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.
If it gets banned of course it gets taken, that's the point of banning it. If it gets registered it doesn't follow it will immediately be banned. Non sequitur points.
Very true, and taking a pretty significant chunk out of the civilian populace at the same time. They are not overthrowing anything either, they are not leading people to a wonderful tomorrow, they are simply killing anyone they don't like. Attrition of the populace doesn't help to govern it later.
It's an infeasible goal to want to register and have unique identifiers, but it's what I would like...so what it's infeasible now. Firing pins and registrations are the only thing on now that might work, anyone determined to do anything will defeat the a reasonable system.
Either way, they are weapons almost exclusively used used to take down people...the more the merrier in a medium range situation. If I was in that situation it's the first thing I would grab. If I had a home where anything was 175 yards away I would first give thanks (because I'm rich as heck), and get one. For homes of the non jet set a shotgun is perfect range for self defense, if I was hunting....that's a different matter. I don't want to ban them myself, I like them, but I want to know who the heck has what and if they misbehave to get 'em.
I really doubt there would be much hope to really overthrow a military with the tanks, artillery, and planes with a band of hunters with assault rifles.
it started with registering, went on to banning certain weapons, and now its going further, all handguns are banned, and they are working on restricting the use of hunting rifles. This all started with mandatory registrations.
If it gets banned of course it gets taken, that's the point of banning it. If it gets registered it doesn't follow it will immediately be banned. Non sequitur points.
Very true, and taking a pretty significant chunk out of the civilian populace at the same time. They are not overthrowing anything either, they are not leading people to a wonderful tomorrow, they are simply killing anyone they don't like. Attrition of the populace doesn't help to govern it later.
It's an infeasible goal to want to register and have unique identifiers, but it's what I would like...so what it's infeasible now. Firing pins and registrations are the only thing on now that might work, anyone determined to do anything will defeat the a reasonable system.
Either way, they are weapons almost exclusively used used to take down people...the more the merrier in a medium range situation. If I was in that situation it's the first thing I would grab. If I had a home where anything was 175 yards away I would first give thanks (because I'm rich as heck), and get one. For homes of the non jet set a shotgun is perfect range for self defense, if I was hunting....that's a different matter. I don't want to ban them myself, I like them, but I want to know who the heck has what and if they misbehave to get 'em.
I really doubt there would be much hope to really overthrow a military with the tanks, artillery, and planes with a band of hunters with assault rifles.
go to youtube, if they have not been removed there are several videos of our tanks (most notably the strongest tank in the world) getting destroyed by explosives made well.... by a non-military source. Just because it is made by a government, designed for destruction does not mean it cannot be destroyed by something simple and made by citizens
No;I think that the last supreme court decison will free up alot of the laws and not too many are really interested these days in restriction. Restrictions are usually enacted in tiomes of when more important basics are not the prime focus.
If it gets banned of course it gets taken, that's the point of banning it. If it gets registered it doesn't follow it will immediately be banned. Non sequitur points.
Comeon now, you must understand how registration will facillitate confiscation. Can you point to one country that has enacted registration & never used it as a means to enable confiscation later? The thought that IMMEDIATE banning might not happen is little comfort. I want my great grandchildren to shoot my guns & whatever new fangled guns they have by then if they so choose.
Quote:
Very true, and taking a pretty significant chunk out of the civilian populace at the same time. They are not overthrowing anything either, they are not leading people to a wonderful tomorrow, they are simply killing anyone they don't like. Attrition of the populace doesn't help to govern it later.
The fact that in the Middle east they dont fight to restore order is irrelevant. Whats relevant is that they can sucessfully fight a trained military.
Not sure of your point, I certainly put Obama & Clinton in the same bucket. Theres a difference between regulating & registering. At least the gun control acts of 1934 & 68 were in response to reality. In the 30's automatic weapons were really used in crimes frequently by organized crime. While I dont support the law its a logical one. The 68 legislation was in response to Kenedy getting shot with a mail order gun, again, I dont like the law, but it was a logical way one. I'm certain Oswald would still have got a gun to kill JFK & I'm certain Al Capone did not give one stinky fart about them outlawing his tommy guns.
Clinton started, or allowed to be started, the assault weapons ban, not based on reality, but based on the fantasy of what people could do, instead of what they were doing, which was almost universally useing the guns in a responsible manner. Bush didn't continue it, although he said he would if it crossed his desk. It never did because crime neither went down when it was passed nor skyrocketed when it sunset, congress for the most part knew that, thats why its gone.
Quote:
It's an infeasible goal to want to register and have unique identifiers, but it's what I would like...so what it's infeasible now. Firing pins and registrations are the only thing on now that might work, anyone determined to do anything will defeat the a reasonable system.
Why push for fantasy?
