Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[BobD]

Because all those things would also be applied to the illegal AK's being sold out of the back of a Chevy that was just driven across the border?

minimum 20 year sentence without parole for anyone caught with one.....per weapon.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Can i ask why nobody would respond to my last several posts? Especially the one i requested be talked about. I was very kind yesterday and answered all questions asked of me. I post a few replies and everyone stops posting and waits for someone to talk about a different idea.
The problem with registration that i have is two fold. First when the government wants to make all guns illegal (don't give me they won't crap. Some politicians want it and they won't stop till they get it) they know exactly who's door to knock on to get them. Second what happens when some stupid newspaper posts that list? You then put everyone in danger. Criminals will try to steal the guns in the one houses and know who can't defend themselves in the other.

As far as your education campaign it won't work. You have far more stories of law abiding firearms than not. You have thousands of competitions, hunts, recreational shooting, and self defense stories to your problems. Will you have stories yes. Any time you deal with a dangerous object you will have people misuse or not respect it. I'm sure you can dig up a knife sports car or even battery drill tragic story where someone didn't respect its power or flat out misused it. This is life danger will never disappear.

Again please go back and read my last several posts and don't just skip them. If you have a different opinion on it give it to me or if i made a good point that you agree with acknowledge it don't skip it and wait for some else to post something you don't agree with.

Great posts as always buddy.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Most AR/M16 weapons aren't very good offering proof that people buying them don't know much about guns.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say most ARs are a good or reliable firearm? If so you are sadly mistaken. You aren't going to any more issues with a factory AR than any other factory bought firearm. If you are building one yourself you may have issues at first because it isn't just a slap together firearm. Please clarify.

Back in the days before mass shootings these weapons weren't readily available.

But you didn't have people going in to places and shooting 6-12 people with one or two revolvers. You also didn't have people taking the Henry rifle somewhere public and knocking off 16 people. If you would have tried that you would have been shoot in almost no time. Why because people were allowed to carry anywhere and everywhere then. They knew they were the first line of defense when it came to their safety. People were properly train on how to use them and kids weren't a bunch of wimps back then that had to shoot someone because they were told no or someone made fun of them.

 

[BobD]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say most ARs are a good or reliable firearm? If so you are sadly mistaken. You aren't going to any more issues with a factory AR than any other factory bought firearm. If you are building one yourself you may have issues at first because it isn't just a slap together firearm. Please clarify.



But you didn't have people going in to places and shooting 6-12 people with one or two revolvers. You also didn't have people taking the Henry rifle somewhere public and knocking off 16 people. If you would have tried that you would have been shoot in almost no time. Why because people were allowed to carry anywhere and everywhere then. They knew they were the first line of defense when it came to their safety. People were properly train on how to use them and kids weren't a bunch of wimps back then that had to shoot someone because they were told no or someone made fun of them.

My post said exactly what I meant: ARs/M16 s mostly suck. Someone that knows guns probably wouldnt buy one unless they wanted some sort of beater gun to throw around. Civilians have no practical use for these.

 

[JadeBrecks]

My post said exactly what I meant: ARs/M16 s mostly suck. Someone that knows guns probably wouldnt buy one unless they wanted some sort of beater gun to throw around.

Can I ask what is driving you to say that? Have you had a bad experience or something? Where do you come to that conclusion from? I have used several different ars and they are very good guns. I am not a wizard know it all of guns but they are a good gun. When they first came out the people who were given them weren't given cleaning kits. They had a lot of problems with them then but if you don't ever clean a gun you will have problems especially a gas operated one. Since they found out that you have to clean the gun they have become a very reliable firearm when maintained. Can it take the dirt that an AK will. No? But you wont get the consistency and accuracy out of an AK with lower tolerances. Its just like a car. You can call a car a piece of crap because it only lasted 30K mile but if you never changed the oil in it is that the guns fault?

Secondly if they are a piece of crap why do you care to limit them? If they suck than how do they pose any more danger than any other firearm. If you can't count on ten rounds feeding without a problem than why limit the magazines.

P.S. Almost everyone I know that knows anything about guns has one. All the salespersons at the stores have them. So I am a little confused on your ar comment.

