectrrr]

OK, so did you here the one about the MOD and the Ak-47? :D

I thoguht it was the one about the MOD and the F-15? :confused: :dance:

[ahc4353]

Right! I'm in the wrong thread!

(Don't you have a home work assignment due to me you should be working on?)

[spectrrr]

Right! I'm in the wrong thread!

(Don't you have a home work assignment due to me you should be working on?)

yeah, was working on it last night till I posted my rant and went to bed :tg

[BC-Axeman]

I definitely think I need an A-10. I see no reason why someone who could afford it should not have one.

Francis, your posts were so well thought out and written! I am jealous of your talent to compose such trains of thought into words.

[cbsmokin]

I see validity on both sides of the argument, but in the mean time I am stocking up because if the bad guys have them I want them to.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/cbnat/Cigars/untitled2.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/cbnat/Cigars/untitled.jpg

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/cbnat/Cigars/untitled1.jpg

[spectrrr]

I failed to get around to addressing one final point last night on the topic of the 2nd Amendment. Primarily this goes out to the numerous arguments raised that basically state the 2nd amendment is or could be outdated since it was written so long ago. Since obviously slavery was an outdated idea, why not guns? (note that I will not address the right to personal protection and crime prevention issue, as I have already spoken on that at length.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The simple fact is this: I do not need guns to protect me from the government TODAY. I've never had to shoot a government agent coming onto my property, and I've never had to organize an armed rebellion against the state. Never have, Hope to God I never will.

--BUT THAT IS NOT WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXIST!--

The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that I never have to do any of the above mentioned things. Our 2nd amendment right exists primarily to ensure that people are always armed. Not because we need the guns now, but because as long as we have them, it is very likely we will not need them.

The argument that our society has evolved, that life today is safer and that we are not at risk from our government TODAY is mostly correct... but fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account WHY our society is safe today, and why we do not have to fear anything from the government. People are corrupt. Look at history, power corrupts. It always has, it always will. find for me, if you can, me a society whose government did not eventually become corrupt. (you won't). If you take away OR LIMIT the guns from the hands of private citizens, you eliminate the checks and balances that ensure the government does not become TOO corrupt.

-------------------------------
An example of this idea (I'll get back to guns in a minute, I promise!):
Most people operate on a risk/reward system. Is the risk of negative consequences worth whatever the reward is for an action?

lose $20 /vs/ win the lottery
lose my job /vs/ get to tell my boss what an a$$hat he is
beat the sh!t out of the guy that just stole from me and insulted me /vs/ get caught, go to jail, get acquainted with "bubba"

You get the idea. And everyone's risk/reward scale is different. meaning that I might think that it is worth it to lose my job so I can say what I'm really thinking to my boss... and you may value your job more than that and continue on as it is.

Tough penalties on assault and murder (hellllo bubba!), coupled with excellent forensics and detective work that significantly increase the chance you will get caught, and topped off with the small (3% to 5%) chance that the guy you try to assault will be packing, all these add up to stack the odds against most people committing a crime. The risk is not worth the reward (for most), hence the net effect is prevention.
-------------------------------

Guns in the hands of private citizens have the same effect on our government. It is a reminder not to get too far out of line, because there IS a risk to the government if they do so. As long as we continue to have our guns, MOST of the people will continue to remain in line, because the risk is not worth the reward.

(I say "most" because there will always be someone who will do the wrong thing at any cost, their risk/reward ideals are a little different from the rest of us.)

But on the other hand, if you say that we do not need guns now, and you take them away or limit their ownership, THEN you will see the problems begin to rise... because now the risk is diminished, and the reward starts looking a lot better....

AND FINALLY, along the same sort of discussion:
Why do I need to have "nice" guns? why not just allow people to have small pistols for home defense and a single shot bolt action rifle for hunting, since that’s all we really "need"?

