Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[DomerInHappyValley]

If you think for a second that if it came down to the American public defending themselves with their personal firearms, that they would have a chance, then you are being delusional.

Do you really think that if a country attacked us and demobilized the most powerful military in the world that the general public armed with personal firearms would be the ones to take them down? Grow up, dude. This isn't Hollywood.

Your right it's not Hollywood.
Your standard response is it's a different time.
Guess what Wooly it's the supreme law of the land don't like it call your states' representatives. Until such time as it is changed no amount of bitching from you will change it.
Don't come onto an online forum complaining.

 

[woolybug25]

First where was that posted or something close?

And Do you honestly believe in your mind that limited gun control will help? People are the problem not the guns. Why cant we blame it on the person that did it? Not the parents or video games or medicine. he did some bad things now he is burning in hell. But no one can let it go. So now we will punish ever legal gun owner in the united states.

This is your problem. Literally everything you are asking about is already in this thread several times. You aren't bringing up some novel idea that no one has thought of. Even my thoughts on gun control. Look it up, you might be surprised and it is as simple as the search button.

 

[Downinthebend]

"So true, but this was when this country was fighting for its freedom and our military barely resembled an army. Our situation back then basically required our citizens to arm themselves and at that time, probably at least half of the families had to hunt for their food.

Today we have the best military force in the world to protect us and I am not afraid of a military overthrow of the government like the doomsday prepsters.

As far as for personal protection I wonder how many who own guns have had to actually use them to protect their family and/or home?"

"I feel like we are going in a circle. The 2nd amendment wasn't only attended against foreign governments, it was intended against any oppressive government be it domestic or foreign (and then throw in some other purposes, like hunting, militias, etc)."

"To add to this, what are assault rifles going to do to help in a government overthrow or attack from another country? That was the intent of being able to arm and form militia. It was a different time. If people tried to overthrow our govt or protect themselves from a country strong enough to invade us, then guess what??? You are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Grow up Peter Pan... Count Chocula... this isn't "The Wolverines" and your assault rifles aren't going to help you take back the U of SA.

Good points, Irish1"

"You're right, a populace primary armed with guns would never be able to fight off the USA.

Wait a minute...
"

"That happened in the US?

Crazy, dude."



"If you think for a second that if it came down to the American public defending themselves with their personal firearms, that they would have a chance, then you are being delusional.

Do you really think that if a country attacked us and demobilized the most powerful military in the world that the general public armed with personal firearms would be the ones to take them down? Grow up, dude. This isn't Hollywood."

 

[phgreek]

If I'm in a room with somebody who has a loaded weapon, I am literally seconds away from losing my life. It takes an enormous amount of trust to just ignore that fact and pretend like everything is perfectly normal. Maybe it's a side effect of being at war, but I don't feel that trusting of most strangers, especially not of strangers who carry guns. So immediately, if I see somebody who is not in a uniform yet carries, I'm going to be extra cautious of them. Some stranger has a tool that is designed to kill. If I perceive them acting in any way that could indicate they might use that tool, I have to do something to mitigate that threat OR hope that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that every, most, or even a significant fraction of gun owners are killers. All I'm saying is that the way I look at it, the presence of guns dramatically decrease the time one has to respond to a potential life-threatening situation and thus make some form of pre-emptive action a logical response.

Dude, if you have the stones to grab a guy and choke him out, and can defend why...go for it.

I commented on the part where everyone calls the cops every time they see someone carrying...to me thats guerilla tactics that simply polarize people and quash a good faith discussion.

Edit: sorry wasn't done...the other issue is that hitting cops with that approach actually disstracts them from dealing with people in immediate perril as a means to a longer term goal...a goal meant to reduce "risk"...seems off to me

 

[woolybug25]

Your right it's not Hollywood.
Your standard response is it's a different time.
Guess what Wooly it's the supreme law of the land don't like it call your states' representatives. Until such time as it is changed no amount of bitching from you will change it.
Don't come onto an online forum complaining.

