Quote: Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.
So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do.
If compromising means relenquishing some of the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy (especially if we feel the premise violates the constitution), the "responsible thing to do" would be to fight it with any and all resources available.
Taking away the right to own my weapon of choice to defend myself because some nutjob or criminal killed people, is a crime...and idiotic.
OK,, you want to protect yourself,, cool,,, What about my right to be safe?
You forget, you aren't the only person on this planet that has rights.. why are yours more important than mine.
Are you saying that your rights trump my rights?
I don't believe if someone owns a gun it trumps your right to not own a gun.
You have a right to own, or not own. You don't have a right to take away someone else's right just because you think it might make you safer. (after all, if "safety" is the issue - get rid of all cars, for example - we'd all be safer, right?)
As for a "right" to be safe - I don't know if that's a "right" per se - but it IS an expectation all of us have, or should have anyway.
Now, if you want to rely solely on the police/gov't. for your safety, that is your choice. Some others may choose to rely on the police/gov't., AND themselves to protect their safety. That, currently, is a right, and a choice.
As for personal safety - let's face it, police generally show up just in time to take a report. Not always, but a majority of the time. That is no fault pinning on the police - it's just how it works.....they can only be in a scattered few places at any one time.
If your neighbor owns a gun, how is that infringing on your right to not own a gun, and how is it infringing on your safety?
As has been mentioned by several other folks ( being from an older generation ) I never left home without a pock knife in my pants and as I got older ( 16 ) had an old single shot 410 squirrel gun in the trunk on most Fridays ! .. Went to the old West High on 65th and Franklin and we never had anyone get stabbed or shot !
Opinion : There must a segment of today's parents that suck , big time ! .. Our Culture as a whole must be on a down turn ( today the least ) ..
When I went to school there was a mix of Male and Female teachers ( more female ) Will confess that most of the male teachers where of Italian decent .. Man if you caused trouble ( especially for a female teacher ) your s--t was light.. They would yank you up by the collar and Johnny bar the door ! .. Here is the kicker ; You only wished that it ended in School
Quote: Both have solid views and values, neither wants senseless killing of kids or shootings in the street or theartres or malls or whereever.
So, if they both have the same goal, compromise (theres that dirty word again) is not only possible, it's the responsible thing to do.
If compromising means relenquishing some of the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy (especially if we feel the premise violates the constitution), the "responsible thing to do" would be to fight it with any and all resources available.
Taking away the right to own my weapon of choice to defend myself because some nutjob or criminal killed people, is a crime...and idiotic.
OK,, you want to protect yourself,, cool,,, What about my right to be safe?
You forget, you aren't the only person on this planet that has rights.. why are yours more important than mine.
Are you saying that your rights trump my rights?
Come on Daman, that is a crap argument.
You can be as safe as you want. Taking gun rights away isn't going to make you any safer.
I see it like this. The vast majority of gun crime is by handguns. Nobody is talking about those....yet. We talk about the headline makers.....but a foot in the door is all that is needed.
I am not willing to crack that door as it is shown time after time once the government implements a one time tax, it stays and never goes away. It actually gets bigger.
Screw 'em.
Let's talk about who is committing the crimes and what we are going to do about that.
That's the conversation that needs to be held....but that is something people just don't seem willing to talk about.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: Let's talk about who is committing the crimes and what we are going to do about that.
most people dont want to because they just dont like gun,s. For me, I have no use for a rifle with a 10 round or bigger clip, all tho I have shot them for fun im just an old school country boy,give me my shotgun, and 22 and life is good.
Quote: When did anyone argue for automatic weapons?
If I had my choice, it would be the AA-12 fully automatic shot gun. I'm fairly sure I'd never have a home invasion problem (or once, but just once) if the populace could legally own those.
Quote: When did anyone argue for automatic weapons?
If I had my choice, it would be the AA-12 fully automatic shot gun. I'm fairly sure I'd never have a home invasion problem (or once, but just once) if the populace could legally own those.
That would be awesome.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
An old woman in Texas gets pulled over for a broken tail light. The cop comes up to her car and asks her for her driver's license and registration. The cop looks at her documents and sees a concealed carry card with her driver's license and registration. The following conversation takes place.
Cop: Ma'am, I see you handed me a concealed carry card. OL: Yes. Cop: Do you have a gun in the car, Ma'am? OL: Yes, I have a Glock 9mm in my center console. Cop: Is that the only gun? OL: No, I also have a .22 semi-auto in my purse. Cop: Are those all the guns? OL: No, I also have a .357 Magnum in the glove box. Cop: And that's all the guns. OL: Yes, just those 3. Cop: Ma'am, I can't believe that you're carrying 3 guns on you. I have to ask, what are you so afraid of? OL: Nothing.
