Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He said he supported sensible gun control...I don't see how taking assault weapons from people that don't need them isn't sensible... It's not like it's some XBox360 that's a hobby and not hurting anyone, it's an assault rifle that can take down many people easily... Really, come on. I don't like guns, but I don't support outlawing them either. But I haven't heard a good explanation as to why guns shouldn't be child proof, tracked, and to some common sense degree (like taking assault weapons out of houses) controlled.
Do you even know what an assualt weapon is?
Again.
Assault weapon is THE MOST stupidest term I have ever heard. Just because it resembles something that the military uses does not mean it was made to "assault". Do you think semi-auto shotguns are assault weapons, as well? Or what about hand guns? Since most of them are semi-auto? what is the difference? NOT ONE THING! All you people who see no problem with these "bans" need to educate yourself more in firearms before passing judgment.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
He said he supported sensible gun control...I don't see how taking assault weapons from people that don't need them isn't sensible... It's not like it's some XBox360 that's a hobby and not hurting anyone, it's an assault rifle that can take down many people easily... Really, come on. I don't like guns, but I don't support outlawing them either. But I haven't heard a good explanation as to why guns shouldn't be child proof, tracked, and to some common sense degree (like taking assault weapons out of houses) controlled.
The thing is - I could be just as dangerous with my "assault rifle" as I could be with my grandpa's hunting rifle he used in 1950!
The point, is banning them will NOT change a damn thing when it comes to crime.
He said he supported sensible gun control...I don't see how taking assault weapons from people that don't need them isn't sensible... It's not like it's some XBox360 that's a hobby and not hurting anyone, it's an assault rifle that can take down many people easily... Really, come on. I don't like guns, but I don't support outlawing them either. But I haven't heard a good explanation as to why guns shouldn't be child proof, tracked, and to some common sense degree (like taking assault weapons out of houses) controlled.
Who defines need and why is their definition shoved down everyone's throats?
An "assault rifle" is not the same as an "assault weapon." Assault rifles are automatic (machineguns) and no new ones are available for civilians since 1986. "Assault weapon" is a made up term that means nothing. Please define "assault weapon" and do tell, please, how these guns are anymore "dangerous" than others.
BTW, as has been posted repeatedly: the FBI found the original AWB had no effect on crime.
Give me a gun and I can hurt someone. Give me an assault weapon and I can hurt someone. I agree, any gun has the capability to kill. But think of it this way then, since you know more about guns than I (which is probably true). If an assault weapon is the same as I guess what you would call a normal gun, then why worry about having them restricted? If it's the same thing, then if you have a gun(s) of either type, then you have the same thing, right? This is what was posted above. And if it's the same thing, then what's the big deal about having part of it restricted?
I haven't looked at the report, and if it has no impact, then it's a waste of money and I would agree it's useless. Not knowing the report, I assume controlling assault weapons, that are just like normal weapons, wouldn't take from gun owners, and could help control the amount of guns in the market. If that is also wrong, then go back to the first sentence in the paragraph.
What I don't buy, is why people have to spaz when faced with the possibility that they won't be able to have 20 guns or whatever of whatever type they want. If, as posted above, they're all the same, then why are some ridiculous amount of them needed, and why are certain ones needed.
The right to bear arms was made in a time when there was still war and indians and such. I don't want to see that taken away, as someone who believes in the constitution, but falling back on the constitution that was designed when people were defending from Indian raids and there was only a very weak and fragile national army (which as a result required militias for defense, which in turn required people in militias to ahve their own guns) is kind of ridiculous when the only thing you're using guns for modern day is hunting, target practice, or maybe protection from a burgler (which would really only require 1 maybe 2 guns).
What modern day justification (outside of falling back onto indian war days) is there to have a large amount of guns, and the ability to get any type of gun you want?