Reforms to the laws are not changes to the "law of the land". If you aren't looking to read about what people want to change then why are you reading/posting in a thread specifically about it?

I think you just ran out of talking points on the whole idea of the second amendment's goal of protecting the country from attack. Simply put, that part of the reasoning of the amendment have no logical purpose in today's society. No modern country would be able to protect themselves from elite military offensives with militia response. It simply isn't logical.

 

[Downinthebend]

Reforms to the laws are not changes to the "law of the land". If you aren't looking to read about what people want to change then why are you reading/posting in a thread specifically about it?

I think you just ran out of talking points on the whole idea of the second amendment's goal of protecting the country from attack. Simply put, that part of the reasoning of the amendment have no logical purpose in today's society. No modern country would be able to protect themselves from elite military offensives with militia response. It simply isn't logical.

Do you have any idea of Vietnam's history?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Dude, if you have the stones to grab a guy and choke him out, and can defend why...go for it.

I commented on the part where everyone calls the cops every time they see someone carrying...to me thats guerilla tactics that simply polarize people and quash a good faith discussion.

Nah, you were right to call me out on that... still, the basic point I'm making is I don't trust strangers enough to be comfortable with them carrying guns into public places.

 

[woolybug25]

Do you have any idea of Vietnam's history?

Obviously you don't...

 

[cody1smith]

This is your problem. Literally everything you are asking about is already in this thread several times. You aren't bringing up some novel idea that no one has thought of. Even my thoughts on gun control. Look it up, you might be surprised and it is as simple as the search button.

Ok this is what i have learned

not Hollywood
different time
us army #1
Cody=guns good
wooly=guns bad


new topic.

 

[Downinthebend]

Obviously you don't...

If you don't want to have an honest discussion, just stop.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Reforms to the laws are not changes to the "law of the land". If you aren't looking to read about what people want to change then why are you reading/posting in a thread specifically about it?

I think you just ran out of talking points on the whole idea of the second amendment's goal of protecting the country from attack. Simply put, that part of the reasoning of the amendment have no logical purpose in today's society. No modern country would be able to protect themselves from elite military offensives with militia response. It simply isn't logical.

No tired of banging my head.
You seem to believe that no one can stand up to the US military which at full force in any conflict would be 2.3 million people.
The afghanies are standing up pretty well just like they did to Russia in the 80's. Guess what weapons they had and it wasn't helicopters. The North Vietnamese did pretty well as well so did the N Koreans
What where you saying again about standing up to the most powerful standing army again?

 

[woolybug25]

If you don't want to have an honest discussion, just stop.

I'm the only one having an honest discussion. You and your cronies are the ones talking about being able to defend against foreign attacks and childish crap like that. Why should I have to go on a dialogue about the dynamics of Vietnam with guys that have clearly shown that they will simply disregard anything that doesn't agree with their opinion and just use some excuse or change of subject to continue posting idiotic statements that only make the conversation dumber?

Or maybe make some separate thread about it?

 

[woolybug25]

No tired of banging my head.
You seem to believe that no one can stand up to the US military which at full force in any conflict would be 2.3 million people.
The afghanies are standing up pretty well just like they did to Russia in the 80's. Guess what weapons they had and it wasn't helicopters. The North Vietnamese did pretty well as well so did the N Koreans
What where you saying again about standing up to the most powerful standing army again?

I'll bite. The difference is that the public IS part of the military in places like in Afghanistan and Vietnam. If an attack on US soil forced the American public to defend themselves, then that offensive would have already been strong enough to defeat the strongest army in the world. We would have already lost our first defense, where the militia fighting of Afghanistan/Vietnam were part of the 1st offense. We wouldn't be fighting alongside our military, we would be holding on for dear life while our military and the rest of the world stood helpless. Americans having to defend themselves against foreign invasion is a vastly different situation than what you are implying it to be.

That is why defending against foreign attack on the street level is a silly and childish argument to make.

