Rockindeano wrote:I see I pissed you off.
Nooooo man. I don't get upset during debates, and I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I was just making a point, lol.
Rockindeano wrote:Look dude, me taking pills to somewhat alleviate the excruciating pain in my shoulder cannot be compared to a fucking AK-47...
Sure they can. That was my real point -- that both have been recognized as potentially lethal if misused, even if by accident. But in both cases, it's neither the pill nor the AK that's the problem as long as we follow the guidelines. BTW I'm not trying to single you out because I don't and shouldn't know your medical situation. Just as a blanket statement, I'd wager prescription drugs have cause many more problems in our country than guns. So it's totally cool if you take them responsibly, just as I own firearms responsibly.
Rockindeano wrote:My point was I am not anti gun, but I for the life of me do not understand why somewhat would need a AK-47 or a hand held machine gun. I am all for hunting and I am guessing you don't bring your hand held MG to hunt pigs or deer. What's wrong with taking a 30 odd 6, or a 12 gauge shotgun?
A semi-automatic AK is just another large-caliber rifle, and my semi-automatic MACs are just another 9mm handgun. They just look a whole lot nastier. And the MACs are so heavy they work great for doing warm up and toning exercises. I don't own any MG's or SMG's -- would need to jump thru more hoops to own any Class III weapon, and to be honest I'm not really that interested in them. An open-bolt MAC SMG will empty a 32-round magazine in less than 2 seconds. That's an awfully expensive hobby to maintain.
As for the pigs, I have to retract my previous statement about hunting. I'm not a regular hunter at all, but I certainly wouldn't mind offing some wild hogs. They are quite mean and dangerous. If I hunted deer, an AR-15 can certainly be used. They are increasing in popularity for deer hunting. Nobody's doing this stuff with fully automatic weaponry though, and it's a shame some of the anti-gun crowd has succeeded in giving people that image of gun owners/hunters.
Rockindeano wrote:Now I know you Rip, and I know there won't be any ridiculous drunken/high behaviour with a gun, causing a stupid death. However, there are 300 million folks in this country. Someone is going to go off the deep end and start spraying lead into a crowded Burger King because well, he had a bad day, or got fired.
There will never be a cure for 'stupid' in this country or any other, unfortunately. Sounds like people are the problem, and the many law-abiding citizens shouldn't be punished for the inability by the few to live responsibly and peacefully. I'm just grateful knowing that under the highly,
extremely remote chance anything like that would happen in a Burger King I was in (and the next to non-existent change they'd have access to a fully automatic weapon), I'd have a better chance to survive or stop the problem before it got worse.
Rockindeano wrote:I don't know, it's just my opinion Rip. I just think the NRA defending the "right" to harbour guns is ridiculous. No politician, even an extreme leftist liberal, is not going to want to take gun ownership away from the people. But they are going to want to eliminate the type of weaponry one can own let alone operate. When does it stop? How big a canon does one have to have? Rockets? Guided anti aircraft weapons? I have fired em all, and they are fun let me tell you. But as crazy as one of those Muslims are, there is a a dark drunken guy from the South, having a bad day, who might step out onto his porch in a full moonlit night, and start snapping off rounds onto the highway or into a gas station with his bazooka. The police are already shorthanded due to budget constraints, and now they have to contend with their fellow countrymen who are better armed than they are. Crazy to think about isn't i?
Dude, that's so way off from reality it's not worth the debate, lol! None of the things you mentioned are considered in the same class, or can be easily obtained or legally owned. Here... this answers the question quite well, compliments of Yahoo:
Q: Does a gun license includes weapons like Bazooka, Flamethrowers, sub machine gun and machine guns and rifles?
Or does it just cover basic weapons like hunting rifles and pistols?
Best Answer: Not sure if you meant your question as joke, but from the tone of both your question and some of the answers it's apparent that not everyone understands what the 2nd Amendment covers. Let's face it, back in the day when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no one could ever imagine what firearms would be invented through the years. Certainly we have come a long way from muskets being he weapon of choice, but we have also come a long way in dealing with the 1st Amendment because when it was written there was no such thing as high-speed presses, raidio, TV or the Internet, so interpretations of our freedoms had to evolve through the years to embrace our modern world.
You can look it up, but in the 1930s a case on the 2nd Amendment was presented to the US Supreme Court dealing with this issue: the types of firearms that are allowed under the American right to keep and bear arms. After the usual debate back and forth it was determined that (1) the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or self-protection, it's about the average law-abiding citizen having the means to be part of an unorginazed militia, if need be, if and when our militray forces were ever overrun or unable to adequetly defend our homeland from foreign invasion, and (2) since time chnges all things, only those small arms used by the military would be suitable for ownership and use by the average US citizen, i.e., single-shot or semiauto rifles, pistols and shotguns. In some cases, and with extensive background checks and extra license fees, full auto firearms can be owned, but (contrary to what the media would like us to belive) certainly not bazookas, rocket launchers, state-of-the-art canons or nuclear warheads. These reasonable and well managed restrictions and controls are still not enough for many anti-gun zealots who would like to see America totally disarmed, but then these same misguided activists see no similiarities in someone trying to place restrictions to the 1st Amendment as long as it suits their ideology and left-leaning agenda.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 613AAFKU4V
