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.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
As usual, when one sets up a poll they never set up to cover all the options, and yours is no different. In our case, None of the Above
DH is an active member of NRA, routinely participates in IDPA, USPSA, (aka: IPSC). I used to go to the range with him, but found shooting raises my aggression and opted against going that route. It doesn't seem to have that effect with him, but relaxes him.
Still, neither of us believe that guns should be transported anywhere but in a locked gun case, and never shot outside of a licensed gun range (indoors or outdoors).
We do not support hunting, but believe that we are culling the herds or flocks by our very existence, and no further culling is necessary.
Personally, I would be happy to have a membership range with the firearms available for check out, like a library, so you could go shoot whatever you like, and then pay for only the use and the ammo.
We don't need guns. We need an orderly, safe society free from the threat of guns, knives, and other lethal weapons. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? Of course. Then confiscate them, and make the punishment a mandatory ten years of hard-labor community service in the community where the guns were seized.
I don't have a popcorn emoticon, but I would use it here if I did...
I think the people should not be restricted,Machine guns,flame throwers,bombs including nuclear,jets if they can afford them,missiles,the right to buy icbm missile silos loaded.
Germ warfare devices? ..why not ya never know when genocide might be your only option..
Some weapons may seem a bit over the top now but heck you just never know when you might have to stand your ground big time so i guess its better to have them and not need them than visa versa...
As usual, when one sets up a poll they never set up to cover all the options, and yours is no different. In our case, None of the Above
DH is an active member of NRA, routinely participates in IDPA, USPSA, (aka: IPSC). I used to go to the range with him, but found shooting raises my aggression and opted against going that route. It doesn't seem to have that effect with him, but relaxes him.
Still, neither of us believe that guns should be transported anywhere but in a locked gun case, and never shot outside of a licensed gun range (indoors or outdoors).
We do not support hunting, but believe that we are culling the herds or flocks by our very existence, and no further culling is necessary.
Personally, I would be happy to have a membership range with the firearms available for check out, like a library, so you could go shoot whatever you like, and then pay for only the use and the ammo.
We don't need guns. We need an orderly, safe society free from the threat of guns, knives, and other lethal weapons.
And we can all hold hands, sing kumbaya, and then hug a tree. Reality check time.
By the screen name, 'LookinForMayberry', I guess we can hire Andy Griffith, Don Knotts, Jim Nabors, Ronny Howard (and then later Ken Berry) to keep us all safe. Maybe Aunt Bea can make us a pie.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? Of course. Then confiscate them, and make the punishment a mandatory ten years of hard-labor community service in the community where the guns were seized.
This is the 'Guns and Hunting' forum, primarily visited by those with an interest in those two activities. While you have a right to express your opinion, take it to the 'Politics and Controversies' forum. 'None of the above' selection was intentionally left out.
What I don't understand is that there are already laws governing the use of firearms. It's illegal to murder somebody and it doesn't make any difference if you use a tank, a granade, an automatic weapon, a semi auto weapon, a revolver, a baseball bat, or even your finger. The laws are already in place. We don't need anymore. Dead is dead.
Limiting fire power would be like putting a govenor on a car. People speed and it's illegal. But why stop the vehicle from having that capability??? If people are going to deliberately speed, we should outlaw all of the cars that can go fast.
It makes no sense to limiting weapons. If I want to take a granade and go out on the back 40 and blow up an ant hill, who are you to tell me I can't? haha
As usual, when one sets up a poll they never set up to cover all the options, and yours is no different. In our case, None of the Above
DH is an active member of NRA, routinely participates in IDPA, USPSA, (aka: IPSC). I used to go to the range with him, but found shooting raises my aggression and opted against going that route. It doesn't seem to have that effect with him, but relaxes him.
Still, neither of us believe that guns should be transported anywhere but in a locked gun case, and never shot outside of a licensed gun range (indoors or outdoors).
We do not support hunting, but believe that we are culling the herds or flocks by our very existence, and no further culling is necessary.
Personally, I would be happy to have a membership range with the firearms available for check out, like a library, so you could go shoot whatever you like, and then pay for only the use and the ammo.
We don't need guns. We need an orderly, safe society free from the threat of guns, knives, and other lethal weapons. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? Of course. Then confiscate them, and make the punishment a mandatory ten years of hard-labor community service in the community where the guns were seized.
well, I am glad we dont have alot of politicians in office that think like you do.
of course if all the Amendments had laws against them like the 2nd did, alot of people would not even recognize their god given rights.
also, if you read some of the entrance to the union charters that some of the several states have, if the feds were to make personal use of firearms illegal, then the union would have quite a few less states than the 50 they currently have.
What I don't understand is that there are already laws governing the use of firearms. It's illegal to murder somebody and it doesn't make any difference if you use a tank, a granade, an automatic weapon, a semi auto weapon, a revolver, a baseball bat, or even your finger. The laws are already in place. We don't need anymore. Dead is dead.
Actually this is a very important point that many people overlook.
The only distinction the law draws between when the use of a firearm against another person is legal, in comparison to when the use of any other deadly weapon against another person is legal, is whether it's legal to carry, or not, that firearm. If for instance someone was attacked in an alley when coming home from baseball practice, and they defended themselves with a bat, there would not be any requirement to show evidence they could legally carry that bat. Yet in the situation where someone was coming home with a firearm from the range, and they used that firearm in the same situation, then in most states (excepting VT, AK, AZ, WY), they would be required to show evidence that they were legally able to carry that firearm, and be on shaky legal grounds in a self-defense case resulting from that action.
Actually this is a very important point that many people overlook.
The only distinction the law draws between when the use of a firearm against another person is legal, in comparison to when the use of any other deadly weapon against another person is legal, is whether it's legal to carry, or not, that firearm. If for instance someone was attacked in an alley when coming home from baseball practice, and they defended themselves with a bat, there would not be any requirement to show evidence they could legally carry that bat. Yet in the situation where someone was coming home with a firearm from the range, and they used that firearm in the same situation, then in most states (excepting VT, AK, AZ, WY), they would be required to show evidence that they were legally able to carry that firearm, and be on shaky legal grounds in a self-defense case resulting from that action.
Oh come on... in upstate NY, or in NH, it is cake to get a carry permit. I even had one in MA (though I went through hell to get that one).
There is only a small handful of places I can't have a carry permit. (like DC, NYC and a few others, such as places in Kalifornia).
If you follow the rules, then you don't get in trouble. That was taught in about 3rd grade.
Back when I lived in NH, it took about 3 days, and a solid $10.
Other than that, I think that if I am a law abiding citizen, with no criminal history, and decent credit, with no parolee or convicted felon making residence where I live, I should be allowed to legally own and possess any type of firearm I want.
Oh, yes. We need to keep guns out of the hands of those with bad credit.
Do you fear they'll use a weapon to rob people to catch up on their bills?
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.
Maybe Aunt Bea can make us a pie.
