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.
We've just got to find you guys source of left-right and conservative-liberal definitions. I'll just guess it's FOX news....
Anyways, plenty of people own guns. That's wether they're liberals, conservatives, left, right, black, white, or other..Most are probably somewhere in the middle, trying to jump on one of the sides you're attempting to indicate.
I can assure you, most don't want to have their guns confiscated. Though in my opinion, they most probably should...
Nobody should have access to a semi-automatic firearm, because far too many people unexpectedly "snap" without warning. If and when they do "snap", they most certainly should not be in possession of an AR 15 assault rifle.
Few people should ever be trusted with a semi-automatic firearm in public.
I wouldn't trust Donald with one!
Why should most have their guns confiscated? Why should any law abiding citizen who has legally bought firearms and whose second amendment rights allow them the right to own a firearm have it confiscated because of the actions of someone who had mental issues? That's like trying to say that we have to ban cars because a drunk driver ran through a crowd of people.
When someone drinks and drives and has an accident, we blame the person... not the car.
When someone beats someone to death on a sidewalk with a stick, we blame the person... not the stick.
When a police officer shoots someone, we blame the officer.... not the gun.
But when a civilian has a gun and goes off the deep end, we blame guns... not the individual.
Tell me why it's different?
An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. AR stands for Armalite Rifle company, who designed the rifle. It doesn't meet any Federal classifications that would make it an assault rifle. It "looks" like an assault rifle and because it looks scary, people want to use that as the selling point that no one should be allowed to have them.
Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic and over half of the handguns sold are semi-automatic. Do you want to ban those as well? They can do just as much damage in the right hands as an AR-15. So why the agenda to go after that gun?
Again.... you are doing exactly what I said most who want them banned seem to do. You blame the gun and not the person or the circumstances that led up to that person snapping. You are looking at the effect instead of the cause. Banning guns only ensures that criminals will have them. You also ensure that the public becomes defenseless and more of these situations will occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Actually the real problem is that Americans are some of the most self-righteous and holier than thou bunch of denialists that exist. The problem is always this, that or the other thing that other people are doing. People who beat their children think that the problem is those *******s that allow their children to escape corporal punishment for misdeeds. That's just spin. The problem is guns. No one yet has killed 50 people with a knife. And no 19y.o. has (yet) made a suitcase bomb (or any bomb) capable of killing two dozen people. A bomb is a fairly complex device to make, but an AR-15 can be mastered in no time at all. Why does anyone need legal access to one?
As I said above, too many people want to avoid the responsibility of raising children to value human life. Instead you want to regulate their very existence to the point that everyone has to ask the government mother may I to cross the street.
You will never regulate guns to the point that criminals cannot obtain them. What you can do is ensure that we continue to raise more and more damaged human beings by avoiding responsibilities as good parents. Then you can turn them loose in society to become a criminal who will go find those illegal guns that the criminals didn't turn in during the confiscation and use those on defenseless citizens who did turn theirs in.
No one has killed 50 people with a knife because they have other options. As you remove one option, they will simply find others. Anything can be a weapon to a person intent on harming another. We SHOULD be focusing on what is causing people to snap in the first place and address THAT issue.... THEN maybe we can make real progress.
So hunting rifles , some shotguns and the majority of handguns. Why not just ban them all ?
Also , what makes an AR an "assault style" weapon as you put it, vs a bolt action ? Snipers use one or those, care to guess which one it is ? What exactly is the definition of "assault style" and what does it mean ?
I was real clear, a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is not a weapon that should be sold to everyone who can pass a FFL screening. There should be better vetting for people who want those kinds of weapons. An AR is an assault style weapon primarily because it has a 30 round detachable magazine. There are other features that make a weapon "assault style" but you know full well what they are.
Sigh... since I need to spell it out... in most self-defense situations, a gun is mainly useless. Why? Because in most attack scenarios the victim does not know they are under attack until it is too late. People have been killed when someone shot them from across a street! Their gun was how useful? Now some armor? Kevlar helmet? Now you are talking. In fact, I've heard that they want to arm teachers so they can be first line of defense. Fine. I'm good with that. IF you give these guys a fighting chance and issue them armor. Anything else is using them as cannon fodder. Making a pacifist Liberal educator use a Glock 9mm against a crazy intruder with an AR-15 with a bump stock just isn't right. Making them do it without even a flak jacket is probably against OSHA.
Question from a Retired Florida TA who worked through 2 REAL Lockdowns. When have you gun owners had a paper target at the Range, or had wildlife, shoot BACK at you? Now if you are a Combat Vet or retired LEO, I might listen you. Otherwise, Hell No.
For what it's worth, I have been married for 43 years to someone who thinks as you do. Lock up your guns when our kids were little, and now lock up your guns for ME. I do not want to be shot by some burglar with YOUR gun.
The 19th and 20th centuries had 100's million killed by their government's
I don't even know what countries you are talking about in that comment - where did that happen and what were the circumstances?
Your AR-15 is not going to help you fight the government, think about it for a second. You and your friends decide to take on the US government for whatever reason, cops show up and you kill them, more cops will follow but they will know what you're up to and aren't going to stand there and let you shoot them, they will appraise the situation and wait for more cops to arrive with armored vehicles and that will be the end of your war against the government.
Question from a Retired Florida TA who worked through 2 REAL Lockdowns. When have you gun owners had a paper target at the Range, or had wildlife, shoot BACK at you? Now if you are a Combat Vet or retired LEO, I might listen you. Otherwise, Hell No.
For what it's worth, I have been married for 43 years to someone who thinks as you do. Lock up your guns when our kids were little, and now lock up your guns for ME. I do not want to be shot by some burglar with YOUR gun.
Let's see, if I am doing a combat drill, it is no more than two seconds in firing position; otherwise, I'm down under cover. I am covering the other targets on the range. My head is on a constant swivel and not fixated on my one paper man.
Back in the late Cold War when I was doing a laser simulation of being point for a drug boat boarding, at the end of the many corridors, I did get off the first shot at the opposing force, hit him center of mass.
UNFORTUNATELY, the panel he had in front of him was rated as armored and I lost.
So while it may not have been lead flying my way, some of us do train on this issue very seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I don't even know what countries you are talking about in that comment - where did that happen and what were the circumstances?
Your AR-15 is not going to help you fight the government, think about it for a second. You and your friends decide to take on the US government for whatever reason, cops show up and you kill them, more cops will follow but they will know what you're up to and aren't going to stand there and let you shoot them, they will appraise the situation and wait for more cops to arrive with armored vehicles and that will be the end of your war against the government.
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees as a slave."
You probably won't win but you will make the price of their victory very costly.
I was real clear, a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is not a weapon that should be sold to everyone who can pass a FFL screening. There should be better vetting for people who want those kinds of weapons. An AR is an assault style weapon primarily because it has a 30 round detachable magazine. There are other features that make a weapon "assault style" but you know full well what they are.
So, is that all you want to "ban"? How about 30-round pistol magazines? Would that be an "assault style" pistol. We're confused.
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.