Give me a gun and I can hurt someone. Give me an assault weapon and I can hurt someone. I agree, any gun has the capability to kill. But think of it this way then, since you know more about guns than I (which is probably true). If an assault weapon is the same as I guess what you would call a normal gun, then why worry about having them restricted? If it's the same thing, then if you have a gun(s) of either type, then you have the same thing, right? This is what was posted above. And if it's the same thing, then what's the big deal about having part of it restricted?
I haven't looked at the report, and if it has no impact, then it's a waste of money and I would agree it's useless. Not knowing the report, I assume controlling assault weapons, that are just like normal weapons, wouldn't take from gun owners, and could help control the amount of guns in the market. If that is also wrong, then go back to the first sentence in the paragraph.
What I don't buy, is why people have to spaz when faced with the possibility that they won't be able to have 20 guns or whatever of whatever type they want. If, as posted above, they're all the same, then why are some ridiculous amount of them needed, and why are certain ones needed.
The right to bear arms was made in a time when there was still war and indians and such. I don't want to see that taken away, as someone who believes in the constitution, but falling back on the constitution that was designed when people were defending from Indian raids and there was only a very weak and fragile national army (which as a result required militias for defense, which in turn required people in militias to ahve their own guns) is kind of ridiculous when the only thing you're using guns for modern day is hunting, target practice, or maybe protection from a burgler (which would really only require 1 maybe 2 guns).
What modern day justification (outside of falling back onto indian war days) is there to have a large amount of guns, and the ability to get any type of gun you want?
This post indicates you are thinking - that is a great thing to see because I have rarely before seen any "opposition" use any type of logic.
I've bolded parts of what you said, to highlight what my response will mainly be regarding.
For me and a majority of gun owners. It is not about not being able to have 20 guns, or not being able to have certain kinds of guns. It is about the fact that, like you pointed out, the ban would be a waste and is useless, as well as the fact that - as soon as you give up a little bit of your right to something, the party taking that right will start looking for more and will take more if given the chance.
The new AWB that was introduced this year is a good example of that. It includes a very long list of rifles that have been previously classified entirely as hunting rifles. They were never assault rifles before, but all the sudden now they are.
The Second Amendment is not about protecting from just Indians or about the ability to hunt. The Second Amendment was put into place by men who thought that the people of this country should have a means to protect themselves - not only from those who would harm them, but from the government as well, if found to be tyrranical. The Second Amendment is the protector of all the other rights and freedoms we have as Americans.
Again, for me and millions of other gun owners, it is not about having as many guns as possible and being obsessive with them - we fight gun control because if we don't, later on down the road we could be completely disarmed. Then what? Look what happened in Germany after the citizens there were disarmed. Not to say that would happen here - but it is a grim example of the possibilities.
Give me a gun and I can hurt someone. Give me an assault weapon and I can hurt someone. I agree, any gun has the capability to kill. But think of it this way then, since you know more about guns than I (which is probably true). If an assault weapon is the same as I guess what you would call a normal gun, then why worry about having them restricted? If it's the same thing, then if you have a gun(s) of either type, then you have the same thing, right? This is what was posted above. And if it's the same thing, then what's the big deal about having part of it restricted?
I haven't looked at the report, and if it has no impact, then it's a waste of money and I would agree it's useless. Not knowing the report, I assume controlling assault weapons, that are just like normal weapons, wouldn't take from gun owners, and could help control the amount of guns in the market. If that is also wrong, then go back to the first sentence in the paragraph.
What I don't buy, is why people have to spaz when faced with the possibility that they won't be able to have 20 guns or whatever of whatever type they want. If, as posted above, they're all the same, then why are some ridiculous amount of them needed, and why are certain ones needed.
The right to bear arms was made in a time when there was still war and indians and such. I don't want to see that taken away, as someone who believes in the constitution, but falling back on the constitution that was designed when people were defending from Indian raids and there was only a very weak and fragile national army (which as a result required militias for defense, which in turn required people in militias to ahve their own guns) is kind of ridiculous when the only thing you're using guns for modern day is hunting, target practice, or maybe protection from a burgler (which would really only require 1 maybe 2 guns).
