MR

Washington Post

I wholeheartedly agree. Arbitrary regulations will do NOTHING to prevent crimes. A killer is a killer, whether he uses a chainsaw, a baseball bat, an automobile, or a firearm. Firearm/magazine bans will not magically turn a killer into a nice person.

Without bantering about this controversial subject into any depth, assault firearms have a different intent than hunting firearms. This is true to the quick as an exotic supercar has a different purpose than a truck. The weapons primary function is to create maximum “impact” in the shortest amount of time. The use of bats knives… does not meet those criteria. Why is it that accessories such as suppressors (silencers), Teflon coated ammunition… was introduced? Supercars are capable of acceleration speeds of 0-120 mph in 10 seconds; this does not warrant you to expose the public at risk with this action. An outstanding person and musician made a comment regarding “wisdom”. He used the analogy of a gun. He did not refer to any negative comments regarding them. Loosely based, just because you are capable of using a gun, does not necessarily mean you have the wisdom of using them.

cudaclan wrote:...just because you are capable of using a gun, does not necessarily mean you have the wisdom of using them.

Yes but you have the RIGHT to do so...just as you have the RIGHT to procreate, but that doesn't mean a person actually has to the wisdom to do so.

People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

S2M wrote:People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

Anyone thinking the right is "outdated" is unfortunate. Part of the reason we have the right is for the populace to be armed and able to protect themselves against a government that has turned against its own citizens.

conversationpc wrote:

S2M wrote:People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

Anyone thinking the right is "outdated" is unfortunate. Part of the reason we have the right is for the populace to be armed and able to protect themselves against a government that has turned against its own citizens.

Regardless, the 'right' is outdated. When there was 10,000 people or less in the entire country I could see the public's fear....but in this day, a government takeover is less likely than Hannity sucking off Obama.

conversationpc wrote:

S2M wrote:People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

Anyone thinking the right is "outdated" is unfortunate. Part of the reason we have the right is for the populace to be armed and able to protect themselves against a government that has turned against its own citizens.

A comedian said this: "Back when the Constitution was written the people had cannons and muskets and so did the government, now the people have muskets, and the government has nuclear weapns and apache helicopters!"

S2M wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

S2M wrote:People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

Anyone thinking the right is "outdated" is unfortunate. Part of the reason we have the right is for the populace to be armed and able to protect themselves against a government that has turned against its own citizens.

Regardless, the 'right' is outdated. When there was 10,000 people or less in the entire country I could see the public's fear....but in this day, a government takeover is less likely than Hannity sucking off Obama.

The thought that any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution being outdated is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum and there've been a lot of ridiculous things said here. The founding fathers were smart enough to put in process a means of amending the Constitution. If people think there shouldn't be a right to bear arms any longer, they are welcome to try to Constitutionally amend that document. It won't happen but that's the process.

As I've stated before, I'm all for regulation of firearms. People purchasing one for self-defense who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. It's harder to get a loan, credit card, and health and life insurance than it is to buy a massive assault weapon that could kill 25 deer in 10 seconds. As far as banning them outright (as in Britain), it's 235 years too late.

S2M wrote:People are too attached to their right to bear arms. It is an outdated concept, and a way to be badass. No one needs a clip that holds 30-40 bullets. You don't hunt with assault rifles, and I bet 95% of gun owners don't have one for fear of their lives.....it is a southern, republican, good old boy issue....'I'm badass cause I'm strapped'

Utter foolishness. You certainly have the right NOT to own one if that's your choice, and I doubt you do or you'd know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

And AR-15 style rifles have really been catching on with hunters. Very reliable and versatile.

S2M wrote:

conversationpc wrote:Anyone thinking the right is "outdated" is unfortunate. Part of the reason we have the right is for the populace to be armed and able to protect themselves against a government that has turned against its own citizens.

Regardless, the 'right' is outdated. When there was 10,000 people or less in the entire country I could see the public's fear....but in this day, a government takeover is less likely than Hannity sucking off Obama.

