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.
It is not hard to make an argument that the average person in this nation (or most nations) should have easy access to a car provided they pass a few basic tests. So it should be with basic self-defense weapons: pistols, revolvers, shotguns, hunting rifles, tasers, pepper spray, and whatever other "less lethal" options may exist. A person without a car has almost no options for transportation, just as a person without self-defense weapons has no real options for, well, self-defense.
Until there is a Constitutional right to transportation, then you haven't made much of a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
On the flip side, it is difficult for the average citizen to make a case that he needs an: 18-wheeler, a cement mixer truck, or a military grade hummer. So it should be with higher-end weapons. The average person doesn't need a military grade rifle that's primary purpose is to throw as much lead downrange as possible. Such a weapon is a lousy choice for home defense - unless you like the idea of spraying down your neighbor's house with bullets in the process - and is the type of weapon typically used in mass shootings.
Yesterday's "military grade" rifle is today's hunting rifle. And what do you consider a "higher end" weapon? AR10? Barrett M97? Your basic AR15? And what makes the AR15 lousy for home defense. With the correct ammunition, over penetration is almost nil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
To tie this in with the car and truck example further, if a person demonstrates that they have the skill and experience to drive an 18-wheeler or similar large, non-standard vehicle that can cause a lot of damage if used incorrectly, they can still obtain one or the right to drive one, but it takes more effort than a basic motor vehicle license. Same idea should be applied to higher end firearms. If you can prove you're responsible and pass a higher level examination, go for it. But you shouldn't be able to buy such stuff at a gun show with a briefcase full of cash, no questions asked, nor do you really have a true "right" to such a weapon since it's not really a self-defense weapon.
You can't buy things like that at a gun show with no questions. Gun shows are run like any store front. Buying from an FFL requires the same procedure as if buying in a store. Buying in a face to face transaction still follows the rules of the state the transaction takes place in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
So, long story short, I'd say the nation oddly needs EASIER access and right to carry for true self-defense weapons, various firearms included, while at the same time, it should be HARDER to get weapons that are designed to "hose down an area" with bullets, which aren't really self defense weapons anyway.
Who are you to tell anyone what to use for self defense?
So, long story short, I'd say the nation oddly needs EASIER access and right to carry for true self-defense weapons, various firearms included, while at the same time, it should be DIFFICULT to get weapons that are designed to "hose down an area" with bullets, which aren't really self defense weapons anyway.
I don't think you fully grasp the intention of the second amendment. That aside, let's just forget about that and pretend it's about self defense, hunting, recreational use.
So what I'm hearing is that you think semi-automatic firearms should be illegal? It takes an expert to control the fire of a semi automatic weapon - even a lower power small caliber weapon like an AR-15. They fire once per trigger pull, and move slightly.
How do you feel about, say, a Mosin Nagant? It's a bolt action rifle designed in the 1800s, currently worth about $100-150. The round it fires, the 7.62x54r, is like a tank shell compared to the 5.56/.223 from the so called 'military style assault weapon AR-15?'
It only holds 5 rounds, and is bolt action. But It can punch through several soft targets without much resistance. It will go through a car door, plywood, and a soft target before stopping.
The 5.56, through a car, provides little penetrating power afterward.
Rate of fire, of course, is significantly lower than the AR-15.
How about your standard bolt action 7mm hunting rifle with a scope? Is the AR-15 more dangerous than that? At long ranges, the AR-15 is fairly ineffective. The 7mm, on the other hand, is deadly at hundreds of yards. In the hands of a hunter, it could rack up very high numbers before the shooter is even found.
How about a pump action shotgun? It doesn't even take skill to use, and you can fire them damn fast.
Double action revolver? You can empty the cylinder in that thing just as fast as any semi auto handgun.
What's your proposal for removing all the illegal guns, and removing all potentially violent people from society, and removing dangerous animals from the wild, and removing the potential for the united states to turn into a tyranny so that the citizens can safely disarm?
And what about your insistence of 2nd amendment rights extending to your personal pistol has prevented any of that happening so far?
You've moved closer to a tyrannical government in the last decade than ever before; you've got more dangerous people than ever before.
Your wild animal thingy is being disingenuous in the extreme as we both know we're not talking long guns here but merely those you can hide on your person. It's those pocket soothers we all know you folks drool over.
Proposals to correct the situation? There are none that would work at this late stage of the game you're doomed to regress until the lowest common denominator of you all shooting at each other in the streets causes you to re-think that 2nd amendment nonsense.
NONE of your forefathers envisioned you able to walk around with a firearm hidden from view and they certainly would not have written it that way if they thought a bunch of you would have the right of sitting in church beside any of them on a fine Sunday morning with a firearm on their person. they almost certainly did not foresee the desire anyone would have to wlak around all hours of the day armed.
Had they thought of the country they were creating in that context I believe they would have thrown up their hands and said "why the hell did we rid ourselves of British oppression if we're going to end up like that?"
And what about your insistence of 2nd amendment rights extending to your personal pistol has prevented any of that happening so far?
You've moved closer to a tyrannical government in the last decade than ever before; you've got more dangerous people than ever before.
Your wild animal thingy is being disingenuous in the extreme as we both know we're not talking long guns here but merely those you can hide on your person. It's those pocket soothers we all know you folks drool over.
Proposals to correct the situation? There are none that would work at this late stage of the game you're doomed to regress until the lowest common denominator of you all shooting at each other in the streets causes you to re-think that 2nd amendment nonsense.
NONE of your forefathers envisioned you able to walk around with a firearm hidden from view and they certainly would not have written it that way if they thought a bunch of you would have the right of sitting in church beside any of them on a fine Sunday morning with a firearm on their person. they almost certainly did not foresee the desire anyone would have to wlak around all hours of the day armed.
Had they thought of the country they were creating in that context I believe they would have thrown up their hands and said "why the hell did we rid ourselves of British oppression if we're going to end up like that?"
So what I'm hearing is, you don't really have an answer.
NONE of your forefathers envisioned you able to walk around with a firearm hidden from view and they certainly would not have written it that way if they thought a bunch of you would have the right of sitting in church beside any of them on a fine Sunday morning with a firearm on their person. they almost certainly did not foresee the desire anyone would have to wlak around all hours of the day armed.
Did our forefathers not envision progress in mechanical engineering? Although there were a lot of smaller flintlock pistols, it would take a sizable shoulder holster and not be very practical to draw and fire.
What is wrong with sitting beside someone who is concealed carrying? If you are sitting beside me, you will never know unless you cuddle up and that would be disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Had they thought of the country they were creating in that context I believe they would have thrown up their hands and said "why the hell did we rid ourselves of British oppression if we're going to end up like that?"
I counter that they would relish in the freedom of all of the Bill of Rights.
I'm still waiting on some anti gun folk to explain to me what the difference is between a child dieing in a car or dieing from a gun?
Gee you've got me there.
Like all other threads of this topic waste of time and that's really your end game. keep coming back with the inane nonsense until rational people tire of the exercise.
So what I'm hearing is, you don't really have an answer.
Nope; as long as you insist on tying your inalienable rights to an out-of-date codicil to an ancient document in completely unflexible terms there is no respite from regression.
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.
