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.
Isn't that what we are all doing? Judging people based off of what they post? Either way, you would be wrong about me. I have no "fear" or ignorance when it comes to guns. My husband and I both own guns. I have ZERO problems with guns used for hunting or protection. An AR-15 is not for either. It is for people who want to show off to friends or take it to the shooting range. It has no practical use in everyday life. None.
you claim there is no practical reason to own an AR15, are you now the judge jury and executioner for who can own what? who made you god? the ruger mini 14 uses the same round as the AR15, and is used for varmint hunting, being the so called country girl you seem to claim to be, you should know all about varmnt hunting. the AR15 can be used for the same types of shooting that a mini 14 would be used for. the only reason some people hate the AR15 is because it is a "scary black rifle" that looks like the M16 assault rifle. however remove a couple of the scary looking parts and the AR15 suddenly doesnt look so scary, even to peoeple like you who claim to have grown up around guns, but seem to have little knowledge regarding them
Quote:
The fact is though, people who want to be able to own things like an AR-15, are willing to overlook school shootings to be able to continue to buy/own them. If you own one, you are in that group. If you don't, you are still in that group, since you think people should be able to ride down the street in a panzer with Uzi's and Ak's.
once again judging people based on a few sentences on an internet post. sorry but that makes you the one with the problem not me. i guess if i told you that i have built and owned race cars you would think that i would drive a flopper bodied AA/FC funny car on city streets? your judgement is in question here because you are jumping to conclusions that dont exist. once again you have absolutely no clue about who i am, all you are doing is jumping to conclusions that are completely wrong based on your own fears and hysteria.
[/quote]
The greater point, is that most normal people, would happily give up their assault rifles if it meant no more school shootings. Most normal people would be perfectly fine with more stringent background checks, and safety courses. If you aren't, then you are fine with children being killed by the weapons you want to keep. And don't try the whole, "Well he could have used a pistol or a hunting rifle!" nonsense either. We both know that they aren't capable of the same things.[/quote]
really? then you have just proven you have no clue about firearms. ANY semiautomatic rifle could be used to do the same thing, you just believe the rubbish posted in the media. and just about ANY semi auto pistol can do the same thing as well. in fact it would be easier to use a semi auto pistol since it can be easily concealed, as can the magazines. a glock 17 holds 17 rounds of ammunition in the magazine and one in the chamber, and the magazines can be changed as quickly as the ones in an AR15. top that off with the glock being easier to maneuver in confined spaces like a school hallway, and add to the fact that you can carry not only more ammunition and magazines, but more weapons as well. three glocks, or other semi auto pistols, especially ones using the same magazines, can easily be carried.
you really need an education and some time with a therapist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
You are unsurprisingly wrong. You have no RIGHT to own any nuclear material.
42 U.S. Code § 2073 - Domestic distribution of special nuclear material
These laws are persuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This section of US Federal law effectively bans the possession of nuclear weapons by civilians. Even though the law as it’s written does not mention nuclear weapons/warheads specifically. The nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons would fall under this law as controlled nuclear materials.
Also all weapons grade nuclear materials are owned by Department of Energy in the US, so even if possible to own the bomb itself, you couldn't own the fuel necessary to arm it.
Before you condescendingly talk down to another poster at least have an inclination about what you are talking about.
i agree with you ken, while classed as an "arm" a nuclear weapon comes under the proper purview of explosive, and is regulated much differently than firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
My emotions? My emotions have nothing to do with being smart enough to realize that certain weapons have no practical purpose. It takes no emotion whatsoever to realize that people who vehemently fight to keep their assault rifles don't do so for the purpose of protection, or anything of the sort. They do it so they can keep feeling like they are a bada** and so they can swing their **** around in front of their buddies. They have no other practical use, therefore there is no need for regular civilians to have them. I am a gun owner. So is my husband. We do not "fear" guns.
yes yo do fear guns, just because you have them doesnt mean you dont fear them. i dont go waving any of my guns in front of anyone else. its none of anyones business what firearms i choose to own, or build, its mine and mine alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Well, I'm not pulling up the Federalist Paper at this very moment. No matter what it says though, the post I responded to was saying he should be able to own tanks and fighter planes.... Also, I am not in ANY way saying people shouldn't be able to own guns. I own guns. There should be a limit to what a private citizen should be able to get their hands on though.