*edit to your edit*

Civilians have no practical use for these.

We have been through this a million times. YOU don't think civilians have a practical use for them. There are plenty of people out there that think we do (including me). We post up those reasons and are told we are crazies or someone posts one or two stories about something bad happening with one. Their are millions of these thing sold and out of that you get a .00001% crime rate and they should be banned because of it.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Please tell me these people didn't tell you AR style weapons suck?

 

[BobD]

Can I ask what is driving you to say that? Have you had a bad experience or something? Where do you come to that conclusion from? I have used several different ars and they are very good guns. I am not a wizard know it all of guns but they are a good gun. When they first came out the people who were given them weren't given cleaning kits. They had a lot of problems with them then but if you don't ever clean a gun you will have problems especially a gas operated one. Since they found out that you have to clean the gun they have become a very reliable firearm when maintained. Can it take the dirt that an AK will. No? But you wont get the consistency and accuracy out of an AK with lower tolerances. Its just like a car. You can call a car a piece of crap because it only lasted 30K mile but if you never changed the oil in it is that the guns fault?

Secondly if they are a piece of crap why do you care to limit them? If they suck than how do they pose any more danger than any other firearm. If you can't count on ten rounds feeding without a problem than why limit the magazines.

P.S. Almost everyone I know that knows anything about guns has one. All the salespersons at the stores have them. So I am a little confused on your ar comment.

*edit to your edit*


We have been through this a million times. YOU don't think civilians have a practical use for them. There are plenty of people out there that think we do (including me). We post up those reasons and are told we are crazies or someone posts one or two stories about something bad happening with one. Their are millions of these thing sold and out of that you get a .00001% crime rate and they should be banned because of it.

Most car salesmen don't own really nice cars either.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Most car salesmen don't own really nice cars either.

Please answer the question. Why do you think the AR is a sub par firearm? What do you have to back it up? Did you hear it somewhere and are repeating it or do you have personal experience with the firearm? I can find someone saying every different firearm sucks. Its finding those that can tell me why that is hardest.

 

[brandonnash]

My post said exactly what I meant: ARs/M16 s mostly suck. Someone that knows guns probably wouldnt buy one unless they wanted some sort of beater gun to throw around. Civilians have no practical use for these.

The AR is far from a beater gun. Competition shooters it is the choice gun. These people can afford any gun worldwide and nearly all shoot with an AR of some variety. That's also why you see the military with m4. And police. Sniper units even have started switching from exclusive bolt action rifles to semi auto ARs, usually the AR10. You rarely if ever see anyone in a competition using anything else a FAL or AK etc.

And the m16 platform was created in the 50s so yeah its been around for all the mass shootings. Problem is that since it has been used in all of about 3 of them that they get the bad wrap. Most of the mass shootings have been carried out with pistols.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

1. It is so the people can ban together and for a "well regulated militia" to overthrow a tyrant government if the need be. (just like our forefathers had just finished) That way a government cant take away firearms and no longer be accountable to the people. Our forefathers had a hard time supplying the "militia" that fought off England and didn't want that to be a problem for future generations.

2. Can I ask why you would be so apposed to that idea? To quote a movie with a good point "If everyone is special than nobody will be special" The only reason a gun is special is if nobody else has one. (like the "gun free" zones all these mass shootings happen in) The only way a machine gun is special is if nobody else has one. If you pull out your gun to shoot someone and two or three people pull on you you aren't going to win. The only way that owning any weapon is better is when nobody else has one. Granted it would be harder to conceal a tank if it were illegal and nobody else could have one but if you make guns illegal they are much easier to hide from the authorities. Thus your laws create these special weapons and put people in more potential harm.

Not avoiding a conversation. I've been tied up with work.

1. So your interpretation is not that we should have a functioning militia, but that everyone should have guns and have the possibility of forming a militia in times of need. It wasn't even until 2008 that the 2nd amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to be for individuals. It overturned previous precedent that had been in place for 70 years indicating that the right was collective. And, even then (in a 5-4 decision), the conservative Roberts court noted that gun ownership could be regulated.

What about the "well regulated" part of the militia portion? What does that mean?

