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 11-08-2008, 01:40 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,379,684 times
Reputation: 971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
Do we all really need AK's?
Personally I don't like firing the AK, either the semi, nor the Auto version. The AR-16 and M-16 fires as smooth as butter. Just with I had the dough right now to get ahold of one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2008, 01:41 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,379,684 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Here is what I don't get. It seems as though some are stirring the pot about Obama taking guns away... but they seem to fall silent when under W they actually did so in New Orleans after Katrina. Where are the concerns for the blatant attack on the second amendment? For the time being an Obama attack is nothing more than speculation. I don't own a gun. nor do I want one in my home. but I was concerned when I heard about New Orleans..... as I have had many concerns with the actions of the dictator.
Bush was not the one that ordered the confiscation of guns in New Orleans, it was the governor that gave that order. It was wrong, and there are now laws on the books in Louisiana regarding such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,379,684 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repubocrat View Post
What a country of lunatics we live in. Some people are actually upset about assault weapons being banned? All we need is more AK's !!
The assault weapons ban, banned guns on looks alone, if it had two or more of a list of visual items it was deemed an assault weapon. My fathers Arisaka type 90 (Japanese WWII rifle would be considered one) yet his 9mm handgun would not. The Arisaka holds 5 rounds, and is a bolt action rifle. I would be lucky to empty the gun in less than 30 seconds, but his 9mm handgun can empty a 15 round clip in around 15 seconds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 01:56 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,379,684 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
So what was the gun that that Dad murdered his eight year old son with at the gun show? You know, where the dad just handed the kid a gun to play with....what kind was that? I heard it fired off MANY bullets. I may be wrong, I don't need to know about that crap, I have guns that no one has ever tried to take away and they fire deadly bullets.
if your talking about the kid that shot himself with the Uzi, it was at a gun show. There are people that are licensed to own full auto guns, they are far and few between, and they go through very rigorous background checks and basically have the government on there back the entire time they own such weapons. The range officer should be put in jail for letting an 8 year old handle a gun that is way to powerful for someone of that age, the father should face charges as well for neglect. Does this mean we should ban guns because of this? Hell no!

Some of these gun shows allow for people to come in and under supervision by a trained range officer fire full auto weapons. I have been to a couple of them and have fired a multitude of full autos. (Chinese built Auto AK-47, Russian PPSH, .50 cal from an old B-25, .308, amongst others that were there) It is expensive, these guns are all owned by people with the approved government papers, and from what they told me they go through hell and back to be able to own them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 01:58 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,379,684 times
Reputation: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
I thought someone just said they'd been banned since 1934????
for the general public yes they have. There are legal ways to get ahold of them, but it requires thousands of dollars, and very very extensive background checks, not to mention you basically have the government living in your house while you own it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 08:42 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 2,292,319 times
Reputation: 463
was in my local gun store yesterday picking up some stuff and the store was really really busy. More people than around Christmas time. Bullets and guns being bought up.

Well the dichotomy of this thing was I noticed several, like three folk wearing either oboma or hats or shirts buying guns. They vote for the guy yet are afraid he will ban guns, so they buy guns before he is swore in, yet they vote for the guy....................Really doenst make sense to me but then hey, I ahve seen a lot of things in my 55 years that dont make a lot of sense.............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 11:27 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,332 posts, read 26,357,163 times
Reputation: 11328
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizbin View Post
Yes, I live my 2008 life in the US based on what happend in Europe in 1938 . . .

[mod cut]
Humans haven't changed in the last 70 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 11:30 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
5,080 posts, read 9,883,133 times
Reputation: 1105
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
I've never understood the fascination some boys have w/guns...is it like that syndrome we all mention when we see dudes in their sports cars, you know the one...
Maybe you should read a History book then. Its very clear why we have a right to bare arms.. So that the people could rise up against the government if they need too.. also so they could form militias in defense of the nation.. not the President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 11:32 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,332 posts, read 26,357,163 times
Reputation: 11328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
if your talking about the kid that shot himself with the Uzi, it was at a gun show. There are people that are licensed to own full auto guns, they are far and few between, and they go through very rigorous background checks and basically have the government on there back the entire time they own such weapons. The range officer should be put in jail for letting an 8 year old handle a gun that is way to powerful for someone of that age, the father should face charges as well for neglect. Does this mean we should ban guns because of this? Hell no!

Some of these gun shows allow for people to come in and under supervision by a trained range officer fire full auto weapons. I have been to a couple of them and have fired a multitude of full autos. (Chinese built Auto AK-47, Russian PPSH, .50 cal from an old B-25, .308, amongst others that were there) It is expensive, these guns are all owned by people with the approved government papers, and from what they told me they go through hell and back to be able to own them.
Yeah, it was dumb having the kid fire a full auto handgun without an adult actually holding onto it with him to keep it under control. I fired a full auto handgun in .45acp once and I had a little trouble controlling it (and I'm a pretty big, strong person) because the recoil is so bad and your hands and wrists are taking it all. If a kid wants to fire a machine gun I'd prefer they fire a shoulder fired one. Much easier to control, much safer for the person firing it. But that's full auto. The so-called "assault weapon" ban has nothing to do with fully automatic firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 01:57 PM
 
5,906 posts, read 5,720,624 times
Reputation: 4570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhnay View Post
Maybe you should read a History book then. Its very clear why we have a right to bare arms.. So that the people could rise up against the government if they need too.. also so they could form militias in defense of the nation.. not the President.
You are entirely incorrect in your analysis of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: "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." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second - broken link)

Quote:

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
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