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.
So, putting emotions aside, which Gun laws would you support?
A Ban on Bump Stocks
A Ban on Silencers
A Ban on High Capacity Rifle Magazines (30 Rounds or more)
A Ban on All AR and Military Type Rifles
A Ban on All Semiautomatic Rifles
A Ban on All Magazines over 10 Rounds, Rifle and Handgun
A Ban on All Handguns and Rifles
A Ban on Bulk Sales of Ammunition (No more than 200 rounds per month)
Don't Care
I'd support all those bans but if they were ever enacted it would just create a black market for those particular weapons and the mass shootings will continue unabated, its seems to be the American way of life.
A Ban on High Capacity Rifle Magazines (30 Rounds or more)
A Ban on All AR and Military Type Rifles
we don't live in the jungle or are at war- if you have a NEED to fire these-- go join the military/ security forces and help the soldiers out in the trenches.
The shooter in Vegas was a multi-Millionaire, banned or not do you think honestly think he could not get one or a dozen. Then there is the sticky issue of all those "military" rifles out there, too late for those eh.
Deal will the Mental Health issue running amuck in this Nation and deal with the criminals that do not care what laws are passed, then get back to us.
The thing is, the guns this man had, were obtained legally. We aren't talking about a hypothetical and what he could have gotten illegally. He used legal guns. Just about all mass shooters used legal guns, where the criminal element who has illegal, they don't cause the same kind of noise in our media. If the criminal element with illegal guns are not an issue right now to the mainstream media, why make it a claim as to why we shouldn't ban military style guns? People don't care about the criminal element shooting up black citizens in poor neighborhoods, so we shouldn't speak on it as a reason not to do a ban.
Ultimately, people want their guns. My thing is if that's the case, why make the Vegas shooter an issue in the media? I'm tired of hearing about it if we don't want to do anything.
Last edited by Heavenese; 10-07-2017 at 09:14 AM..
I'd support all those bans but if they were ever enacted it would just create a black market for those particular weapons and the mass shootings will continue unabated, its seems to be the American way of life.
It MIGHT cause a madman to switch from a gun to a truck, plane, explosives or fire.
I support none because our government has committed Treason.. And many many other crimes..3 trillion unaccounted for and they refuse to account for it..
And is trying to divide us with propaganda, take away our cars,jobs,Give us basic Income etc..
Take away Americas Sovereignty 1776-2017
And spread Islam like they are doing in the EU.. TPP was just sneaky way to invade America like the EU..
Also they Bought the nomination and edged sanders out to instill a dictator.. premeditated ,Plotted to undermine and overthrow an American President more Treason..
WE DONT WANT POLITICS WE WANT THE MILITARY TO MOVE IN AND ARREST THEM
THE LAW IS GOOD FOR ALL OR NONE AT ALL
things will return to normal once the Military moves in..
They took an OATH to defend America from shore to shore
Come on folks, you got to be quite ridiculous to say you need an assault rifle or any military style weapon for protection. Now for me calling people this is probably going to turn a lot of people off who might be willing to listen, but I'm calling a spade a spade. If a robber came into your home in the middle of the night, a simple hand gun or hunting rifle should be more than enough to handle the job. You don't need a semi automatic to take a dude or dudette who probably don't have a weapon (a gun) themselves, out. It's crazy to think you need a highly powered rifle, just to stop one robber, or even more than one. Chances are extremely likely if you fire one shot, if the robber is still alive, they will flee. If you need a gun that fires rapidly just to ward off a robber, you are just a bad shot. You need to go back to the range.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizens' right to own arms that were on the same level as those carried by an invading army or a rogue government. It is clear in the writings of the founding fathers that this was their intent.
Also, please stop using the term assault rifle when referring to civilian owned firearms. An assault rifle is not available to the average citizen. What you are referring to is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle. Although, according to the founding fathers, we should be able to own them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
The truth is if a robber did break into a gun owner's home, one who did own many guns including high powered rifles, the owner would pick a handgun from their cache or a similar easy to handle weapon to handle the situation. They wouldn't hop out of bed and reach for their AR-15, with the bump stock attached. If they did that, they are putting more than the robber's life at risk.