Quote:
Either way, they are weapons almost exclusively used used to take down people...the more the merrier in a medium range situation. If I was in that situation it's the first thing I would grab. If I had a home where anything was 175 yards away I would first give thanks (because I'm rich as heck), and get one. For homes of the non jet set a shotgun is perfect range for self defense, if I was hunting....that's a different matter. I don't want to ban them myself, I like them, but I want to know who the heck has what and if they misbehave to get 'em.
What you want is to tell others what they need or dont need. Time & time again its stated that most people who own these fake assault weapons own them for sport not for personal protection. 175 yards away you are in much greater danger from bolt action deer rifles than assault weapons.
Let people decide what they need for themselves. If they break the law lock them up. If they dont break the law, how many & what kind of guns they have just aint your business.
Quote:
I really doubt there would be much hope to really overthrow a military with the tanks, artillery, and planes with a band of hunters with assault rifles.
Thats because you are being intentionally shallow. You assume most gun owners are hunters. Most people I know that shoor AR's & AK's dont hunt. They shoot, many are police & military, both current & retired.
It will never be tanks & planes against hunters. If it ever does come to our govt ordering the military to take on the civilian population you should expect mass desertion once the reality sets in. Alot of people will die but I doubt very much our brothers & sisters, cousins, friends, parents, aunts & uncles will just blindly obey orders to devistate the US.
Comeon now, you must understand how registration will facillitate confiscation. Can you point to one country that has enacted registration & never used it as a means to enable confiscation later? The thought that IMMEDIATE banning might not happen is little comfort. I want my great grandchildren to shoot my guns & whatever new fangled guns they have by then if they so choose.
But it doesn't mean so, what you are saying is if I had a car...I register it it will be confiscated.....it has not happened in practice but it must be so because people know I have one. Because one can doesn't mean one must.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
The fact that in the Middle east they dont fight to restore order is irrelevant. Whats relevant is that they can sucessfully fight a trained military.
True, but I doubt Americans will kill civilians to achieve a point or to achieve a goal. I think without fighting for an end, fighting is irrelevant. But I am rational, and I am a coward...I want to live to see the end of the fighting and rather control it then be a mayrter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Not sure of your point, I certainly put Obama & Clinton in the same bucket. Theres a difference between regulating & registering. At least the gun control acts of 1934 & 68 were in response to reality. In the 30's automatic weapons were really used in crimes frequently by organized crime. While I dont support the law its a logical one. The 68 legislation was in response to Kenedy getting shot with a mail order gun, again, I dont like the law, but it was a logical way one. I'm certain Oswald would still have got a gun to kill JFK & I'm certain Al Capone did not give one stinky fart about them outlawing his tommy guns.
Clinton started, or allowed to be started, the assault weapons ban, not based on reality, but based on the fantasy of what people could do, instead of what they were doing, which was almost universally useing the guns in a responsible manner. Bush didn't continue it, although he said he would if it crossed his desk. It never did because crime neither went down when it was passed nor skyrocketed when it sunset, congress for the most part knew that, thats why its gone.
Because blame is a shared thing, I like Obama myself...and blaming him for things that he didn't start is pretty silly. I am all for weapons, I think if some one starts something that can only be finished with violence you shoot him in the face. I think guns are used by responsible and smart people most of the time, the problem is the small percentage when they aren't.
I push a hope that people who misues weapons get punished and those who don't have no issue. I don't see a reason for assualt weapons, but doesn't mean they should be outlawed. If senators outlaw something 98 to 0 then there is something up, they vote along the lines as people who vote them in. Yes, they have been curtailed in recent years...but me...I'm not the one who should be convinced. I don't blindly obey, but being a non assault rifle member of the US I don't see an issue...the slipperly slope obviously needs to be re interated to the congress people.
I hate authority, but if senators are voting near 100% then gun issues limiting assault weapons are a majority...and if I have to deal with a majority so do second amendment junkies.
But it doesn't mean so, what you are saying is if I had a car...I register it it will be confiscated.....it has not happened in practice but it must be so because people know I have one. Because one can doesn't mean one must.
True, but I doubt Americans will kill civilians to achieve a point or to achieve a goal. I think without fighting for an end, fighting is irrelevant. But I am rational, and I am a coward...I want to live to see the end of the fighting and rather control it then be a mayrter.
Because blame is a shared thing, I like Obama myself...and blaming him for things that he didn't start is pretty silly. I am all for weapons, I think if some one starts something that can only be finished with violence you shoot him in the face. I think guns are used by responsible and smart people most of the time, the problem is the small percentage when they aren't.