If I don't want to own a gun, am I being irresponsible? Were the citizens at Safeway in Tucson being irresponsible because they didn't have a grenade to throw at Jared Loughner? What would have happened in the theater in Aurora if more people had been armed? Do you want 500 people with guns shooting in the dark? How does law enforcement identify the actual shooter? Just questions that I've been considering.

Also, if you think an uprising of the people, no matter how well armed, could overthrow a government with the backing of the US military, I think you're a bit crazy.

2. I see the point, but I 'm not sure that I buy it. I think you're in a tiny minority who would advocate this position. There are those who would die in order to make a name for themselves. If we can find ways to limit their ability to immediately and quickly kill more people (limiting magazine sizes), shouldn't we consider our options?

I've said it many times...I don't know where I stand on this debate. Just trying to ask some of the questions and be informed. It seems that the assault weapon ban might not do much on its own...partly because it won't pass if it has any teeth. But it seems to me that a comprehensive approach including mental health issues (Gabby Giffords was a huge proponent pf funding for this problem - ironic), background checks, limits on magazine sales, etc. could help limit some catastrophic events.

And it isn't just hippie liberals who are asking some of these questions. Lots of law enforcement groups want to see some reasonable restrictions.

This guy was all for it...
Gun-Control Quotes: Obama, Feinstein, or Reagan? -- Daily Intelligencer

So is this military general...
Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'

 

[BobD]

Please answer the question. Why do you think the AR is a sub par firearm? What do you have to back it up? Did you hear it somewhere and are repeating it or do you have personal experience with the firearm? I can find someone saying every different firearm sucks. Its finding those that can tell me why that is hardest.

Jade you know I was in the military and in combat right? I'm answering or making comments between work and home tasks. Let's just say I've seen people killed with an M16 and people killed because of one. They are OK but a civilian doesn't need one.

 

[Downinthebend]

I think one element we can take from cigarettes is to go on a massive and I mean massive public education campaign about the dangers of guns. Including how the danger can outweigh the defense.

I would not oppose a private initiated public perception campaign about.. anything, but I believe using tax dollars to fund such a thing would not be constitutional.

I'd also love to have a discussion about the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Not avoiding a conversation. I've been tied up with work.

1. So your interpretation is not that we should have a functioning militia, but that everyone should have guns and have the possibility of forming a militia in times of need. It wasn't even until 2008 that the 2nd amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to be for individuals. It overturned previous precedent that had been in place for 70 years indicating that the right was collective. And, even then (in a 5-4 decision), the conservative Roberts court noted that gun ownership could be regulated.

What about the "well regulated" part of the militia portion? What does that mean?

If I don't want to own a gun, am I being irresponsible? Were the citizens at Safeway in Tucson being irresponsible because they didn't have a grenade to throw at Jared Loughner? What would have happened in the theater in Aurora if more people had been armed? Do you want 500 people with guns shooting in the dark? How does law enforcement identify the actual shooter? Just questions that I've been considering.

Also, if you think an uprising of the people, no matter how well armed, could overthrow a government with the backing of the US military, I think you're a bit crazy.

2. I see the point, but I 'm not sure that I buy it. I think you're in a tiny minority who would advocate this position. There are those who would die in order to make a name for themselves. If we can find ways to limit their ability to immediately and quickly kill more people (limiting magazine sizes), shouldn't we consider our options?

I've said it many times...I don't know where I stand on this debate. Just trying to ask some of the questions and be informed. It seems that the assault weapon ban might not do much on its own...partly because it won't pass if it has any teeth. But it seems to me that a comprehensive approach including mental health issues (Gabby Giffords was a huge proponent pf funding for this problem - ironic), background checks, limits on magazine sales, etc. could help limit some catastrophic events.

And it isn't just hippie liberals who are asking some of these questions. Lots of law enforcement groups want to see some reasonable restrictions.

This guy was all for it...
Gun-Control Quotes: Obama, Feinstein, or Reagan? -- Daily Intelligencer

So is this military general...
Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'

For starters I am sorry that comment was not meant for anyone who didn't post after my posts. It was a little pent up frustration from previous posts in this thread and set off by a post. I understand people have work and don't live on IE. I was more refering to people who had posted after those and previous other posts.