 

[cody1smith]

I'll bite. The difference is that the public IS part of the military in places like in Afghanistan and Vietnam. If an attack on US soil forced the American public to defend themselves, then that offensive would have already been strong enough to defeat the strongest army in the world. We would have already lost our first defense, where the militia fighting of Afghanistan/Vietnam were part of the 1st offense. We wouldn't be fighting alongside our military, we would be holding on for dear life while our military and the rest of the world stood helpless. Americans having to defend themselves against foreign invasion is a vastly different situation than what you are implying it to be.

That is why defending against foreign attack on the street level is a silly and childish argument to make.

But this started about you saying we could not defend our self against our government. You are the one that changed because it played your side better

 

[Downinthebend]

I'll bite. The difference is that the public IS part of the military in places like in Afghanistan and Vietnam. If an attack on US soil forced the American public to defend themselves, then that offensive would have already been strong enough to defeat the strongest army in the world. We would have already lost our first defense, where the militia fighting of Afghanistan/Vietnam were part of the 1st offense. We wouldn't be fighting alongside our military, we would be holding on for dear life while our military and the rest of the world stood helpless. Americans having to defend themselves against foreign invasion is a vastly different situation than what you are implying it to be.

That is why defending against foreign attack on the street level is a silly and childish argument to make.

I'd like to point out that in the most recent circle of this that we got into, the question being addressed is whether assault rifles would help in defending against any government (foreign or domestic).

Also, you in this entire thread have been using an insulting tone against a large amount of people. Also why don't we merge every recruit into one thread, because its all recruiting and they aren't different topics? Ya, get out of here.

 

[woolybug25]

But this started about you saying we could not defend our self against our government. You are the one that changed because it played your side better

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say? Where did I say that we could defend against our government or any other 1st world attack that got past our countries military?

Seriously. How do you think that a military would bring a ground war to your front door? How would they get into the country with our military guarding our coasts? How would the UN allow us to get attacked without help? If these two things happened, why would you think that you and your AR15 would be what stopped them when billions of dollars of fighter jets, airliners and warheads failed? Why would you assume that your assault weapon would be the deciding factor after the rest of the civilized world failed?

I cant believe some of you are still arguing this idiotic point. Just give it a rest and move on to your next point that has already been tore up. Because if "protecting the country from attack" is the best new idea you have, then its no wonder that you are in the minority on this subject.

 

[NYMIKE6]

No, we are the guys that don't say stupid $hit to get themselves punched in the face in the first place.

This spells out COWARD.....

Edit: I mean spoken like a true errrr.... I mean nevermind....

 

[Opus]

This is the same tired excuse the NRA has been using for years. If we give an inch we'll end up giving up a mile. Yet the assault rifle ban was let to die after the intial ban period so that excuse doesn't hold water anymore.

Please explain how "that excuse doesn't hold water anymore". The initial ban was for 18 specific semiautomatic weapons. The new "updated" ban calls for over 100 weapons including shotguns and handguns. I understand that technology has greatly improved since 2004 when the ban expired and I'm sure that there are more than 18 types of specific assault rifles on the market now but the last time I checked shotguns and handguns weren't assault rifles. The gun control crowd has been stating that "we" need to get the assault rifles off the street. Yet they are trying to include shotguns and handguns in the ban. Which was the point of the post I was quoting and agreeing with, that if the NRA agrees to any type of ban the gun control crowd will be back for more and more.

 

[phgreek]

Nah, you were right to call me out on that... still, the basic point I'm making is I don't trust strangers enough to be comfortable with them carrying guns into public places.

...understood. In most cases when I see people with guns, it doesn't bother me. in fairness though, nothing ever shot back at me so I'm at ease around them.

In fact, Utah has Open Carry...so it is not an infrequent occurence when I see someone out and about with a gun on his belt...mostly small towns...but I see it.

 

[phgreek]

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people they will figure out a way. The Oklahoma city bombing 911 1927 school deal all killed many more than this shooting all were killed by something other than a gun. No one that would REALLY be capable of pulling something like this off would just stop at "****, the gun store wont sell me a gun" or "My 14 round magazine is not enough guess i will just keep playing video games" .