It's not outdated. Times have changed, but the need has increased along with crime. I have the same Glock 19 Jared Lee Loughner used, and there is nothing sinister about it. I don't personally see any legitimate need for a 33 round magazine, but I have three 17-round mags so it's a matter of practicality. (No, I don't carry it -- it stays in my safe most of the time.)

Have deer started carrying AK-47s now?

Don wrote:Have deer started carrying AK-47s now?

They should. It's reputed to be the best battle rifle of all time.

Yeah....trying telling that intruder that he must wait to rob you, rape your wife, and beat the ever-living shit out of you, because you have to remember the combination to your safe that contains your little piece of the Bill of Rights.....not to mention if you've stored the ammo is a different location. Yeah, you own one for protection. This isn't 3:10 to Yuma.

S2M wrote:Yeah....trying telling that intruder that he must wait to rob you, rape your wife, and beat the ever-living shit out of you, because you have to remember the combination to your safe that contains your little piece of the Bill of Rights.....not to mention if you've stored the ammo is a different location. Yeah, you own one for protection. This isn't 3:10 to Yuma.

They are for safety, and mine uses a finger combination - designed for use in the dark.

The problem using an AR-15 is too many people trying to go for the long shot instead of working the distance down for a sure kill. If Rambo Junior doesnt kill the animal but injures it from 600 yards out, what are the chances he is going to be able to track it in a timely manner to save it from a slow painful death? How can killing deer from a quarter mile away be considered hunting anyway? It's the same as dynamite fishing in my book. You end up with Non skilled hunters and very sloppy kills and a lot of suffering from your prey.

Unless you live on a farm, using an assault rifle for self defense can lead to some serious legal consequences if any of your rounds end up through the Neighbors wall or down the street.

Don wrote:The problem using an AR-15 is too many people trying to go for the long shot instead of working the distance down for a sure kill. If Rambo Junior doesnt kill the animal but injures it from 600 yards out, what are the chances he is going to be able to track it in a timely manner to save it from a slow painful death? How can killing deer from a quarter mile away be considered hunting anyway? It's the same as dynamite fishing in my book. You end up with Non skilled hunters and very sloppy kills and a lot of suffering from your prey.

I wouldn't know -- I rarely hunt, but the next time I go I'm taking my M1 Garand or maybe one of my Enfields.

Don wrote:Unless you live on a farm, using an assault rifle for self defense can lead to some serious legal consequences if any of your rounds end up through the Neighbors wall or down the street.

Best weapon for home defense is a shotgun, or frangible rounds for personal defense. Assault rifles are great for the range. I don't ever intend on needing to use any of them for defense. That's what my security system is for.

What the libs continue to fail to realize is if gun rights are taken away, your taking the rights away from the law abiding citizens. The bad guys are going to still find ways to get guns and the law abiding folks will not. The bad guys want all these controls. It puts them at a great advantage.

Ban them if you want, but they will come from somewhere. Period.

hoagiepete wrote:What the libs continue to fail to realize is if gun rights are taken away, your taking the rights away from the law abiding citizens. The bad guys are going to still find ways to get guns and the law abiding folks will not. The bad guys want all these controls. It puts them at a great advantage.

Ban them if you want, but they will come from somewhere. Period.

Not if the guns laws are serious. Sorry, if you get caught carrying...or commit a crime with an illegal firearm - you go away for 25 years. No parole. These criminals know they can eat the measley time that these offenses carry, plus I don't know one criminal that thinks they are going to get caught. laws need to be serious.

S2M wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:What the libs continue to fail to realize is if gun rights are taken away, your taking the rights away from the law abiding citizens. The bad guys are going to still find ways to get guns and the law abiding folks will not. The bad guys want all these controls. It puts them at a great advantage.

Ban them if you want, but they will come from somewhere. Period.

Not if the guns laws are serious. Sorry, if you get caught carrying...or commit a crime with an illegal firearm - you go away for 25 years. No parole. These criminals know they can eat the measley time that these offenses carry, plus I don't know one criminal that thinks they are going to get caught. laws need to be serious.