I push a hope that people who misues weapons get punished and those who don't have no issue. I don't see a reason for assualt weapons, but doesn't mean they should be outlawed. If senators outlaw something 98 to 0 then there is something up, they vote along the lines as people who vote them in. Yes, they have been curtailed in recent years...but me...I'm not the one who should be convinced. I don't blindly obey, but being a non assault rifle member of the US I don't see an issue...the slipperly slope obviously needs to be re interated to the congress people.
I hate authority, but if senators are voting near 100% then gun issues limiting assault weapons are a majority...and if I have to deal with a majority so do second amendment junkies.
In the first place your comparison of registering cars in relation to the Second Ammendment is apples and oranges. Owning a car is a PRIVILEDGE owning firearms is a RIGHT. Second Ammendment junkies? Ok. Whatever. If you do not wish to exercise the rights given us under that ammendment then, don't. Just don't expect that everyone else out there is going to feel the same. I have 20 firearms in my posession. Four of them are semi auto versions of military rifles. It won't matter a whit if congress and the new president ban these weapons. I won't turn them in and the folks I know who also own weapons such as this won't run down and turn theirs in either. California tryed this and the results were as I just described. All it accomplished was to make criminals out of honest citizens. The only way a ban such as this could be enforced is by kicking in doors. Would you support that. Simply because you, personally, don't like guns and hold gun owners in contempt? .
In the first place your comparison of registering cars in relation to the Second Ammendment is apples and oranges. Owning a car is a PRIVILEDGE owning firearms is a RIGHT. Second Ammendment junkies? Ok. Whatever. If you do not wish to exercise the rights given us under that ammendment then, don't. Just don't expect that everyone else out there is going to feel the same. I have 20 firearms in my posession. Four of them are semi auto versions of military rifles. It won't matter a whit if congress and the new president ban these weapons. I won't turn them in and the folks I know who also own weapons such as this won't run down and turn theirs in either. California tryed this and the results were as I just described. All it accomplished was to make criminals out of honest citizens. The only way a ban such as this could be enforced is by kicking in doors. Would you support that. Simply because you, personally, don't like guns and hold gun owners in contempt? .
*Sigh* because I think there should be registration doesn't mean I think kicking in doors is appropriate. If I don't believe in you doesn't mean I hold all gun owners in contempt....that is a ludicrous statement because I don't agree with you completely I don't like guns. I do like guns, I am looking for time to practice more from work and family life. Making an enemy for not agreeing 100% is stupid, no discussion and no debate is completely un-American in my point of view...the country was founded on a sea of debate and compromise.
If you think if I am not with you 100% I am against you....well go take a flying leap. I'm not interested in debate to with people who think it's 100% or nothing, the only thing about them is they are extremists....if you can't compromise you might as well ignore them.
I say second amendment junkies because it's almost never when I have found a rational debate difficult with some one who whole heartily subscribes to it, and I have had many friends who do. It's 100% or nothing, which is really disappointing.
*Sigh* because I think there should be registration doesn't mean I think kicking in doors is appropriate. If I don't believe in you doesn't mean I hold all gun owners in contempt....that is a ludicrous statement because I don't agree with you completely I don't like guns. I do like guns, I am looking for time to practice more from work and family life. Making an enemy for not agreeing 100% is stupid, no discussion and no debate is completely un-American in my point of view...the country was founded on a sea of debate and compromise.
If you think if I am not with you 100% I am against you....well go take a flying leap. I'm not interested in debate to with people who think it's 100% or nothing, the only thing about them is they are extremists....if you can't compromise you might as well ignore them.
I say second amendment junkies because it's almost never when I have found a rational debate difficult with some one who whole heartily subscribes to it, and I have had many friends who do. It's 100% or nothing, which is really disappointing.
Sorry Bubba but - when a gun is pointed at a loved ones head - turning the other cheek, or remembering Ghandi is not going to help or saved that loved one
Fast, decisive action will.
well said, avoidance does not in fact resolve all issues.
Can you yell anything you want? "Fire" in a crowded theater? "I'm going to blow up XYZ" to anyone? Freedom of speech is limited from clear and present danger, fighting words, and obscenity...and I don't see anyone fighting that. Education for Freedom Lesson 4
Then compromise on 1 right/amendment mean any different things then compromise on others? No compromise on the 2nd amendment but compromise on others (as the supreme court has ruled)? Why is it okay to compromise on others but not on this?
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.
. If you do not wish to exercise the rights given us under that ammendment then, don't. Just don't expect that everyone else out there is going to feel the same. I have 20 firearms in my posession. Four of them are semi auto versions of military rifles. It won't matter a whit if congress and the new president ban these weapons. I won't turn them in and the folks I know who also own weapons such as this won't run down and turn theirs in either. California tryed this and the results were as I just described. All it accomplished was to make criminals out of honest citizens. The only way a ban such as this could be enforced is by kicking in doors. Would you support that. Simply because you, personally, don't like guns and hold gun owners in contempt? 
.