I think that after reading this post, the answer should be fairly obvious... IF the primary purpose of guns in the hands of private citizens is to deter the government from getting out of line in the future, THEN it stands to reason that those guns must be EFFECTIVE at the job they are tasked with. If everyone owned a 6 shot .22 cal revolver, then we would all be armed... however the tools would be largely ineffective in performing their duty of prevention because they post very little risk.

Thus, it is not only important that we are armed, but also that the weapons we are armed with have the potential to be EFFECTIVE against an opponent, otherwise there is little point to be armed in the first place. Assault weapons are sometimes overkill for self defense. BUT take a look at the armory of the local SWAT team or the military, and you should see that these so called "assault weapons" are really the bare minimum needed to maintain proper checks, balances, and effective prevention against a superior force. Give us all .22 revolvers and we'll see how much of a deterrent that is to a SWAT member.




ok, i'm done now... I think...

-Francis

[atlharp]

How many shots per second you get with one of those? Can you compare that to my Browning BAR .308? Now how about an AR15?

The shot ration in a specific amount of time is irrelevant. Bolt action rifles have been known to produce rates of fire in the right hands that rival automatic weapons. The Lee Enfield is the notable one:

"The fast-operating Lee bolt-action and large magazine capacity enabled a trained rifleman to fire between 20 to 30 aimed rounds a minute, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army — Sergeant Instructor Snoxall — who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute." This is well known among Military circles and shows that even bolt action rifles (though not being all big, black and scary to the eunuchs of gun control as that AR-15), can be comparable to modern day "assault" weapons.

The amount of fire is useless if that amount is not aimed and carried through efficiently. I believe one of the worst things to happen in warfare was automatic weapons. It gave armies the false notion that more bullets were better. The reality is that the quality of fire used with proper tactical suppression gives armies the advantage. That is a big reason why our guys have their M-16's with the 3 round burst setting. The automatic fire is really functionally useless unless it's purpose is to flood a particular area with fire-power. In those circumstances, that is when air-support is called in.

Overall, The great thing about AR-15's , Ak-47's, and any other rifle is that it gives the civilian the advantage of being able to defend themselves from their government. The sale and possession of such weapons is important for that alone, and anyone who seeks to disable the citizenry from that right, ultimately undermines their humanity and jeopardizes all their other rights as well. :hm

ATL

[Tombstone]

The shot ration in a specific amount of time is irrelevant. Bolt action rifles have been known to produce rates of fire in the right hands that rival automatic weapons. The Lee Enfield is the notable one:

"The fast-operating Lee bolt-action and large magazine capacity enabled a trained rifleman to fire between 20 to 30 aimed rounds a minute, making the Lee-Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army — Sergeant Instructor Snoxall — who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute." This is well known among Military circles and shows that even bolt action rifles (though not being all big, black and scary to the eunuchs of gun control as that AR-15), can be comparable to modern day "assault" weapons.

The amount of fire is useless if that amount is not aimed and carried through efficiently. I believe one of the worst things to happen in warfare was automatic weapons. It gave armies the false notion that more bullets were better. The reality is that the quality of fire used with proper tactical suppression gives armies the advantage. That is a big reason why our guys have their M-16's with the 3 round burst setting. The automatic fire is really functionally useless unless it's purpose is to flood a particular area with fire-power. In those circumstances, that is when air-support is called in.

Overall, The great thing about AR-15's , Ak-47's, and any other rifle is that it gives the civilian the advantage of being able to defend themselves from their government. The sale and possession of such weapons is important for that alone, and anyone who seeks to disable the citizenry from that right, ultimately undermines their humanity and jeopardizes all their other rights as well. :hm

ATL

ATL, i tried to give you some more rep for that post but it said that i must spread it around to others first. Great Post!!!!!

