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.
And the NRA does not give a hoot about what it professes to. It just wants to sell people guns.
The NRA doesn't sell guns.
Quote:
Guys, BOTH sides need to can it on this, it is a bunch of bull and you all know it. If you want a gun, fine. Just quit it with this "defend America" bull. YOU want it, YOU get it. Don't start making up excuses about getting something that is entertaining and makes you feel stronger.
Stop questioning people & they will stop explaining.
Quote:
If you have to make up reasons other than wanting a gun to get a gun, then maybe you are feeling a little guilty about getting one. Can the excuses, face up to your fears and figure out what's what. THEN decide on what is best for you rather than the pro and anti gun lobbies.
For some reason people want a deeper reason than because people want one. You are no exception. Whats the difference why or who influences it?
Are people who buy a sports car after reading about it in Car & driver wrong? Is the magazine wrong for publishing evaluations & pushing sponsors products?
Robert, there are better things to spend money on than devices of destruction.
I call them little mechanical engineering marvels. Extremely efficient in what they are designed to do - send a projectile in a straight line at a very high rate of speed. As far as destructive, if you cosider punching holes in paper targets, then I'm a destructive person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
I would rather people buy a nail-gun, a table saw, or shingles than an AK or ammo for it.
I've got more than my share of power tools. In fact, I'd like a bench mill so I can build my own guns. Why shingles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
When people get so paranoid about something happening that they are willing to go out and spend their money on something that would do squat against an Abrams, or think that somehow the US will descend into Anarchy that will require them to defend their land like some cheap sci-fi flik, then something is definitely wrong.
I'm more worried about natural disasters and not enough first responders. Look at New Orleans. There are dozens of stories of how entire armed neighborhoods had to keep looters away. I live in one of the deadliest areas of the country for tornado activity as well as the south end of the New Madrid fault line. My short guns are for day to day protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
I am not going into the allowing or prohibition of whatever you want to buy, but the reasons that come up make very little sense. I have no problem with someone buying a rifle for hunting, but when they get a semi-auto with a horrible record for accuracy, then what's the point other than an infusion of combative testosterone.
The 7.62x39 cartridge in an AK or SKS is very accurate at 100 yards. In fact the ballistics are very similar to the .30-30 cartridge. I haven't tried it out past 100 yards because ranges of that length are few in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
So you are allowed to get what you want, but please look at the reasons you are doing so and realize that some of them MAY be ill applied.
Also realize that SOMETIMES, "'Cuz I want to" is a valid reason. Much more-so than the fallacious "I need to defend myself" bull poop.
I've got many reasons for having a collection of EBR's and wanting more. If my budget allowed, I'd have more and larger ones. If I can ever hit the lottery, a Barrett .50 BMG would be purchased even before I replace my 14 year old car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
And the NRA does not give a hoot about what it professes to. It just wants to sell people guns.
The NRA doesn't sell guns. They do have a very nice gift shop at their headquarters in northern VA just outside of DC. They started out as a group that promoted gun safety and training. It wasn't until the 1960's when gun control laws started being passed that they became political. Did you know at one time you could order rifles from the Sears catalog and have them sent directly to your home? In a truely free country you should be able to do that.
And the NRA does not give a hoot about what it professes to. It just wants to sell people guns.
In fairness, the NRA is probably tied with AARP in terms of political effectiveness. They cross party lines and are not aligned to anything other than their political agenda of gun ownership. Unlike groups like oh....the NAACP and say certain pro-life groups that are tied to political parties and give them cash only to mainly get lip service and token gestures.
Not sure where you get the whole NRA wanting to sell guns thing.
Well now, ninjahedge, I lost my H&K 91 match grade .308 assault rifle (which I only used for government-sponsored shooting matches, BTW. As well, your lack on knowlege about the accuracy potential of assault weapons shows: I achieved second in all of Canada in the DCRA shoot-offs, at 400 yards [actually, meters, but you guys don't understand them... yet...], with a group size, ten shots, of less than 4". Iron sights. Young eyes [sigh...]; match ammo.)
This happened in good old wonderful Canada because no-one would stand up to their scocialist government. And we've already had one assault rifle ban bill in these United States, which sunsetted precisely because three bona-fide agencies (FBI, Dept of Justice, and an accredited university) could find absolutely no effectiveness in it. now, of course, the Baramanistas really REALLY want to bring it back...
Then there's the still-in-place magazine capacity limitations in California, not to mention most of those banned but now not banned guns are still, OH NO!, banned in good old CA.
My gunsmithing biz started in California 25 years ago, but I had to get the heck out precisely because of the pending and actual massive and encumbering legislation. All of which has had zero effect on gun crime as you can see.
But please, you go on assuming that nothing will change and that your firearms are quite safe.
Oh and BTW, folks, Canadian health care, held up as some sort of model of efficiency by the Baramanistas, is neither FREE nor GOOD. Frankly, having significant experience with them both, and realizing we have room for many improvements here, it still sucked big time up there. Fact.
Finally, it seems some people demonize and hate the dreaded and politically effective NRA, the way some Christians hate atheists and scientists for the truths they bring to the game. Too bad that the NRA, a tiny little "Special Interest" gun lobby group of a mere, oh, 20 million people, has managed to keep the gun-grabbers at bay, huh? I can understand their seething hatred!
People who live in the Dirty Half Dozen states -- the few that cling to the delusion of 1990's style gun control -- have my sincere sympathy.
Meanwhile , the 2nd Amendment coalition has been doing quite well-- in most states ,and at the federal level -- for more than a few years.
We are still winning. www.saf.org
www.nra.com (http://www.nra.com - broken link)
It says on the website the OP posted that the bill would require firearms to be registered and the owners to be fingerprinted and their details logged. Forgive my naïvity but where's the problem there? It's not depriving you of your precious guns, it's just helping to weed out the crackpots who will go and blast innocent people to pieces. The US has much higher homicide rates than most of the rest of the developed world and even the likes of Albania, the Phillippines, Côte D'Ivoire, Uzbekistan, Iran and Libya and it isn't exactly a secret that your society is saturated with firearms. More stringent laws regarding them won't completely guarantee that crazies won't get their hands on them but it'd make it a lot more difficult for them and that can only be a good thing.
Sounds like a waste of law enforcement resources to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happynoodleboycey
It says on the website the OP posted that the bill would require firearms to be registered and the owners to be fingerprinted and their details logged. Forgive my naïvity but where's the problem there? It's not depriving you of your precious guns, it's just helping to weed out the crackpots who will go and blast innocent people to pieces. The US has much higher homicide rates than most of the rest of the developed world and even the likes of Albania, the Phillippines, Côte D'Ivoire, Uzbekistan, Iran and Libya and it isn't exactly a secret that your society is saturated with firearms. More stringent laws regarding them won't completely guarantee that crazies won't get their hands on them but it'd make it a lot more difficult for them and that can only be a good thing.
This is the federal agency that handles gun law enforcement. www.atf.gov
Do some homework and tell us unwashed masses what's missing now.
The idea of law enforcement is to promote public safety -- not harrass people who have hobbies or interests that busybodies dislike.
ETA: There are around 435 members in the House & about 100 in the Senate.
One (1 ) member has sponsored HR 45. There are no co-sponsors.
534 to one (1).
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.
Oh Canada, glorious and free... (cough...)