I'm not saying you are wrong...people who want to kill themselves...will. People who want to kill others...will. However, if we look at 911, and Oak city...those operations took a long time to plan, required significant resources, and that fact increases the liklihood those people get caught before hand. Proof is that a number of terror plots have been foiled as of late. When 1 man, w/o the need of anyone else can hatch a plan in a matter of hours and launch that kind of mayhem...the liklihood of foiling the attack is 0. so what we have is the ability to retard his efficiency as he unfolds the attack in hopes of intervention. People will die...but I think its worth looking at if we can reduce how many...the weapons coming out aren't getting less dynamic and lethal...now is the time in my view, to get this right, lest the pendulum of public sentiment swing so far that we are all running around with muskets again.

Small gun control laws such as limits on magazines or waiting periods are just the start. 40 years ago if you would have told my grandpa that someday the government will forbid you from allowing people to smoke in the restaurant he built and paid for with zero assistance from them he would have laughed in your face.

I am absolutely with you on that sentiment. In our case we, the pro-gun folks are the establishment, because our actoins are based on a constitutional amendment, and precedent. The anti-gun folks are activists. The activist side of any issue plays by a different set of rules. They are allowed to use whatever means necessary to achieve their agenda...its frustrating because the establishment appears to take it on the chin very often. However, the establishment must still operate with common sense, honor, sincerity, and pragmatism. I would argue if we do that, the people who don't have a dog in the fight so to speak, will naturally push activists aside...its when we throw our values out, and throw common sense out to stop the perceived slide... that is when we lose ground most rapidly. Rarely does the cultural momentum lead to MORE liberty...we all feel that, this is who we've become as a nation...but we can certainly frustrate the anti's progress simply by being honorable and decent....doing the things we can...making an effort to fix what we can.

...not saying my suggestions do a damn thing in reality...except avoid being the ones who didn't TRY.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I understand your point and agree with the basis of your argument. However, it isn't going to be the Smith & Wessons and Rugers of the world that are the source of blackmarket guns.

When stiffer regulations are passed, for instance the "assault weapons" ban, the first thing that is going to happen is it will create or increase the criminal enterprise of smuggling firearms. I guarantee it won't be shiny store-bought out of the box guns. It will be a warehouse of cheap Nicaraguan made AK's brought across our Southern border and sold for thousands of dollars each. Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia are other sources of cheaply made firearms that have been trafficked all over the world.

The toothpaste is already out of the tube, so to speak. The legislative actions will only be a band aid. With our borders as open as they are, the guns wiill continue to flow to the streets. The demand is already there and the criminal element will seek to fill that need.

Where do you think they get basic components, engineering and some suplies from. You are right, but there was offshore production back when I was in the midst of things. Heck, the AK 74 was available from off shore sources, before the Soviets rolled them out.

Also, there are things that American manufacturers can do to make legitimate weapons more easily identified. But you are right. We need laws to immediately identify and punish arms smugglers. I think that would be a good use for Guantanimo.

On the home front. Something I have always cherished the thought of being; for the first time, I have been accused of being a TROLL, I think!

Yesterday 04:31 PMGreystoke
Nobody likes a tool bro!... oh did I say tool

Either a troll or a tool, I don't understand why. But I have arrived! Party at my place!

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Where do you think they get basic components, engineering and some suplies from. You are right, but there was offshore production back when I was in the midst of things. Heck, the AK 74 was available from off shore sources, before the Soviets rolled them out.

Also, there are things that American manufacturers can do to make legitimate weapons more easily identified. But you are right. We need laws to immediately identify and punish arms smugglers. I think that would be a good use for Guantanimo.

On the home front. Something I have always cherished the thought of being; for the first time, I have been accused of being a TROLL, I think!



Either a troll or a tool, I don't understand why. But I have arrived! Party at my place!

Bog, you know I don't think you are a troll or a tool! LOL! I have been with you on here for a long time now.

