Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,612 times
Reputation: 383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weedsnake View Post
Would my fifty year old .22 long rifle caliber, semi-automatic pistol with ten round magazine be banned as a terrorist weapon?
Ruger MK1? No. The rifle version, the Ruger 10/22, yes. The reason? The people proposing the laws choose to ignore truth to push their agenda to rid the country of "assault" weapons. I guess they see the rifle version as more "scary" than a dinky little .22 pistol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:28 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,134,511 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
I thought someone just said they'd been banned since 1934????


not banned, federally regulated by the batf for tax purposes under NFA34. meaning you have to go through a complete process to buy one, and have a very large pain in the butt backround check just to buy one.


also what ucfjtn said in this post.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/6064387-post390.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,612 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by prim2007 View Post
All I want to know is why do gun threads get the most responses? We have beat every gun topic to death on this forum. Does everyone in the country truly own 2-3 guns in their homes or is it just that small middle-america, gun enthusiast hunters have a significantly larger representation on these boards.
It's not just middle-American hunters. I work on a software engineering project and at least 40% of the men I work with are legal gun owners with more than 1 at home. To put it bluntly, there aren't many country boys on our project.. more are yuppie-type liberals and independents like myself than anything else based on the office chatter of the election. However, most do NOT support stronger gun bans because they're smart enough (and logical enough) to understand that bans don't prevent criminals from using guns to commit crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,612 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpelp View Post
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.
You've been brainwashed by the gun control crowd. A semi-automatic "assault" rifle, as many in the bill are, is functionally NO DIFFERENT from a semi-automatic "hunting" rifle. This ban isn't about fully-automatic weapons (hold down the trigger to "take down many people easily"), it's about semi-automatic weapons that "look" scary. True fully-automatic "assult" weapons have been banned from civilian use for 75 years. This current "Assault" weapon ban is all in the wording.. about trying to re-define the term "assault" weapon. If you told a marine he had to use a Ruger 10/22 "assault" weapon (which is banned in the proposed bill) to fight in Afghanistan, he'd rather throw stones than use that pea shooter.

Pretty soon the gun control crowd is going to call all hunting rifles "sniper" rifles because they're designed to fire a precise high-power shot at long range to kill large animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:44 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 3,236,748 times
Reputation: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizbin View Post
360+ posts and the gun nuts are still looking very stupid around here. Don't any of you have a rational argument?? It is the hyper-pro-gun posts on this thread that let the world know that your arguments are baseless. Like the Republican party, you have to refine your message so that rational folks will potentially pay attention. In the meantime, expect to keep losing your battles . . .
Up to close to 400 posts - no change. [Mod edit]

Last edited by TnHilltopper; 11-07-2008 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:44 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,289,775 times
Reputation: 1256
This was buried in another thread, but relevant here:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/6064261-post113.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,612 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpelp View Post
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?
Because although functionally the same, a semi-auto "military" rifle and a semi-auto "hunting" rifle have a different feel and look. It's what you're comfortable using. I tried on a military's fully-automatic M4, which looks and feels like an AR-15, but an AR-15 is only semi-automatic like most legal firearms (and many hunting rifles) available. I *choose* to use it because I'm very comfortable with the feel and the way the gun shoots. I feel most accurate with it, and there are thousands of competitors across the country that feel the same way with AR-15 target shooting competitions.

If these guns are the "same thing," what's the reasoning behind adding bans on some of them? Because they look scary - that's the gun control crowd's reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpelp View Post
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?
Switzerland is a country that is known as a neutral banking power. It has NEVER been invaded. Part of the reason the Germans avoided it in WW1 and WW2 is that every household is given a rifle by the government to defend their property from invaders. It's naive to think no other country could invade our soil in the future, and millions of armed Americans with semi-automatic (1 trigger pull = 1 bullet, the current legal weapons) firearms would be a force to reckon with.

We live in a time that is just like every one in history. There will be wars and invasions, and it's only a matter of time before a country decides to take what we have. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe in the right of citizens to properly defend themselves against criminals, foreign nations, and our own government in the event of fascist control:

GUN CONTROL - What its done to the world In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


There was a real fear not too long ago of a US invasion by Russia and Cuba. Perhaps the memories of the Cold War are beyond the vision of some here, but it's a real truth that anything could happen in the future. China's population is 4-5 times larger than ours, and they've proven their technology levels are coming closer and closer to our level. If you think our 150,000 forces in Iraq are strong, China's standing army may be 100 times that level. There are also other enemies, or countries who have been growing colder to us: North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba.. it would be a very disastrous move by the government to continue to ban the ability of the population to protect the country. Current wars prove how difficult it is for a modern military to invade a country with an armed population.. Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan prove that well enough, but they had the advantage of fully-automatic weapons.. we're not asking to have those - just to keep laws as they currently are.

Last edited by ucfjtm; 11-07-2008 at 10:29 PM.. Reason: Whoops.. China population, not world.. been a long day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 09:58 PM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,289,775 times
Reputation: 1256
ucfjtm - One minor point - China's population is about four times ours. Keep up the good posts. I agree with your assessment of the dangers of gun-control.

If I was elected President, I would give every intact American family an AR-15 and a Glock or equivilant and make them learn how to use them. I'd quit funding sex ed programs and fund and teach responsible gun handling in school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 10:05 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 3,236,748 times
Reputation: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
ucfjtm - One minor point - China's population is about four times ours. Keep up the good posts. I agree with your assessment of the dangers of gun-control.

If I was elected President, I would give every intact American family an AR-15 and a Glock or equivilant and make them learn how to use them. I'd quit funding sex ed programs and fund and teach responsible gun handling in school.
Idiocy in action . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,220,612 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
Obama NEVER said he would take away your guns. Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years and we heard the same scare tactics that the scared little pathetic rabbits fell for and NO ONE ever consfiscated my guns!


But do keep buying....you're helping gun manufacturers and maybe you can help jump start the economy that gun loving Republicans put in the toilet!
Again, go ask those in California that had guns taken from them in a recent ban. It doesn't help that Pelosi is from California and she heads the House of Representatives. There are many guns listed in the new bill that were never designed for the battlefield or are "assault" weapons, so why are they included? The Remington 700 is an example. That's been exclusively a hunting rifle for decades and never used on the battlefield, but it's proposed to be banned. The Ruger 10/22 is another example. And the Remington 870 Express shotgun. There are plenty of examples of firearms included in the new bill (the one proposed in June 2008) that were NEVER designed for the battlefield or called an "assault" weapon before, but now they are being included in the "Assault Weapon Ban" of 200(9).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top