U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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 08-22-2009, 11:28 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Here = Arizona

New York - No open carry law

Arizona - Open carry law
You stated...

"While you might not agree with the carrying of firearms - it is fairly standard fare here."

I replied with...

"Scuze me, but I HAVE a C&C, in New York State no less
..."

... illustrating that you are, in fact, wrong, as I do in fact agree with carrying of firearms.

I must assume, since you have argued against my posts for much of this thread (even on points we agree on), that you have incorrectly labelled me as some "liberal anti-gun" type of person.

I am attempting to correct that mistake on your part.

I had not imagined that I would have to take your mental hand and lead you to the proper conclusion.

 
Old 08-23-2009, 12:59 AM
 
141 posts, read 254,149 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by rarch View Post
Would a gun free USA be possible for the USA or just a ideal of pacifists, and religous types or would this mark the US becoming a moral and decent society if this were to occur
1) criminals will never give up their guns
2) hunters shouldnt be punished for their hobbie
3) not as long as the rest of the world is filled with ****
 
Old 08-23-2009, 01:11 AM
 
141 posts, read 254,149 times
Reputation: 77
not to mention how judgmental and offensive is it to say we would become decent? that implies guns are unto themselves indecent.

no guns in england is that a more "decent" country???

what is decency anyway?
 
Old 08-23-2009, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Northeast Alabama
95 posts, read 147,462 times
Reputation: 57
decency:behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality and respectability... in other words it was the wrong word to use.
Guns aren't a moral issue... the only issue with them that would be close to that is when immoral people use them to hurt others. Taking them away would be lacking respect to those good people who don't hurt anybody by owning a gun.
Yes, sometimes in home accidents occur, but if the proper precautions are taken, and the gun is stored safely, those instances can be avoided.
I have heard the rage argument over and over again... if somebody has such anger issues that they would shoot their spouse over a fight, they either don't need to own the gun, or have that particular person as a spouse IMO.

BTW... Religious people go hunting too. There are several that I know who say the day guns are outlawed will be the day they become criminals.
 
Old 08-23-2009, 01:41 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
That's exactly what happens. Do you think you and I can just form a faith, and then get the tax-free status and protection from government intrusion? No. A religion has to be one pre-selected as being OK.

Thats simply untrue. To FORM a religion of your own & get tax free status there are many things you need to do.

But if you want to pray to doorknobs & worship toilets you are free to do so.

If I wish to join a police force or military organization I'd be required to conform to their dogma.

As an American citizen however I am free to own & shoot the firearms of my choosing.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:05 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,898,841 times
Reputation: 12285
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Firstly, I am a gun owner myself, mostly Civil War repros having been a Civil War Living Historian for a time, but I own some modern weapondry as well. Apperently, in pointing out to the Rabid Righties on this thread basic US Law and Constitutional Principles, some people have decided I am a lefty and anti-gun proponent.

Secondly, the first paragraph above I have already mentioned somewhere in this thread.

Lastly, while I agree with most of your post above, there are plenty of light weight rifles, including those designed for elders and women, that would suffice. Assault style weapons are really a non-issue in my book.
"Assault style" weapons. hmmm, 'Any light weight rifle will suffice'? Again hmm. I must disagree. I own several of these types of weapons. Yes, I need them. I use them primarily for service rifle competition and in combat matches as well. No other 'light weight rifle' will suffice. I suppose I could try and use my Marlin 94 at Camp Perry, though my chances of a decent score would be ...slightly diminished. "Need' is a rather relative term, don't you think? Need is an individual decision for individual reasons. Barring ownership of service style semi autos takes that individual decision out of the equation and into the realm of oppression IMHO, based on nothing more than cosmetics of a particular firearm. Cosmetics which do nothing other than lend said firearm a certain appearance and possibly some ergonomic advantages. I can't get behind denying citizens access to a whole class of legitimatly useful firearms based on how a certain group of people feel about how these firearms look. LMAO, I guess for non military and non LE folks, they could create a new 'relic and curio' class for Camp Perry, and make us all fire 03 A3's or something. But maybe I've said to much there. Don't want to give anyone any more silly ideas.
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:15 PM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,504 times
Reputation: 345
there can be no progress as long as the left believe there is absolutely any reason to own a gun including
hunting, competition, defense, collecting
 
Old 08-24-2009, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Northeast Alabama
95 posts, read 147,462 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcinsov View Post
there can be no progress as long as the left believe there is absolutely any reason to own a gun including
hunting, competition, defense, collecting
You think the "left" are the only ones who own/want to keep guns?
 
Old 08-24-2009, 02:28 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
"Assault style" weapons. hmmm, 'Any light weight rifle will suffice'? Again hmm. I must disagree. I own several of these types of weapons. Yes, I need them. I use them primarily for service rifle competition and in combat matches as well. No other 'light weight rifle' will suffice. I suppose I could try and use my Marlin 94 at Camp Perry, though my chances of a decent score would be ...slightly diminished. "Need' is a rather relative term, don't you think? Need is an individual decision for individual reasons. Barring ownership of service style semi autos takes that individual decision out of the equation and into the realm of oppression IMHO, based on nothing more than cosmetics of a particular firearm. Cosmetics which do nothing other than lend said firearm a certain appearance and possibly some ergonomic advantages. I can't get behind denying citizens access to a whole class of legitimatly useful firearms based on how a certain group of people feel about how these firearms look. LMAO, I guess for non military and non LE folks, they could create a new 'relic and curio' class for Camp Perry, and make us all fire 03 A3's or something. But maybe I've said to much there. Don't want to give anyone any more silly ideas.
So, what did you guys do while assualt style weapons were banned?
 
Old 08-24-2009, 04:17 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,898,841 times
Reputation: 12285
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
So, what did you guys do while assualt style weapons were banned?
"You guys"? By that I guess you mean service rifle competitors? Many of us had or rifles long before the ban, and the 'ban' just halted imports from outfits like HK , Steyr, Norinco, FN and such. New shooters had to look to the used market for pre ban style US manufactured rifles on the AR platform, for the most part all that really changed on the AR's was the removal of the 'evil' flash hiders and bayonet lugs and there was a short trend of puting goofy thumbhole stocks on some of them and changing the name from AR 15 to 'Sporter' and other such sillyness. Crime stats did not change a whit from any of this. The 'ban' was just a knee jerk reaction to a non existant problem. What is being discussed now, re instating this 'ban', with new provisions and many more types of rifles, would make my life miserable. Everything I have in service rifle trim would be considered evil and insidious by rote, simply because of silly little appurtenances like muzzle brakes, detachable mags that hold more than ten rounds (is ten some kind of magic number that makes the rifle less 'evil'?) and , horror of horrors, a bayonet lug that will never see use for it's intended purpose. Oh , and lets not forget about that pistol grip, the single most malicious item on the weapon. It lends the rifle that 'machine gun' look and just scares the bejesus out of people.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top