Hoagiepete - agreed. There is truth behind the old saying, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns."

S2M - Too much wishful thinking, and it's a complete waste of time. First, you'll never see laws exactly like that, and they wouldn't address the problem of illegal handguns anyway if criminals don't think they are going to get caught. You can't legislate against 'stupid'. The government never acts in the best interest of the citizens, and I the only thing I trust about criminals is that they'll continue to be criminals without consciences. As a lawful gun owner, I do have a conscience, and if I ever had to use a firearm against someone else, whether in war or even in justified self-defense, I'm not sure I could completely get over the emotional trauma. It's the last situation I'd ever, ever want to be in. But... many criminals don't value human life, and will take lives over nothing -- arguments about changing the TV channel, a $5 bet, or a pack of smokes. They don't think rationally and don't show remorse. Laws will never cure that, and the police aren't here to prevent crimes -- they arrive in time to take the report. Law abiding citizens have every right under the Constitution to protect themselves.

cudaclan wrote:Without bantering about this controversial subject into any depth, assault firearms have a different intent than hunting firearms. This is true to the quick as an exotic supercar has a different purpose than a truck. The weapons primary function is to create maximum “impact” in the shortest amount of time. The use of bats knives… does not meet those criteria. Why is it that accessories such as suppressors (silencers), Teflon coated ammunition… was introduced?

Are you not willing to "banter about this controversial subject into any depth" because you haven't even the slightest clue about firearms? I think so.

Suppressors were invented in the early 1900s by Hiram Maxim for the same reason that automobiles have mufflers. There is nothing silent about using one, either. Most center fire cartridges are still about as loud as a .22lr unsuppressed. "Teflon coated bullets" are an absolute myth as far as piercing vests and the like. Coating a cartridge in something like Teflon CANNOT create any extra penetration. It was basically a failed attempt to try to get more life out of a barrel. It did not work. In order to have more penetration, you want a harder core for the projectile and higher velocity.

Did you know that your average, every day "redneck" .30-06 deer rifle has roughly twice the muzzle energy of a 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov rifle, and nearly three times the muzzle energy of a 5.45x39mm Kalashnikov.

It is well within your rights to not own a firearm, but before you decide that you want the right to own them taken away form others, PLEASE educate yourself about them.

S2M wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:What the libs continue to fail to realize is if gun rights are taken away, your taking the rights away from the law abiding citizens. The bad guys are going to still find ways to get guns and the law abiding folks will not. The bad guys want all these controls. It puts them at a great advantage.

Ban them if you want, but they will come from somewhere. Period.

Not if the guns laws are serious. Sorry, if you get caught carrying...or commit a crime with an illegal firearm - you go away for 25 years. No parole. These criminals know they can eat the measley time that these offenses carry, plus I don't know one criminal that thinks they are going to get caught. laws need to be serious.

Murder laws are pretty damn serious, and people still commit murder on a daily basis. How can you explain this?

Don wrote:Unless you live on a farm, using an assault rifle for self defense can lead to some serious legal consequences if any of your rounds end up through the Neighbors wall or down the street.

I have a 5.45x39mm AK-74 for home defense in a rural, but still fairly densely populated area. I keep it loaded with Hornady V-max rounds. They penetrate through hard targets like walls, etc less than standard 9mm FMJ ammunition or 12 gauge 00 buckshot (which is the only 12 gauge load I would recommend for home defense)

Guys have their guns, women have their right to abortion....in both instances it has little to do with the actual issue, and more to do with people telling you what to do. Some old fogeys gave people the right to bear arms. Great. Now the amendment should be amended to list exactly which ones people are allowed to stockpile....Secondly, in the case of the women - it is after the fact birth control. More to do with people not telling me what to do with my body, and less to do with the actual termination of a life. This world is on the fast track to shitsville.

People also have the right to remain silent, but I don't see lobbyists for that. Criminals shed that 'right' everyday....but the 'right' to bear arms? Oh yeah, sign my southern one-teethed ass up....

S2M wrote:People also have the right to remain silent, but

But lack the wisdom in recognizing when to exercise it.

