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.
Another point is the type of firearms that may be purchased and owned by individuals. I believe the initial intent of the 2nd Amendment was to be certain that a Militia could be raised from the civilian population and that these civilians would bring their own guns and ammunition. In Colonial times it was assumed that free men owned and could carry guns. The problem was getting these guys to show up with working firearms.
The 1934 Federal Gun law was established because a few gangsters were using military weapons on each other as in the St. Valentine’s Day shootout. Private civilian ownership of fully automatic hand held and mounted fully automatic guns were legal. J. Edgar Hoover, in an unprecedented power grab used the panic over this territorial dispute to limit the type of weapons civilians, by paying a excessive tax and registration fees, could own. Included were fully automotive guns and short shotguns. The shotguns were restricted because “they has no military use” despite a long history as trench and close combat weapons in many wars.
I believe the entire 1934 Law should be repealed. As civilians can be called up for Militia duty they should have the weapons they will be forced to provide. Besides a full auto submachine gun and/or a sawed off shotgun are very effective close quarters weapons. That is why they are carried by some military units and many special police teams. I am apprehensive about the police being better armed than the civilian population. That is a perfect recipe for state terrorism and tyranny.
The National Firearm Act of 1934 was not established because of gangsters using military weapons.
The National Firearm Act of 1934 was established to keep thousands of US Treasury Agents employed after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.
1. How do we retain our rights to own guns?
2. How do we keep guns out of the hands of those who are hell bent on going on killing sprees?
I think this is the crux of the problem:
You assume that there is an answer to question #2.
Unfortunately, I do not believe there is an answer to question #2. Evil exists in the world. Always has, always will. Evil will find a way to exercise it's desires.
The best answer is to be prepared to fight evil whenever and wherever it raises it's ugly head.
Well, you stated earlier that the current laws aren't being enforced. So, let's say that we begin enforcing ALL current laws. In your opinion would that be enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I think we are, just the way we explain our opinions.
Agreed. We just explain it differently because we are different people. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
If they are laws, who is trampling on right?
That's what I'm asking. No rights are being violated, presumably, so why aren't laws being enforced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I don't have an AR, never wanted one, I hated them during my 21 years in the Army. However, if someone wants an AR for home protection, why not? Whos to say what someone is allowed to protect their family with?
I would just like for one person to explain to me why an assault rifle would be their preferred weapon of choice for home/personal/family protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
A stupid argument is not taking free speech away, a stupid argument is bringing up nuclear weapons, grenades, aircraft carriers, to prove a point....
You just said, "Who's to say what someone is allowed to protect their family with?" Why is an assault rifle the stopping point for home/personal/family protection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Yes!
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Hence the PC problem....lets stop ignoring the gang problem, do you think we would have half the killings if it were not for gangs who don't care?
Kinda like lumping all the "suicides" into gun violence, remove all those and you go down to less than 15,000 gun deaths per year.
Let's say you've just been voted in as President of the United States. Your first order of duty is to tackle the gang problem. What do you do?
Didn't I just say that I read every response? Now who's skipping or ignoring posts?
Sorry, but I can't look at a dead child, or see the grief in a parent's eyes, without having an emotional response.
If that is so, why did you say nobody had given you any valid arguments?
I never once used "it's my right", nor have many others, as the argument against expanded background checks.
I feel terrible whenever I hear about children dying. That has little to do with the subject matter since there are myriad other ways in which they die that far exceed those killed by guns.....something else that has ben brought up enough times that you should not have missed it, especially if you "read every post"
If that is so, why did you say nobody had given you any valid arguments?
I never once used "it's my right", nor have many others, as the argument against expanded background checks.
I feel terrible whenever I hear about children dying. That has little to do with the subject matter since there are myriad other ways in which they die that far exceed those killed by guns.
Liberals can not separate the fact that banning a thing does not stop the action from happening. Before guns were even an Idea Millions of humans were killed by other humans. Liberals think with pure emotion. They do not use rational thought.
You assume that there is an answer to question #2.
Unfortunately, I do not believe there is an answer to question #2. Evil exists in the world. Always has, always will. Evil will find a way to exercise it's desires.
The best answer is to be prepared to fight evil whenever and wherever it raises it's ugly head.
I disagree. There must be an answer to question #2.
Well, you stated earlier that the current laws aren't being enforced. So, let's say that we begin enforcing ALL current laws. In your opinion would that be enough? ?
When people start seeing stuff is really happening to them for breaking the law, then yes, I think would make a difference.
Right now, they (criminals) know they can break te law and get away with it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1999
Agreed. We just explain it differently because we are different people. Nothing wrong with that.?
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1999
That's what I'm asking. No rights are being violated, presumably, so why aren't laws being enforced??
Don't know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1999
I would just like for one person to explain to me why an assault rifle would be their preferred weapon of choice for home/personal/family protection.
Well, to be honest, I really don't think anyone on the right ever stated that the AR was the "only" preferred weapon of choice for home/personal/family protection, I think that is another stupid argument the left has made...to try and prove a point that does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1999
You just said, "Who's to say what someone is allowed to protect their family with?" Why is an assault rifle the stopping point for home/personal/family protection??
Well, to be honest, I really don't think anyone on the right ever stated that the AR was the "only" preferred weapon of choice for home/personal/family protection, I think that is another stupid argument the left has made...to try and prove a point that does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1999
Let's say you've just been voted in as President of the United States. Your first order of duty is to tackle the gang problem. What do you do?
It's all about money, thats the problem now, however, start cracking down on them, go in there with heavy hands, don't let them intimidate the people you are sending in. Provide them with the knowledge and the fire power to take the gangs down. It won't happen over night, maybe not in the first few years....but once gangs started to realize that holy ****....they really are starting to do something...things would start to settle down.
Oh, and implment the Germna style police (yea, gonna catch hell for this) but, if a german police tells you to do something and you don't do it....you get the **** beat outa....
Well, let's hear it.
(anybody remember how the Stepford Wives were created?That might work)
I don't know the answer. I'm asking you. Do you have any ideas? Don't say there isn't any answer. Give us some of your ideas.
What do you think MIGHT work?
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.