I am fine with safety measures and restrictions. I mean, I live in California for crissakes. Owning guns here definitely isn't easy. Gun safes, trigger locks, limiting sizes of magazines, and things like that are all fine by me. California has a nice feature they require on "assault" type firearms now called a bullet button. You need a tool to push a button to eject the magazine. You have to do it each time. And our magazines can't hold more than 10 rounds. That is all okay with me. I would even live with banning certain types of weapons. I don't agree with it personally, but I understand it.

I just don't think people should have a debate about legislation if they aren't also talking about the big picture including stiffer penalties for crimes committed with guns and cracking down on the illegal import or trafficking of guns.

I don't agree with all the points people have made here and I especially don't like the direction some politicians are proposing we go, but I do agree something needs to be done.

 

[Grahambo]

I may be misunderstanding some dialogue in here because a lot of it is garbble so forgive me for what I'm about to say.

If anybody thinks they can stop an invading foreign military force or would be able to stop our own military from attack is delusional. The only real threat of an invading force would be from the Far East and Russia and we would be royally screwed.

Furthermore, using what we are doing in the Middle East as any type of support or reason to be pro-gun in the US is misguided. Understand the rules to war/conflict and what we are actually allowed to do before you comment or use a picture of bin *****.

I repeat, if I misunderstood some of the debate lately, that's on me and ignore this but if I have not, some of you need to study a little bit more. If anybody would like to question my background then shoot me a PM and I'll be more then happy to tell.

 

[BobD]

A gun isn't a peacemaker, an equalizer or a deterrent. A gun is a mechanical device designed to maim and kill. Your odds of being shot GO UP when you own a gun. It's commonsense, less guns equal less violence. In the end it's your choice. I choose to be part of the solution. If you decide to own a gun "for your protection" I wish you well and hope the gun, whether in your hands or someone else, never gets to do what it's intended for.

 

[phork]

How many pair of shoes are in the u.s. I mean who really needs more than 3 or 4 pairs depending on your hobby? waste full i tell ya when 30 million people are out of work and kids are starving? Something needs to be done. if it keeps 1 child from starving i say you should only get 3 pair of shoes.
Maybe not for long but this is a free country if i want 100 guns i should have them!!!!!!!!!!

You should be allowed to have all the guns you want, as long as they are locked up in your safe.

Excellent post that is the reason that people sholud carry. If a guy is standing in an elevator waiting for it to fill up and kill everyone on it and all the sudden on the 8th floor 3 guys with weapons strapped to there hip steps on he might re think his position.

the reason countries don't come here and take us on very often is because we have a bunch of bad *** **** and were are not scared to use it. Why do you think we have not kicked the **** out of iran yet? If the had no weapons to amount to **** do you think we would still just be sending Emails? They have nuclear capabilities and we are scared of that and because of it we are for the most part leaving them alone.

Is there a reason to kick the **** out of Iran? They pose no threat to the US except the extinction of Israel. Oh wait, neither did Iraq.

How many smoke alarms do you have in your house?
I personally have ten never used a one of them now that i think about i think i will take them all down

Whole lot of stupid there.

You guys must be the kind to "walk away" after you get punched in the face.

What Wooly said.

You're right, a populace primary armed with guns would never be able to fight off the USA.

Wait a minute...

Except the population of the US isn't backed by the US military. Oops.

As it stands now yes it would be in effective.
Now imagine 50 million people united with those same guns.
It may be unrealistic, as of 2010 which is the latest numbers I can find quickly between active and reserves our military strength is about 2.3 million.
Again quantity does have a quality all it's own.

Imagine 50million people with no organization, no way to communicate. Imagine the US military with drones and blackhawk choppers etc.

Kinda, you said a group of civilians could not take on the Us government with guns? He was simply stating that it can be done. -hints the picture of the Taliban

See above.

Your right it's not Hollywood.
Your standard response is it's a different time.
Guess what Wooly it's the supreme law of the land don't like it call your states' representatives. Until such time as it is changed no amount of bitching from you will change it.
Don't come onto an online forum complaining.

Yah but the problem for you now is the uproar is getting loud enough where the state reps are having to act.

Do you have any idea of Vietnam's history?