Quote: When did anyone argue for automatic weapons?
two things, semis can be made auto cheaply and quickly.. that's a problem in my eyes.
Second, it's not so much about the guns, it's 'the size of these clips. damn,
And not one person has yet to prove why my rights are any less important than theirs are,,,
I can do that very easily. The government has written that I am able to keep guns as one of my inalienable rights. That means I have a right to protect myself, my family, and other's I choose to help, and that I have access to a great tool to do that. You, on the other hand, have the same right to your security that I do, you just choose not to exercise that right. You can dig a hole and hide in a bunker for all I care, if that makes you feel safe. But, if you take my guns away, you take away my choice to provide best for my security. If you want to face down the raging hoards, if there ever are any, with stern language, that's up to you. I doubt they will care much about your rights if that day ever comes. My right to own a gun will assist me in keeping me and mine safe. To finish up that thought, as I am a proper, responsible citizen of this country, there is absolutely no reason for me not to have that right and exercise it. You should be much more afraid of those that will take your life, property, family, and rights away than you should be of me and my gun. I might even help you defend you and yours one day, even though you didn't bother to prepare, grasshopper.
Quote: And not one person has yet to prove why my rights are any less important than theirs are,,,
In what way has anyone said your rights are less important than theirs? The only one in this debate wanting to deprive someone of their rights is you. You have a legal right to defend yourself and your loved ones...and that's about it as far as rights to safety go. You alone are responsible for your own safety, and you choose not to exercise that right. I'm good with that. But how is depriving me of my method of choice to defend my own self, violating your rights? You might be deluding yourself into a false sense of security with strict gun legislation, but if you apply a little common sense you'll see that only law abiding citizens obey such laws...not the criminals you're trying to feel safe from. As I said earlier, no government or law enforcement agency has a legal duty to protect you, and that's according to the United States Supreme Court.
Another thing, it's not as easy to convert to full auto as you seem to think. I think the last major crime committed with full auto weapons was the North Hollywood bank heist in '97. None of the recent mass killings involved full auto weapons.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Recent studies on reasoning and debate point towards people never changing their minds during discussions. So I don't really care to weigh in unless it is for fun.
In my mind most of the evidence points towards these facts:
1. Mass killings are unimportant in the daily lives of 99.99999% of Americans. Despite the media hype they are completely irrelevant to our lives.
2. Violent crime exists in countries with strict gun controls (UK). Typically in the form of knives. Gun ownership reduces deaths both from victims and perpetrators in comparison to knives.
To me the topic is silly. If you don't live in a high-crime area the chances of your life being impacted by any kind of violence are incredibly small.
edit: To clarify. Your chances of experiencing violence are incredibly small. And I think the urge to take away guns is driven by "mass killings" which are completely irrelevant scare stories. I don't think guns are that important to daily life, but most of what I have read points towards them reducing violence in society. I see no reason to spend billions of dollars registering or removing them from society. Or billions of hours discussing the topic.
Quote: Recent studies on reasoning and debate point towards people never changing their minds during discussions. So I don't really care to weigh in unless it is for fun.
In my mind most of the evidence points towards these facts:
1. Mass killings are unimportant in the daily lives of 99.99999% of Americans. Despite the media hype they are completely irrelevant to our lives.
2. Violent crime exists in countries with strict gun controls (UK). Typically in the form of knives. Gun ownership reduces deaths both from victims and perpetrators in comparison to knives.
To me the topic is silly. If you don't live in a high-crime area the chances of your life being impacted by any kind of violence are incredibly small.
I ve quoted per capita increases in gun homicides in strict gun control countries. I get your just playing but facts are facts.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
And not one person has yet to prove why my rights are any less important than theirs are,,,
Based on the news and other articles I'm going to inform you that I'm pretty confident that criminals don't give a rat's behind about your safety or happiness or well being,they are the ones you need to concern yourself with about your safety, not us.
Much like most schools don't allow guns, but for some odd reason people are getting shot in schools. Don't criminal know the rules???
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
In the wake of December’s horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Vice President Joe Biden is chairing a panel of experts that will make gun-control recommendations to President Barack Obama by the end of the month. The president has said that enacting new restrictions on guns will be one of his highest priorities.
No one wants to ever again see anything like the senseless slaughter of 26 people – including 20 children - at a school. But as legislators turn toward creating new gun laws, here are five facts they need to know.
1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.
The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.
2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.
Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.
3. Schools are getting safer.
Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.
4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.
Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gun ownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.
5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.
While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is as horrifing a crime as can be imagined. It rips at the country’s heart and the call to action is strong and righteous. But as Joe Biden and his panel of experts consider changes to gun laws and school-safety policies, they need to lead with their heads and not just their hearts.
Over the past dozen years, too many policies – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the TARP bailouts – have been ruled by emotion and ideology.
