edgun88 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Guns should be legal. If they aren't them criminals will rob every one and no one will be able to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 All guns should be legal for purchase by citizen. (Within reason, I'm not talking about tanks or rocket launchers.) I'm talking about shotguns, rifles, semi-automatics, automatics, revolvers. The criminal element among us will get whatever gun they want, whether they are legal or not. Also, one well placed shot by a confident shooter with a cool head, will usually beat a person who just "sprays and prays." If you have a gun, learn to be proficient with the gun, and practice. There are firing ranges where you can practice, and classes you can take to properly train you with the weapon. 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. This is one of the most intentionally misunderstood sentences on the planet. According to this, at a minimum, militia type weapons should have not restrictions on them. The obvious next question is, what constitutes a militia style weapon? That would be an individual weapon (not a crew served weapon) that a person can take to an armed conflict and be immediately useful. (I'm agreeing with you and bolstering your point, not arguing with you.) That's why I don't have a problem with the Federal Government strictly regulating the private ownership of machine guns, etc. In most people's hands, such weapons can be mini-weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, I have a huge problem with states like California and New Jersey banning semi-auto "assault weapons" simply because they look scary. A semi-auto AR-15 is exactly the kind of weapon the writers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind when they wrote it. (Well, it's what they would have had in mind if they wrote it today.) Obviously, the framers didn't envision guns with cyclical rates of 600 rpm -- gun research has taken guns way beyond the grasp of the framers, but to say that's a reason for banning "assault weapons" is a specious argument. A militia style arm is still a gun that a person can bring to an armed conflict and be effective. "Assault weapons" are ideal for the purpose. They are not capable of full automatic fire, so there's no reason to ban them on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Does it matter if the guns are legal or not. People can get whatever gun they want legal or not.That is why I voted that all guns should be legal. It is almost as easy to get an unregistered gun as it is to get a gun from a gun store.SO what does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I agree with you that people can get guns regardless of the law, but the legality does matter in a couple of ways. 1. Making certain guns illegal to buy, sell, and own, means that the state and local government can't receive any tax revenue from those transactions. 2. The only people bound by gun laws are people who willingly obey them, and those aren't the people you want to restrict from buying or owning guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 This is one of the most intentionally misunderstood sentences on the planet. According to this, at a minimum, militia type weapons should have not restrictions on them. The obvious next question is, what constitutes a militia style weapon? That would be an individual weapon (not a crew served weapon) that a person can take to an armed conflict and be immediately useful. I have to respectfully disagree with you here Talon. What people tend to forget is that part of what the British military went to Lexington and Concord to destroy CANNON and carriages, not just small arms. In fact the British had been frustrated only weeks before at Salem in their attempt to confiscate artillery carriages when Colonials had dismantled a bridge to impede their progress and get the carriages out of Salem. That's why I disagree with your concept that crew served weapons & artillery are not covered under the Second Amendment. In fact the cannon that the Colonials had acquired were put to good use shelling Boston and forcing the British to abandon the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I stand by "at a minimum, militia type weapons should have not restrictions on them." Regarding the crew served weapons, I'll back off any statement about them pending further information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I agree with you that people can get guns regardless of the law, but the legality does matter in a couple of ways. 1. Making certain guns illegal to buy, sell, and own, means that the state and local government can't receive any tax revenue from those transactions. 2. The only people bound by gun laws are people who willingly obey them, and those aren't the people you want to restrict from buying or owning guns! I know there are reasons I was just being a little sarcastic about the whole debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I stand by "at a minimum, militia type weapons should have not restrictions on them." Regarding the crew served weapons, I'll back off any statement about them pending further information. And I stand by the position that rifles and shotguns should not have restrictions on them other than basic background checks, but handguns and assault firearms are unnecessary and dangerous. It is a long spectrum. We just land on somewhat different places on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 All I know is that these gas prices are making it VERY expensive to fill up my Bradley on the way to work....I wonder if they make a hybrid version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 And I stand by the position that rifles and shotguns should not have restrictions on them other than basic background checks, but handguns and assault firearms are unnecessary and dangerous. It is a long spectrum. We just land on somewhat different places on it. What the heck is an "assault firearm"? How do you define that? And why do you conclude that handguns are unnecessary and dangerous? Would you take them away from cops and military? (If not, wouldn't you have to concede that they are at least necessary?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 And I stand by the position that rifles and shotguns should not have restrictions on them other than basic background checks, but handguns and assault firearms are unnecessary and dangerous. So you'd prefer me walking around with a 12ga. Mossberg 500 shotgun with an 18.5" bbl, the 8 round extended tube, and a 6 round sidesaddle? That would be exceptionally difficult to conceal, if you hadn't figured it out. So I have to assume that you'd rather have me walking around with that shotgun slung over my shoulder where EVERYONE can see it and cause a massive panic than to have me carrying a nicely concealed, nearly invisible handgun like I have probably 90% of the time I've been out of my home in the last eight years without a single issue. Real bright idea, Predicto. Then again I think we both know there's nothing on this planet you and I will ever agree on. That was proven at KFFL and just continued here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 So you'd prefer me walking around with a 12ga. Mossberg 500 shotgun with an 18.5" bbl, the 8 round extended tube, and a 6 round sidesaddle? That would be