98% of Vietnam is jungle. Most people live in nice section suburban neighborhoods or nice sectioned farm land.

Ok this is what i have learned

not Hollywood
different time
us army #1
Cody=guns good
wooly=guns bad


new topic.

So you can comprehend. Cookies for you. I had almost given up hope.

No tired of banging my head.
You seem to believe that no one can stand up to the US military which at full force in any conflict would be 2.3 million people.
The afghanies are standing up pretty well just like they did to Russia in the 80's. Guess what weapons they had and it wasn't helicopters. The North Vietnamese did pretty well as well so did the N Koreans
What where you saying again about standing up to the most powerful standing army again?

The full force of the US military focus on 50million people in their home land would be a slaughter. The simple technological advances since those periods is enough. Hell they don't even have to send people in as the drones come knocking on your doors.

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say? Where did I say that we could defend against our government or any other 1st world attack that got past our countries military?

Seriously. How do you think that a military would bring a ground war to your front door? How would they get into the country with our military guarding our coasts? How would the UN allow us to get attacked without help? If these two things happened, why would you think that you and your AR15 would be what stopped them when billions of dollars of fighter jets, airliners and warheads failed? Why would you assume that your assault weapon would be the deciding factor after the rest of the civilized world failed?

I cant believe some of you are still arguing this idiotic point. Just give it a rest and move on to your next point that has already been tore up. Because if "protecting the country from attack" is the best new idea you have, then its no wonder that you are in the minority on this subject.

Haven't you seen Red Dawn? WOLVERINES ARRRRRRRRR!

Please explain how "that excuse doesn't hold water anymore". The initial ban was for 18 specific semiautomatic weapons. The new "updated" ban calls for over 100 weapons including shotguns and handguns. I understand that technology has greatly improved since 2004 when the ban expired and I'm sure that there are more than 18 types of specific assault rifles on the market now but the last time I checked shotguns and handguns weren't assault rifles. The gun control crowd has been stating that "we" need to get the assault rifles off the street. Yet they are trying to include shotguns and handguns in the ban. Which was the point of the post I was quoting and agreeing with, that if the NRA agrees to any type of ban the gun control crowd will be back for more and more.

Whatever was pushed in so far as what guns are being legislated against, I have no idea. I have nothing against guns that people use to hunt nor competition shoot nor for home defense. 100 round magazines are needed for any of it. And Semi-Automatic rifles aren't needed either.

You guys are bludgeoning this post with the 2nd amendment hammer and chastising us for our opinions and ideas in regards to helping the current situation. If you guys have any ideas, being gun owners, then please put them here. Otherwise take your stupid shoe and smoke detector comparisons and leave.

If you have any heart at all you'll be part of the solution instead of part of the problem so that 20 more 5 year olds don't end up in the morgue with 11 bullet wounds in their bodies.

I have said my piece. I can't have intelligent discussion when your only rebuttal is "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".

 

[Irish#1]

I feel like we are going in a circle. The 2nd amendment wasn't only attended against foreign governments, it was intended against any oppressive government be it domestic or foreign (and then throw in some other purposes, like hunting, militias, etc).

I understand the intent of the admendment. I have a hard time believing this country would ever have civil unrest to the point where the miltary would take over or a militia group could start a successful overthrow. We are the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful military, yet we settle our differences at the polls and thru congress, not with guns.

Excellent post that is the reason that people sholud carry. If a guy is standing in an elevator waiting for it to fill up and kill everyone on it and all the sudden on the 8th floor 3 guys with weapons strapped to there hip steps on he might re think his position.

the reason countries don't come here and take us on very often is because we have a bunch of bad *** **** and were are not scared to use it. Why do you think we have not kicked the **** out of iran yet? If the had no weapons to amount to **** do you think we would still just be sending Emails? They have nuclear capabilities and we are scared of that and because of it we are for the most part leaving them alone.

The odds of an armed man in an elevator bumping into 1 guy let alone 3 with guns is remote, unless you're in a goverment building.

