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.
To answer the OP's question, I'm not a gun owner, but my ex-Marine older cousin tore up his NRA membership card and mailed it back to them because he disagreed with their position on semi-automatic weapons.
To answer the OP's question, I'm not a gun owner, but my ex-Marine older cousin tore up his NRA membership card and mailed it back to them because he disagreed with their position on semi-automatic weapons.
Regarding the anti NRA comments. Funny how one side hates the NRA for getting in the way of gun control and how one side hates the NRA for compromising with gun control.
To answer the OP's question, I'm not a gun owner, but my ex-Marine older cousin tore up his NRA membership card and mailed it back to them because he disagreed with their position on semi-automatic weapons.
I assume he boycotts sporting clays since so many of them use semi-automatic shotguns.
Oh please, some people don't believe we landed on the moon either. It doesn't make them vile because they don't believe what happened in history. That's especially prominent with religion.
Say that to the face of the people who lost their 6 and 7 year olds. You better have your gun cocked and ready then. I know what I would do to somebody who said that my child didn't actually exist and it was all a hoax to take away their guns.
Great. Now we have to take everybody with a serious mental illness to court? Guy is talking to invisible people and thinks that the neighbors have bugged his house, but unless someone takes him to
Court, he can go buy himself a small arsenal?
Fantastic. And this is why they call people with these far-right opinions " gun nuts" because there is zero logic in this.
Yes, it's called following the law (something liberals are infamous for NOT doing). Guilty until proven innocent, is that how you want things? Because that's EXACTLY what you're proposing. Who are YOU to decide someone is "crazy enough" without going to court, calling in real experts (not you), having evaluations done?
And you thinking that is a good idea is why people know ignorant left wing anti gun nuts have no grasp on logic or reality.
But more to the point I support the idea that some guns should not be sold.
* Not on shelves.
* Not at gun shows.
* Not sold under any circumstances except to law enforcement agencies.
I am a gun owner (Ruger Blackhawk), a Viet Nam veteran ('68 Tet Offensive), a Republican who has never voted for a Democrat, a movie-goer who thoroughly enjoyed John Wick, and I support a federal restriction on the types of firearms sold in America.
The federal government should enact the ban - not the states. The ban would include almost all semi-automatic firearms.
I have no hope that my particular vision will ever be enacted, but it is what I would prefer.
A modern double-action revolver is semi-auto, and they never jam. A trained combat shooter can almost always do better with a revolver over a pistol. I hope you are ready to give up your hand canon.
This is a tough one for me. I am a gun owner, and a passionate proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I'm also a bleeding heart liberal, and I believe that gun ownership by private citizens is a cornerstone of true liberalism.
I am also a passionate Constitutionalist. I believe that the greatest challenge to our system of government is finding the proper interpretation of the Constitution in issues where it is not clear - but that on issues where the wording is clear, then it is what it is. No interpretation necessary. Do what Mr. Madison told us to do, and that's that.
To me, the 2nd Amendment is somewhat ambiguous because of the cumbersome way it was phrased, but - in my mind, the controlling phrase may very well be "shall not be infringed". They seemed pretty clear about that part of it, and if they were going to the trouble to make sure we got that one right, then it must have been pretty important to them. The fact that this was the second of ten guarantees also says a lot to me about how important this question was in their vision for our country.
I am still somewhat torn on this. On the one hand, there is a part of me that believes "shall not be infringed" could easily and legitimately be interpreted as "anyone who wants a gun can own whatever gun they like anytime they like," but - at the same time - I also believe it's utter lunacy to allow a mentally ill, drug addicted, convicted murderer and armed robber to walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 with a conversion kit. I recognize that a line has to be drawn somewhere in between those two points, but... where, exactly?
I honestly do not know. I'm open to being persuaded by arguments from either side, but I think that my basic position is that our modern society does need more stringent controls on people with mental health issues and criminal history buying and owning firearms. I would not go so far as to say that our laws are "ridiculously lax", but I do believe that it would be a reasonable compromise to tighten them up a bit in some areas.
As personal defense is the paramount consideration I think we should start by eliminating the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and then get rid of the rest on Federal, State and Local levels.
IMHO the decision to own and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL decision as is deciding when to use the weapon. Some uses are justified and some are not. Courts will decide.
well said greg, very well said.
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.