Whether an AR15 would be someone's go to weapon for home defense is not the question. And if that's what they want to use in the event of a home invasion, that's their choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
The media and people who argue for these military weapons slay me when they say they need it for protection. Yet the most foolish of idiotic claims as to why people need these weapons, is the original argument behind the second amendment. The right to bear arms for the militia, to fight in the event we have a tyrannical government. Come on folks, get real. That idea was formed back in the day, when the government had pretty much the same weapons a militia would have. In fact, the militias were among the strongest fighting forces during the revolutionary war. You won't be able to fight against a tyrannical American military today with your assault rifles. Again, get real. Assuming Trump went fool and had full control over every aspect of the military, he could do whatever the frick he wanted to do. Do you have B-52 bombers in your back yard to fight against Trump? Do you have laser guided drones you bought at a gun show? Do you have naval ships, jets, stealth aircrafts, and the latest technology we don't even know about to take down Trump's army? HECK NO YOU DON"T!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being so ridiculous, it's insulting to anyone with a grain of intelligence. If Trump wanted to take away our guns right now, he has the military to do it. (Fox News always talk about communist countries taking away people's guns. As if they did it democratically)
Rogue governments do not destroy the land that they are trying to take control of. They go after the people. You also make the assumption that the entire military would take part in an action that is designed to kill American citizens. Soldiers are people, not robots. It's safe to say that in the event of a government gone rogue, a good portion of the military would either stand down or actively defend the citizens that they have sworn to protect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Ultimately what I'm saying is, there is no reason citizens should have military style weapons. You don't need them to protect yourselves against robbers. When you look at the mass shooters, they were all citizens with no criminal history. They got their guns legally, or if they were high schoolers, got their guns from their parents cache. It's a stupid argument to say bad guys (which is code speak for gang activity or drug cartels) get their hands on these guns, and that's why we need them. That's why you have the military geniuses. If gangs got that out of control in using illegal machine guns, the military arm will shut them down in a snap. In fact, if they wanted to, they could shut down all that potential activity right now. The military and the government arm are you protectors against that, not you Rambo! Also as I stated before, if you're worried about a tyrannical government, you stand no chance against that. So again, there's no good reason for citizens to have military weapons. Whether it's semi-automatic or automatic.
According to the founding fathers, there is every reason for the citizenry to have military weapons. In fact, current gun laws go directly against the intention of the founding fathers. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect the right to hunt, it was written to protect the right to self-defense. It was intended to ensure that the citizenry was well enough armed to protect themselves from a government such as the one that our founding fathers had gained independence from.
Okay doctor how many guns should private owners be limited to?
Ah, I see you had someone explain what I actually said to you, sort of. Good. But my point was about AR15 clones, not guns in general. Looking back on my post that started this line of debate, I see I did not clarify this adequately. My apologies. When I said arsenal, I meant along the lines of the Vegas shooter having a bunch of AR15 clones.
That number, of course , would be the source of much debate. For me, as someone who sees the semi auto as more of a big boy toy , that number would be fairly low. Maybe 3, and then you start to wonder at number 4. But my impression of the semi auto rifle, as an old deer hunter who has never had any trouble bringing down a deer with a bolt action , is not very high and is formed by comments like the gun shop owner who admitted that many of his AR15 clone sales are 18 yr olds buying their first gun who want a military looking weapon and experience without having to actually be in the military (actually said by the gun shop owner in an interview. I don't think he quite understood the impression his comment left), or by the ad campaign of Bushmaster imploring males to "get their man card back" , and seeing their sales increase as these guys flood to gun shops to apparently do just that. This ad campaign was scrubbed about the time of the Adam Lanza shooting, as I guess the mental image of the wide eyed little wimpy looking shooter being "manly" because he just mowed down a bunch of kindergartners with the rifle was too much for them.
But I am curious from your side of the debate. Is there any point at which you saw a friend or neighbor steadily creating an arsenal that you would think " whoa, WTF? This guy is getting a little out there.". We are talking semi auto rifles, not anything else. 10? 25? 50? 100? Is there any number that would raise a red flag to you ?
Last edited by wallflash; 10-07-2017 at 09:33 AM..
The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizens' right to own arms that were on the same level as those carried by an invading army or a rogue government. It is clear in the writings of the founding fathers that this was their intent.
Also, please stop using the term assault rifle when referring to civilian owned firearms. An assault rifle is not available to the average citizen. What you are referring to is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle. Although, according to the founding fathers, we should be able to own them.
Whether an AR15 would be someone's go to weapon for home defense is not the question. And if that's what they want to use in the event of a home invasion, that's their choice.
Rogue governments do not destroy the land that they are trying to take control of. They go after the people. You also make the assumption that the entire military would take part in an action that is designed to kill American citizens. Soldiers are people, not robots. It's safe to say that in the event of a government gone rogue, a good portion of the military would either stand down or actively defend the citizens that they have sworn to protect.
According to the founding fathers, there is every reason for the citizenry to have military weapons. In fact, current gun laws go directly against the intention of the founding fathers. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect the right to hunt, it was written to protect the right to self-defense. It was intended to ensure that the citizenry was well enough armed to protect themselves from a government such as the one that our founding fathers had gained independence from.