S2M wrote:Guys have their guns, women have their right to abortion....in both instances it has little to do with the actual issue, and more to do with people telling you what to do. Some old fogeys gave people the right to bear arms. Great. Now the amendment should be amended to list exactly which ones people are allowed to stockpile....Secondly, in the case of the women - it is after the fact birth control. More to do with people not telling me what to do with my body, and less to do with the actual termination of a life. This world is on the fast track to shitsville.

People also have the right to remain silent, but I don't see lobbyists for that. Criminals shed that 'right' everyday....but the 'right' to bear arms? Oh yeah, sign my southern one-teethed ass up....

I guess it isn't difficult to dodge everything you're asked and just spout off some nonsense about the South and some outrageous statement about "which ones are allowed to stockpile." All that does is send a loud and clear message that you have very little, if any experience with firearms and are even more deprived of information about them. Because criminals choose to shed their Miranda law right to be silent, I should shed my Constitutional rights?

Archetype wrote:

S2M wrote:Guys have their guns, women have their right to abortion....in both instances it has little to do with the actual issue, and more to do with people telling you what to do. Some old fogeys gave people the right to bear arms. Great. Now the amendment should be amended to list exactly which ones people are allowed to stockpile....Secondly, in the case of the women - it is after the fact birth control. More to do with people not telling me what to do with my body, and less to do with the actual termination of a life. This world is on the fast track to shitsville.

People also have the right to remain silent, but I don't see lobbyists for that. Criminals shed that 'right' everyday....but the 'right' to bear arms? Oh yeah, sign my southern one-teethed ass up....

I guess it isn't difficult to dodge everything you're asked and just spout off some nonsense about the South and some outrageous statement about "which ones are allowed to stockpile." All that does is send a loud and clear message that you have very little, if any experience with firearms and are even more deprived of information about them. Because criminals choose to shed their Miranda law right to be silent, I should shed my Constitutional rights?

One question: Are you afraid of government takeover? Cause I get the feeling that a lot of people either use the excuse that the forefathers gave us the right to bear arms in case of a government takeover, as Dave so illustriously relayed. But I don't know too many people who feel that way....so the fact that it is labeled as a RIGHT is what the issue is now. because the 'Spirit' of the law/bill/amendment was meant as Dave stated. Honestly, I couldn't care less what people own...if they have guns, rifles, pistols, machine guns, Tech-9s, Mac 10s....whatever. I just question the steadfast psychological excuses people have for having them. They'll fight tooth and nail for their guns, but save for a comment here and there, don't give 2 shits about fighting to close the damn borders.....

Rhiannon wrote:

S2M wrote:People also have the right to remain silent, but

But lack the wisdom in recognizing when to exercise it.

Another dig?

S2M wrote:One question: Are you afraid of government takeover?

Aren't you, to some degree? Because I think everyone should be. "Obamacare" ( ) is just one example of government trying to put the American people under it's thumb even more, and control.

S2M wrote:

Archetype wrote:

S2M wrote:Guys have their guns, women have their right to abortion....in both instances it has little to do with the actual issue, and more to do with people telling you what to do. Some old fogeys gave people the right to bear arms. Great. Now the amendment should be amended to list exactly which ones people are allowed to stockpile....Secondly, in the case of the women - it is after the fact birth control. More to do with people not telling me what to do with my body, and less to do with the actual termination of a life. This world is on the fast track to shitsville.

People also have the right to remain silent, but I don't see lobbyists for that. Criminals shed that 'right' everyday....but the 'right' to bear arms? Oh yeah, sign my southern one-teethed ass up....

I guess it isn't difficult to dodge everything you're asked and just spout off some nonsense about the South and some outrageous statement about "which ones are allowed to stockpile." All that does is send a loud and clear message that you have very little, if any experience with firearms and are even more deprived of information about them. Because criminals choose to shed their Miranda law right to be silent, I should shed my Constitutional rights?

One question: Are you afraid of government takeover?

I've already asked you two that haven't been answered. How about you get working on that?