Passing sweeping new restrictions on Second Amendment rights won’t heal the pain and loss we all feel but just may create many more problems in our future.
Quote: And it should be 1000% legal to own rapid fire weapons.
anarc...playing word games does nothing to change the facts...
...these assault style weapons fitted with these bump fire stocks (which are currently legal) have a rate of fire that " IS FASTER " than 1000% ILLEGAL full auto machine guns.
On this website web page ...they advertise this...."This thing is amazingly easy to use you will be able to do burst and empty 20 round mags in 1.6 seconds. Its diffently the best accessory you can have for your AR15 thats on the market."
Shooting 20 rounds in 1.6 seconds translates into 750 rounds per minute.
Wanting to do some comparing, I went to Colt's website, clicked on military weapons, web page
...clicked again on The Colt® 9mm (model #0991) Submachine Gun (SMG) ...where it describes the weapon as follows..."The Colt® 9mm (model #0991) Submachine Gun (SMG) is exceptionally well suited for law enforcement organizations requiring a light weight, compact, highly concealable, select fire weapon system for close confrontations.
...then I clicked on specifications, looking up rate of fire..which is advertised as being 700-950 RPM
That would be 700-950 rounds per minute for a SUBMACHINE GUN, designed and sold to military and law enforcement
I did a little more research and found a product sold by slide fire that advertises (on the video) a rate of fire of 900 rounds per minute...nearly as much as the maximum rate of fire of the Colt Submachine gun.
OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
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.
I'll add just a few more for commentary. Please note that there is not a single word about hunting or any recreational use of firearms mentioned. Any argument about any person not needing such weapons for hunting isn't even concerning themselves with Second Amendment at all.
Quote: OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Because your government isn't necessarily a benign force.
Quote: OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Because your government isn't necessarily a benign force.
Yeah,, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank and you pull out that pop gun,,, you got what kinda chance again?
And as for your prior comment,,, that was written when guns like this weren't even dreamt of.. it's outdated and no longer applies as it was intended.
Now I say that to you and I want you to know, I have no problem with you owning guns, I'm not on the side that says, take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens of the country. If you have read anything I've written on the subject, then you know that while I don't have a desire to be a gun owner, I DO have the desire to be able to be a gun owner should I choose too.
I'm just not in favor of this kinda weapon even being available. And as you can see, it is. I'm not in favor of these monster clips that we've been reading about.
They have no valid purpose.. anyone you would need that kinda force to repel has cannons.. your toast in a NY Second anyway.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: ... why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Why do martial artists like to break boards? Why do medieval enthusiasts like to joust and swordfight? Because they enjoy it. You don't have an interest in shooting, but that doesn't mean others don't. I think it would be a lot of fun to shoot that thing. However....this whole gun control issue isn't about sport, it's about the right to own a firearm...whether it be for self defense, hunting, shooting sports or whatever legal reason you so choose. I wouldn't want that particular action in a self defense weapon. It looks like all that gun would do would be to spray bullets all over the place and use up your ammo in a hurry.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: Yeah,, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank and you pull out that pop gun,,, you got what kinda chance again?
If the army pulls up on my lawn in a tank, we've gone over Nazi Germany and Soviet Communist territory. That may be your utopia, but it ain't mine brother.
Quote: And as for your prior comment,,, that was written when guns like this weren't even dreamt of.. it's outdated and no longer applies as it was intended.
It was written when government was less oppressive as it is proving to be now. It applies because it's inherent in every human being just because they exist. The Founding Fathers of this country codified it. If it's not applicable, then I suggest that you try and enforce any law restricting such a weapon. If you survive, come and write an essay to us all about it. Otherwise, you're just blowing a lot of garbage out your pie hole.
Quote: Now I say that to you and I want you to know, I have no problem with you owning guns, I'm not on the side that says, take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens of the country. If you have read anything I've written on the subject, then you know that while I don't have a desire to be a gun owner, I DO have the desire to be able to be a gun owner should I choose too.
But you don't want others who have a desire to be able to do so? Well, it's that grand for you? My advice to you is that you should prepare for a nation that is at war with itself in a most literal sense of the word.
And, if you're capable of desiring to take ANY guns out of the hands of ANY citizens, then I don't trust you to defend me in anything. I don't care what you might say on anything else.
I'll reiterate what I've said before, If you seek help and protection to defend you against anything the government does to you, it is my fervent hope that nobody will help you.
Quote: I'm just not in favor of this kinda weapon even being available. And as you can see, it is. I'm not in favor of these monster clips that we've been reading about.
That's apparent. I won't be counting on you for my defense against the government.
Quote: They have no valid purpose.. anyone you would need that kinda force to repel has cannons.. your toast in a NY Second anyway.