Speaking on the military being human and not robots, that is your militia then. They will use the military grade weapons, which would include the highest tech, to fight against the government. Why do you need highly powered rifles to fight, which wouldn't do much of anything anyway? The truth is you don't need them, but simply want to own highly powered, high ammunition guns. I'm more afraid of the scenario of rioting citizens with semi-automatic turned automatic weapons rampaging through the streets, than I am of a rouge government. Especially as a black man who knows the history of all the race riots. Imagine that, with today's weapons.
Now you say according to the founding fathers, people have a right to all military weapons. Does that include jets, stealth aircraft, and laser guided missiles?
Ah, I see you had someone explain what I actually said to you, sort of. Good. But my point was about AR15 clones, not guns in general.
That number, of course , would be the source of much debate. For me, as someone who sees the semi auto as more of a big boy toy , that number would be fairly low. Maybe 3, and then you start to wonder at number 4. But my impression of the semi auto rifle, as an old deer hunter who has never had any trouble bringing down a deer with a bolt action , is formed by comments like the gun shop owner who admitted that many of his AR15 clone sales are 18 yr olds buying their first gun who want a military looking weapon and experience without having to actually be in the military (actually said by the gun shop owner in an interview. I don't think he quite understood the impression his comment left), or by the ad campaign of Bushmaster imploring males to "get their man card back" , and seeing their sales increase as these guys flood to gun shops to apparently do just that. This ad campaign was scrubbed about the time of the Adam Lanza shooting, as I guess the mental image of the wide eyed little wimpy looking shooter being "manly" because he just mowed down a bunch of kindergartners with the rifle was too much for them.
But I am curious from your side of the debate. Is there any point at which you saw a friend or neighbor steadily creating an arsenal that you would think " whoa, WTF? This guy is getting a little out there.". We are talking semi auto rifles, not anything else. 25? 50? 100? Is there any number that would raise a red flag to you ?
Well, A and B.
A: Maybe having people getting their man card with the -15 and the current rail system is a good thing. I think the post system for marksmanship is the stupidest thing I've seen because it adds undue fatigue to the shooter. I learned the slings in JROTC or the palm rest in standing which moved to using the magazine of the -14 in the Navy. Then when I was out of the Navy, I taught myself a combat sling but still resting the rifle in my hand. Having to expend muscle energy gripping something just seems counter productive beyond belief....if one isn't on the battlefield.
B: What's too much? Well, what's the situation? There are three ready lockers in my house and then there is the vault room. The carbines in two of those ready lockers are 9mm, to be of a common caliber with the pistols they share the locker with. The ready lockers are by the doors so if a threat should be by the door, there is something there to be grabbed, to handle the situation. Those other carbines in the vault room ARE IN the vault room because they don't have such an instant need.
Further, one must consider the other thing as well. We are constantly in talk to ban or otherwise severely limit purchase the semi auto rifles. Given how that is almost always around, is it any wonder that people buy materials to keep what they have viable?
Speaking on the military being human and not robots, that is your militia then. They will use the military grade weapons, which would include the highest tech, to fight against the government. Why do you need highly powered rifles to fight, which wouldn't do much of anything anyway? The truth is you don't need them, but simply want to own highly powered, high ammunition guns. I'm more afraid of the scenario of rioting citizens with semi-automatic turned automatic weapons rampaging through the streets, than I am of a rouge government. Especially as a black man who knows the history of all the race riots. Imagine that, with today's weapons.
Now you say according to the founding fathers, people have a right to all military weapons. Does that include jets, stealth aircraft, and laser guided missiles?
If I can afford it I should be able to buy it... Not to go off topic but could I ask your position on the Electoral College?
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.
Yet the most foolish of idiotic claims as to why people need these weapons, is the original argument behind the second amendment. The right to bear arms for the militia, to fight in the event we have a tyrannical government. Come on folks, get real. That idea was formed back in the day, when the government had pretty much the same weapons a militia would have. In fact, the militias were among the strongest fighting forces during the revolutionary war. You won't be able to fight against a tyrannical American military today with your assault rifles. Again, get real. Assuming Trump went fool and had full control over every aspect of the military, he could do whatever the frick he wanted to do. Do you have B-52 bombers in your back yard to fight against Trump? Do you have laser guided drones you bought at a gun show? Do you have naval ships, jets, stealth aircrafts, and the latest technology we don't even know about to take down Trump's army? HECK NO YOU DON"T!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being so ridiculous, it's insulting to anyone with a grain of intelligence. If Trump wanted to take away our guns right now, he has the military to do it. (Fox News always talk about communist countries taking away people's guns. As if they did it democratically)