1. I would not call Roberts a conservative. He also believes you can tax someone for a nonaction. (obamacare and a different fight.
I believe when the talk about a well regulated militia they are referring to a group of people banning together under direction to fight the threat.
If you don't want a gun in your house than I don't either. Taking a firearm into your house is more than just buying it and bringing it home. It is properly training those at home on the use of it. It is keeping it away from those who don't know how to properly use it. There is also a massive difference between having a gun to deal with someone and a grenade in a crowded area. Those people in that theater weren't allowed to defend themselves period because of a law already on the books. I am not advocating everyone put a loaded gun on their hip and call it good. Im saying if you want to you should be allowed. Also if you do make that decision it is your responsibility to properly train to use it. I would prefer someone have the ability like Nick Meli had. Also look at the fact that he used restraint when he didn't have a clear shot. He didn't close his eyes and start shooting like people make CCW people out to be.
You are true that we couldn't overthrow the military alone. You will make all those men think deep and hard though when a government giving time orders tells them to wipe out their own people.

2. The problem with making laws for those wanting to make a name for themselves is you wont gain anything on them. If I am going in to shoot up a school I know I wont see my house again or car or any other possession. I can sell them for the black market price on whatever you ban. And you could make the punishment waterboarding for life but if he is going to off himself at the end then it wont matter. All these laws are going to do is affect your every day day to day law abiding citizen. As far as magazine limitations it would take me 2-3 seconds to do a tactical reload. lower magazine counts are going to stop anyone. They will just bring more or black market the larger ones. As far as options why am I asked to "consider all option" but if I mention doing away with "gun free" zones or arming (with proper training) teachers people flip out on me. Also nobody seems to want to talk about this topic either. Previous post link
I am also not making this a Repulican Democrat thing. You can be a pro gun liberal or an anti gun conservative. This topic isn't a politcal party topic it is a pro or anti gun topic.

Last but not least please don't take anything I say personally. I am not attacking anyone or trying to degrade you. If I come off that way it is not meant. I am trying to have a good civil debate and I thank you guys for keeping it civil.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Jade you know I was in the military and in combat right? I'm answering or making comments between work and home tasks. Let's just say I've seen people killed with an M16 and people killed because of one. They are OK but a civilian doesn't need one.

Im sorry I couldn't remember for sure. I assumed you were in the military sometime from your age (nothing meant bad by that just that most were drafted at one point or time) but I could not remember. It just threw me off because it seemed like an off the cuff pop off remark and I know that is not like you. If I saw it from a one time poster that I never heard from again that wouldn't surprise me. Im sure you were part of the first batch of m16s to go out. I know those had issues and were a poor weapon to give our military in that situation. They have since learned from those designs and oversights so throwing them all in the same group as the first batch is wrong. Also telling me I don't know what I'm doing when I buy one I took it personally. Probably shouldn't have but I did. Also we have debated the whole if civilians should have them or not already multiple times (anyone wants to hear that argument look back in this thread). I am not going to let your beliefs change mine with what you have brought forth to me.

 

[JadeBrecks]

For anyone open minded enough to read a letter about the "assault weapons" ban from a pro gun standpoint. Those not willing this ban will ban the more than half of all magazines and far more that just the ar-15 and ak-47.

NRA-ILA | Feinstein Introduces Massive Semi-Auto Firearm and Magazine Ban

 

[chicago51]

I follow Congress pretty good. The assault weapons ban supposedly does not have the votes in Senate.

Very good chance universal background checks including closing the private seller and gun show loophole passes the Senate with bipartisan support. House will then take action on it.

Not sure about high capacity magazines ban. I think it will pass but it will be close.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I seriously don't understand Feinstein's idea here. You have been spending all this time pulling on people's heart strings to try to get something through you otherwise couldn't. Then you go so overboard on this most people won't want their name on it. Why get greedy? This ban would also ban all magazines over 10 rounds.

 

[chicago51]

I seriously don't understand Feinstein's idea here. You have been spending all this time pulling on people's heart strings to try to get something through you otherwise couldn't. Then you go so overboard on this most people won't want their name on it. Why get greedy? This ban would also ban all magazines over 10 rounds.