Gun control is a huge issue, as it directly involves the constitution. None of the other current mainstream issues involve what the founding fathers deemed as inalienable rights. Legislation regarding these issues, though very emotionally charged, does not impact the framework of our republic as gun legislation does. If anyone trusts the current gathering of power mongering dolts that currently make up our congress to alter the constitution into something better, may God help us all.
Unfortunately, many people think that if they just go about minding their own business the government will take care of all the nasty stuff. The politicians are quite OK with this line of thought, as it gives them the power that they crave. The more power they acquire, the less accountable they have to be to their consitituents. We're seeing it now with the bailouts, healthcare reform, the patriot act, etc. The Obama administration is currently drafting executive orders involving gun control....and that is downright frightening. Folks, this is how tyranny evolves.
Imagine if they could come up with a gun that had an interface with the soldier himself, where he could use technology such as either voice recognition to select a particular type of weapon/shell ....... combined with the software like they use to help people who can't move or speak to communicate by eye movement. A soldier could move in quietly on a target, select his shell of choice using his eyes, and then obliterate his target. Each weapon could even use voice/retinal recognition for security so that a weapon lost on a battlefield could not be used against them. They could even use GPS with a small charge to remotely destroy a lost weapon.
One other idea I have for military use is micro weapons. Imagine the military being able to find a target, and then use bird sized weapons to swoop in on a target and take them out. Heck, they could even use much smaller weapons that could fly into an area and gas the inhabitants ..... or even use them for surveillance. Imagine what looks like a small bird swooping in on a windowsill .... watching those inside. Then that unit calls in a dozen "mini-stingers", and they fly in and hit each person inside with a small knock out drug.
Man, I've been watching way too much sci-fi stuff. The scary part is that all of this stuff is feasible.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
That's what the Supreme Court is for. If Congress passes some legislation that's wholly incompatible with the Constitution, a (mostly) conservative court would have no issue striking it down.
Heller v DC went 5-4, and since that time Kagan and Sotomayor have been added to the bench. Even though all that voted in favor remain, their majority opinion left a lot of opportunity for further interpretation. I'm not at all confident in the USSC's ability to vote in favor of the constitution in this matter.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Why would you want a car with more HP than necessary to get you from point A to point B? Cars kill more people than guns every year, usually from irresponsible people.
It is seldom the intent of most gun owners (and most gun crimes are committed by people who didn't legally posess the guns they use) to harm others.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
For the same reason somebody needs a car that goes 160 mph and has no intention of going to a race track... or the same reason people buy a 7,000 sf home for a family of 4.... people want bigger and better, "need" is not really a part of the equation.
Quote: Yeah,, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank and you pull out that pop gun,,, you got what kinda chance again?
We rolled into Iraq and Afghanistan with how much force and fire power set on catching or eliminating those who opposed us? And how many soldiers were killed by natives with far less sophistication than this? Government oppression of its own people usually doesn't start with tanks and fighter jets.. It usually starts with disarming the populace so those aren't necessary.
Quote: And as for your prior comment,,, that was written when guns like this weren't even dreamt of.. it's outdated and no longer applies as it was intended.
Then change it. There are mechanisms in place to change the constitution... if you think you can get enough support to change the second amendment, go for it. Even though I disagree with your premise. We have lived in an isolated, secure bubble for many generations now where our complaints about our government pale in comparison to many parts of the world, but if you think those things aren't possible here, then you are mistaken... Our freedoms will never be outdated... none of them.
Quote: ... why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Why do martial artists like to break boards? Why do medieval enthusiasts like to joust and swordfight? Because they enjoy it. You don't have an interest in shooting, but that doesn't mean others don't. I think it would be a lot of fun to shoot that thing. However....this whole gun control issue isn't about sport, it's about the right to own a firearm...whether it be for self defense, hunting, shooting sports or whatever legal reason you so choose. I wouldn't want that particular action in a self defense weapon. It looks like all that gun would do would be to spray bullets all over the place and use up your ammo in a hurry.
Let me get this right, you are comparing jousting and breaking boards with a gun that can fire a bazillion rounds in a second? Then actually expect me to take you seriously?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: Let me get this right, you are comparing jousting and breaking boards with a gun that can fire a bazillion rounds in a second? Then actually expect me to take you seriously?
No, it's about addressing your desire to insert "need" into this discussion.. people do and own a lot of things they don't "need" many of which can be extremely dangerous to themselves and others.. If we started listing them, the list would be massive and I'm sure would eventually come to include some things that you own and/or enjoy...
.. Man if you caused trouble ( especially for a female teacher ) your s--t was light.. They would yank you up by the collar and Johnny bar the door ! .. Here is the kicker ; You only wished that it ended in School 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
My advice to you is that you should prepare for a nation that is at war with itself in a most literal sense of the word.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