What modern day justification (outside of falling back onto indian war days) is there to have a large amount of guns, and the ability to get any type of gun you want?
For the same reason I don't want someone telling me what car to buy, what color paint to use, what music to listen to, etc. It's about having the freedom to live my life without others controlling it. An M1 Garand is a piece of history. My grandparents used them in war to stop the Nazis (one of my grandfathers used a Springfield 1903 back in WWI also). I've got one of my grandfather's military issued 1911 handguns, one he carried defending our freedom against the Nazis, and used quite a bit. An AR-15 is a semi-auto lookalike of our military's current weapon (the real M-16 is full-auto). People like it for that reason alone, or they like the feel or it, the ammo it uses, its looks, the way the gun operates. The Ak-47 is arguably the best designed rifle of all time, incredibly reliable and tough. Those available here are also only semi-auto. But they still offer the great reliability the actual AK-47's offer, and you can't deny their significance in modern history. There's no reason why anyone should be denied the right to make choices based on their own preferences. I don't like the AR-15 myself, I'd prefer an AK or an SKS, but I'm not forcing my opinion on another person. If someone wants a rifle with a bayonet on it who cares? My 1893 bolt-action mauser (all 4 feet and 10 pounds of it, a real bear to lug around) has a nearly 2ft long bayonet on it, makes modern bayonets look like toothpicks. I've never done anything wrong with it. If someone wants a forward pistol grip on their rifle why shouldn't they? It makes it easier for some people to handle. As for numbers of guns...some people, like myself collect them. I like older guns myself, but a lot of people want the most recent modern technology, the same as some people collect cars or tools or video game systems or whatever. I have an antique Russian Nagant revolver that's old enough so it could theoretically have been one of those used during the Russian Revolution to execute the Tsar (even if it wasn't one of those, we'll never know the exact ones used, it's a true piece of world history). I have it because of my interest in history and because it's the strangest revolver ever made.
Get my point? Killing is illegal already, it is illegal for felons or the mentally insane to own guns or even ammo. There's no reason to punish people who have done nothing to harm anyone. The original AWB had no effect on crime. The FBI tried hard to find anything that would show it did and they couldn't. Clinton himself, who was an ardent supporter of the ban, admitted it accomplished nothing. It's not unreasonable for those of us who have harmed no one, committed no crime in our lives, to ask to be left alone on this issue.
cpelp,no they are not all the same.But they are all the same depending who's hands are on them.Military type rifles tend to be more durable than hunting rifles.Military style rifles are the first choice in many competitions.They tend to be designs proven accurate and durable to alot of use.A hunter typically fires a few shots a year,target shooters fire 100's or 1000's of rounds a year.
And,the fact that ban listed a few pages back lists many that are not close to being military style guns.They are lieing about what is in the legislation to a unknowing public........is that ok?Whether you like guns or know about guns or not this fact should make you ask why are they doing that?Is it as they say they want to stop crime or is it more about they don't like guns so you shouldn't either?
Leftists.... the national guard is a leftist organization now... hmmm... and W is good for the country.... sounds like BS to me.
It was mostly out of state police officers, working under Nagin's orders (along with the NO police who didn't run off their jobs), particularly California Highway Patrol, also some from NJ. The video of the old lady having her little revolver taken, then getting tackled, was CHP officers. The National Guard was not involved in gun confiscations. There were both state laws in various states and a federal law passed prohibiting confiscation of citizens' firearms during emergencies. Mostly due to Republicans. I didn't say Bush was good for this country but I will give him credit where due.
This is one of the most hilarious threads on this site. You gun nuts sure like to get worked up over nothing. So says a guy with a few Remington shotguns and a couple of Beretta pistols. Get a grip . . .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