Some red state Dems don't want to vote on an assault weapons ban. The Feinstein bill may not have 50 votes muchless 60 to break a filibuster.

The Dems have to defend 7 seats in Romney won states in 2014. As opposed in 2016 were the GOP has to defend 7 seats in Obama won states. So the climate is not right for certain Senators to take a polictical risk.

After it fails a seperate magazine ban will come up.

The background check thing which I think is what is really important should get 70 or so votes.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Some red state Dems don't want to vote on an assault weapons ban. The Feinstein bill may not have 50 votes muchless 60 to break a filibuster.

The Dems have to defend 7 seats in Romney won states in 2014. As opposed in 2016 were the GOP has to defend 7 seats in Obama won states. So the climate is not right for certain Senators to take a polictical risk.

After it fails a seperate magazine ban will come up.

The background check thing which I think is what is really important should get 70 or so votes.

What I am getting at is why not try and ban just ars and aks? That might have a chance. Why try and ban half of all long guns a quarter of semi auto pistols and half of the magazines? She has already said she wants to get rid of all guns. Why try such impossibly big chunks?

Look at it this way. If I wanted to get your money I know I cant ask and get it all at once. So why would I ask for $200-300? Why not get the sure $10-20?

 

[palinurus]

I support background checks for sales among strangers, but only if the government does not maintain, or have access to, the specific records of sale. The Second Amendment is not simply a "preservation of self defense" measure.

As to personal safety, Joe Biden tells me I need only a shotgun to protect myself. I think Joe Biden is smug blowhard who likely couldn't load a shotgun if you gave him a week.

The reality is if my kids are under threat, you guys, or local police, or Joe Biden, will not be there to help me. And a free man -- if the word "freedom" means anything -- gets to decide what best protects himself and his own. For people to say, "You can't have X ("X" being an even remotely reasonable means of protecting myself)" jeopardizes my freedom, esp. if the people who are willing to take the weapon away will not be there -- and don't even pretend they will be there -- if and when I need help.

To deprive me of whatever I DEEM necessary to protect myself and my own is not just bad policy or bad constitutional law, it's immoral.

Nothing personal. I'm sure those of you who favor restrictions like those in this proposal are generally fine people who really hope and intend the laws will increase public safety. But to the extent such measures do that -- and it's seriously doubtful if the president's proposal does that -- they do that at the price of my freedom and my private security. And I am not willing to give those up without a strong political fight.

 

[JadeBrecks]

As to personal safety, Joe Biden tells me I need only a shotgun to protect myself. I think Joe Biden is smug blowhard who likely couldn't load a shotgun if you gave him a week.

If I'm not mistaken he says a double barrel shotgun to boot. So don't miss and hope they didn't bring friends.

 

[palinurus]

If I'm not mistaken he says a double barrel shotgun to boot. So don't miss and hope they didn't bring friends.

Well, maybe he means you should ask the bad guys to be sporting and stay still while you shoot and then suggest they give you a chance to reload in between.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

God Bless Texas and Senator Cruz! Excellent letter by Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cruz-Gun-letter-TheDC.pdf

 

[tadman95]

I've been watching some of the Senate hearing on proposed gun control laws.

I'm embarrassed and ashamed that our congress, in this case the Senate, is so inept and spends so much time posturing politically. We have the right to expect due diligence when investigating and debating such a tough subject.

 

[GoIrish41]

did anyone see the father of the Newtown student who was killed being heckled during the hearing? what a disgrace.

 

[phgreek]

God Bless Texas and Senator Cruz! Excellent letter by Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cruz-Gun-letter-TheDC.pdf

ok...are the gun manufacturers actually in Rhammie's "jurisdiction", or just the banks?

 

[phgreek]

did anyone see the father of the Newtown student who was killed being heckled during the hearing? what a disgrace.

what...I didn't see the hearings...who did that?

 

[DSully1995]

what...I didn't see the hearings...who did that?

said he didnt want gun control i think

 

[phgreek]

said he didnt want gun control i think

...thats really hard. I'm sure other parents would feel betrayed and all, but good for him for being a guy who stands for what he believes...even in the face of unfathomable cost...

So was it somebody in the crowd...