[barbourjay]

i was a big proponent of letting the ban sunset when it came around. i was really excited about it not getting renewed. the funny thing is that i haven't bought anything big since then.

the one thing when people talk about the ban is that everyone keeps confusing automatic weapons and these so called "assault weapons". i know it's been said a few times in this thread but others keep bringing them up as if they are the same thing. fully automatic weapons were banned in 1934 and are still banned and will be banned/restricted to civilian use.

the "assault weapons ban" that bill clinton helped put into effect did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to lower violent crime rates. in short, i'm glad it didn't get pushed through and i do not believe we will see another ban again. the media scare tactics were always great, they used the words uzi and fully automatic so much that it just made the gun savy people laugh. violence was suppose to flood the streets and mass murder was suppose to happen all the time. yet none of it has.

[Ratters]

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

[AAlmeter]

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

I agree 100%. I have no use for an AR style rifle. I know many use them for target, varmint, and even deer hunting. I don't. I'm sure I would find it more than suitable for my needs, but so are many other guns that cost less.

Why will I be getting one? Simple...because people who have great power over me, who control how many days a year I work for them (its nearly half by the way) for free, who can take away my ability to see my loved ones, etc....are scared that I'll have one. Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That is why there is a 2nd Amendment, and that's why I will always support it....regardless of whether or not I could hit the broad side of a barn with my flintlock.


On to a more important debate...why does anyone need a V8 in a sedan? It is dangerous and excessive. They should be banned, as V6s will do just fine...unless of course you are some mad man hell bent on crashing a sedan into a mall at 120mph.

[Ratters]

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=177117&page=5

[M1903A1]

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=177117&page=5

This video illustrates the difference in mindsets between citizens and subjects.

Quintessential Britishism: "God save the Queen!"
Quintessential Americanism: "F**K YOU!!!"

Shovel and shut up!

[spectrrr]

ATL, i tried to give you some more rep for that post but it said that i must spread it around to others first. Great Post!!!!!

:tpd:
very well said ATL

[spectrrr]

Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That my friend, is an excellent point, and should be a glaring hint to the careful observer just what the "purpose" behind such bans are.

For years, lots of people have been calling for tougher penalties on the laws we already have. Funny how those go ignored, but we always keep bringing up the gun BAN issue again. And I thought they cared about my safety... :hm

[SonsofClubDeck]

I don't own any guns, but I plan on purchasing one in the next few years. I've shot a few and really do enjoy them. I don't hunt because I think I like fishing more, but I have no problem with hunting. I went to a gun show once and there was some awesome stuff there. Gun collectors are a whole different breed of badass. I would really like to have a 357, not because of technical aspects, but because I have fired one before and I have always liked them. However, mine would be for my own defense against the irresponsible. I don't see a call for a ban as a legit thing. I see a call for personal responsibility and common sense being the way to go. However, that ideal doesn't really hold the ability to work, due to the people it would be aimed at being, well...stupid. Just my 2 cents.

[mojo65]

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.

See the picture of Mr Heston on page one of this thread. The Black powder rifle in his hands was the assault rifle of its day.

[Tombstone]

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=177117&page=5

I wonder if America would stand up to this if it happened here?

[theycallmedan'lboone]

well England has started their line of nonsense with the whole, you can't put up barbed wire around your shed because someone trying to get in might get hurt and sue. Regardless of the fact that they had to climb the fence to get hurt. England used to be the balls. Alan Quartermain, Bond, Victor Mclaughlin type bad asses. the Scotsmen warriors who walked into battle at the sound of the pipes are having their testicles removed. I'll pass. from my cold dead hands. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTdO-w3xnpw&NR=1) Sir, you are missed. man that sends a chill down my spine.

[WyoBob]

I thought there were some good thoughts in these blogs to go along with the thoughtful posts in this thread:

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

WyoBob

[Diesel Kinevel]

Only law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals do not, that is what makes them criminals. If "they" want to keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of criminals they should deal with the criminals themselves.

They need to get rid of the problem not the tool, and punish the criminals not the good decent people who live in America...