exceptionally difficult to conceal, if you hadn't figured it out. But not impossible. Check this guy out! :laugh: http://www.jesseshunting.com/site/iframe.html?href=http%3A//www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/6910/sort/1/size/medium/cat/all/page/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 What the heck is an "assault firearm"? How do you define that? And why do you conclude that handguns are unnecessary and dangerous? Would you take them away from cops and military? (If not, wouldn't you have to concede that they are at least necessary?) No, I would not take handguns away from cops and the military. As I said before, rifles and shotguns make sense for private use, and cover all the needs of home protection/hunting/recreation that people need. Handguns are best used for committing crimes. An assault firearm is a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon. Again, totally unnecessary for home protection/hunting/recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Real bright idea, Predicto. Then again I think we both know there's nothing on this planet you and I will ever agree on. That was proven at KFFL and just continued here. Truer words were never spoken, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 No, I would not take handguns away from cops and the military.As I said before, rifles and shotguns make sense for private use, and cover all the needs of home protection/hunting/recreation that people need. Handguns are best used for committing crimes. An assault firearm is a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon. Again, totally unnecessary for home protection/hunting/recreation. For what it's worth, many rifles meet your definition of an "assault firearm". That definition also does not coincide with the law that banned "assault weapons". That law was actually pretty foolish...You mean I can't have a bayonet lug, or a flash suppresor, and can only pump you full of 10 rounds before having to reload? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 An assault firearm is a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon. Again, totally unnecessary for home protection/hunting/recreation. You DO realize that a MAJORITY of the rifles and shotguns out on the market today are "semi-auto", right? Semi-auto simply means that the firing of one round loads the next round. The only thing you'd have left with your "semi-auto" ban is pump, lever, bolt action and single shot firearms. Oh, and revolvers. There is no way on this planet I'm trusting my home or personal security to an NON-SemiAutomatic firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 For what it's worth, many rifles meet your definition of an "assault firearm". That definition also does not coincide with the law that banned "assault weapons". That law was actually pretty foolish... I agree. It was a stupid law. Of course, one of the reasons it was stupid is because it was amended to include specific brands and definitions in order to quell opposition from gun supporters. The result was a law with no teeth than was easy to get around and simply made no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 You DO realize that a MAJORITY of the rifles and shotguns out on the market today are "semi-auto", right? Semi-auto simply means that the firing of one round loads the next round. The only thing you'd have left with your "semi-auto" ban is pump, lever, bolt action and single shot firearms. Oh, and revolvers. There is no way on this planet I'm trusting my home or personal security to an NON-SemiAutomatic firearm. Yes, I know. You live in a very dangerous world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yes, I know. You live in a very dangerous world. Yep. Largely because of people who hold views similar to yours, Predicto. We've been through this before and I'm sure we'll go through it again in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yes, I know. You live in a very dangerous world. I have an SKS "assault" rifle. Looks kind of like an AK-47. It is a semi-automatic rifle that fires a smaller caliber bullet than many hunting rifles. Are you suggesting it should be banned because of it's look, considering it is less powerful than what many take in the woods to hunt with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I have an SKS "assault" rifle. Looks kind of like an AK-47. It is a semi-automatic rifle that fires a smaller caliber bullet than many hunting rifles. Are you suggesting it should be banned because of it's look, considering it is less powerful than what many take in the woods to hunt with? The details of what guns are appropriate for home ownership might be worked out by reasonable people, if reasonable people were allowed to frame the debate. Right now, they are not. The antigun crowd will vilify hunting, reject any argument that some firearms may be appropriate for home defense and generally seek to ban all private firearm ownership. The progun crowd will continue to demand broad access to weaponry more suitable for a battlefield than a home, concealable weapons best suitable for crime, plastic guns undetectable by metal detectors, bullets that easily pierce police armor, and so forth. That is the way the debate is framed these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 well, speaking of "framed", the framers of the constitution had the idea of a militia to be able to fight back an army. you think our militia won the revolutionary war with weapons far inferior to the british army? no, we had cannon as well. if our state becomes one that of a totalitarian state, where the people are ruled by the government, the founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to fight back. how can we defend our rights with standard rifles and shotguns when we'll be attacked with autos, snipers, and tanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 well, speaking of "framed", the framers of the constitution had the idea of a militia to be able to fight back an army. you think our militia won the revolutionary war with weapons far inferior to the british army? no, we had cannon as well. if our state becomes one that of a totalitarian state, where the people are ruled by the government, the founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to fight back. how can we defend our rights with standard rifles and shotguns when we'll be attacked with autos, snipers, and tanks? That is one interpretation of the intent of the framers of the constitution, and it may be right. How this 18th century ideal translates into the 21st century is open to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 But not impossible. Check this guy out! :laugh: REALITY CHECK: A concealed weapin is only useful if you can get at it quickly and bring it into play within a matter of 1.25-2 seconds, maximum. that shotgun took way too long to get at and would have been seen fairly easily once he started walking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 REALITY CHECK:A concealed weapin is only useful if you can get at it quickly and bring it into play within a matter of 1.25-2 seconds, maximum. that shotgun took way too long to get at and would have been seen fairly easily once he started walking. I know Mass. It was in jest. He was packing a rediculous amount of firepower though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.