How many smoke alarms do you have in your house?
I personally have ten never used a one of them now that i think about i think i will take them all down

No offense, but this is exactly why the NRA has lost credibility in my mind. Trying to compare two totally different matters. Let's take it in your direction for a minute. Smoke detectors are installed to alert against gas and electrical fires. Remember, the gas and electrical systems in your house are regulated by the law.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You should be allowed to have all the guns you want, as long as they are locked up in your safe.



Is there a reason to kick the **** out of Iran? They pose no threat to the US except the extinction of Israel. Oh wait, neither did Iraq.



Whole lot of stupid there.



What Wooly said.



Except the population of the US isn't backed by the US military. Oops.



Imagine 50million people with no organization, no way to communicate. Imagine the US military with drones and blackhawk choppers etc.



See above.



Yah but the problem for you now is the uproar is getting loud enough where the state reps are having to act.



98% of Vietnam is jungle. Most people live in nice section suburban neighborhoods or nice sectioned farm land.



So you can comprehend. Cookies for you. I had almost given up hope.



The full force of the US military focus on 50million people in their home land would be a slaughter. The simple technological advances since those periods is enough. Hell they don't even have to send people in as the drones come knocking on your doors.



Haven't you seen Red Dawn? WOLVERINES ARRRRRRRRR!



Whatever was pushed in so far as what guns are being legislated against, I have no idea. I have nothing against guns that people use to hunt nor competition shoot nor for home defense. 100 round magazines are needed for any of it. And Semi-Automatic rifles aren't needed either.

You guys are bludgeoning this post with the 2nd amendment hammer and chastising us for our opinions and ideas in regards to helping the current situation. If you guys have any ideas, being gun owners, then please put them here. Otherwise take your stupid shoe and smoke detector comparisons and leave.

If you have any heart at all you'll be part of the solution instead of part of the problem so that 20 more 5 year olds don't end up in the morgue with 11 bullet wounds in their bodies.

I have said my piece. I can't have intelligent discussion when your only rebuttal is "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".

Well, I'm happy you have no power or influence gien you are not a US citizen. Yesterday you told me I needed to give you "good reason" to have a gun and that I HAD to put it in a safe. Today you support having a gun for home defense as long as I keep it where "you" want it. That's a sweet deal.

You have no room to question anyone's heart in this matter. Using that logic anyone who disagrees with your ideas supports everyone having 5 guns and is in favor of more innocent people dying. You don't lay out the options for everyone else here on your own. You don't get to define other people or their beliefs.

What would you be advocating if Lanza did something else? What if he had homemade pipe bombs? What if he put a toxin in the ventilation system at the school? Newtown broke the hearts of the American people and innocent children died. No one wants it to happen again, but the ideas you propose violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners who did nothing wrong and will do nothing illegal.

Going back to yesterday: no politician or law has the legal power to control the price of ammunition. I don't know what the hell you people do in Canada, but that crap won't fly down here.

As frustrated as you may be with others on here, imagine those who are trying to have the same discussions with you even though your "ideas" and "propositions" and laws up there do not translate to our laws here. Just sayin...

 

[irishpat183]

That happened in the US?

Crazy, dude.

Yet you keep using other countries gun policies to compare to us??

 

[Bogtrotter07]

With the Michigan legislature using their lame duck session to gut the efforts of 80 years of union efforts, I am reminded of the anti union sentiment that has been bantered around since Ronald Regan killed the collective bargaining rights of unions.

Most of what you heard was talk and examples of how they outsteped their bounds. Well, I am beginning to see that as more than true for the NRA. I own seven firearms. But I do not see the NRA as anything more than a lapdog of industry. Industry wants sales and doesn't care about kids. It can't.

To give you an idea, the same Michigan legislature tried to pass the most idotic gun legislation ever. The bought and paid for governor, even refused to sign it. A snyder of the times!

 

[irishpat183]

Now I see the problem, we're talking guns and you just want to have guys....knock yourself out, I'm ok with your type.

LOL!!!


Now you see my real motive! We need more guys!