once again you are acting like you know best, and sorry but you dont. reality check here, there are people that own old fighter jets, A4 skyhawks, F4 phantons, mig15s, even mig29s and retired F16s are among the variety of fighter jets in civilian hands here in the US. there are even people that own vintage bomber aircraft, like the B17 from world war two, among others. i am sure that if i searched the net i could find more modern bombers in private hands as well. i know the confederate air force has some A6 intruders in their inventory.
the point here is that you are not the one who can tell everyone what they can and cannot own, you are not god, or any other higher power. and you do base your attitude on your fears and not reality.
Really? Shopkeepers, musicians defeating the SS? Peasants beating the Khmer Rouge? Warsaw not withstanding, this is the stuff of fantasy.
Even big-talking, red-blooded Americans would run for the hills at the first sight of an Abrams tank.
Government power is a nightmare. We accepted this for the 16th amendment. It has nothing whatever to do with gun control in any imaginable situation. In fact it's one of the NRA favorite diversions.
The Ethiopian tribes beat the Italians in WW2
The locals beat the Russians in Afghanistan.
If somebody knows what they're doing, any semi-auto weapon can be changed to fire in full-auto mode, personally, I wouldn't want a fully auto AR-15, it's a waste of ammo, but it's a personal choice and it's not up to me to tell others what they should do with their AR-15s.
Competitive matches and shooting paper targets, along with loading my own ammo, is a hobby that I enjoy, as well as hunting, I'd like to have my AR-15 for those purposes, whether or not a particular weapon has a practical use should be up to the individual gun owner to decide.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike
I don't think it's right to make a very popular rifle/caliber guilty for the criminal actions of a few individuals, as others have said, it's not the gun, it's the person and the problem is the mental health of those people who have committed those crimes.
But isn't this what we do with everything though??? Let's use cars as an example. I have an exemplary driving record. Never been in an accident, only have 1 ticket for speeding, and that was more than 10 years ago. If I go out and buy a 2018 Challenger Hellcat, my insurance is going to be outrageous. Why is that??? Because people with fast cars tend to get in more accidents and get more speeding tickets. Doesn't matter what I personally do with the car. Same could be said for health insurance. Even though my husband, for example, rarely ever goes to the Dr., and hasn't been sick in years, pays the same for insurance as I do, through my company. (I have some health issues that require frequent Dr. visits.)And yes, I am aware this isn't an apples to apples comparison, just trying to explain what I meant with the first line on this paragraph.
The same could be said for a lot of laws and other facets of life. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. But we do it with almost everything else in life, so why should gun ownership any different?
Now, we certainly agree that mental health is probably more a factor than anything else. That leads to a whole new argument. Unfortunately, most people who are adamant about gun rights, are not so adamant about people's right to healthcare. That is the main disconnect.
You're kidding yourself, Chango. People would go meekly along after a few hundred were killed. We'd be like Norwegians in 1940.
Banning AR-15s is not citizen disarmament. Shotguns, .22s, handguns aren't "fine" but they're not the weapons of choice for child killers, either.
AR-15s are.
At least lets make it harder for them. Let's not be accomplices in their murder sprees.
They would just change to another gun. Other than looks, not much difference between an AR15 and the 22 rifle I have owned since I was 8. Both have a 20 round mag, both are semi auto. One uses a .22 round, the other a .223 round.
you claim there is no practical reason to own an AR15, are you now the judge jury and executioner for who can own what? who made you god? the ruger mini 14 uses the same round as the AR15, and is used for varmint hunting, being the so called country girl you seem to claim to be, you should know all about varmnt hunting. the AR15 can be used for the same types of shooting that a mini 14 would be used for. the only reason some people hate the AR15 is because it is a "scary black rifle" that looks like the M16 assault rifle. however remove a couple of the scary looking parts and the AR15 suddenly doesnt look so scary, even to peoeple like you who claim to have grown up around guns, but seem to have little knowledge regarding them
once again judging people based on a few sentences on an internet post. sorry but that makes you the one with the problem not me. i guess if i told you that i have built and owned race cars you would think that i would drive a flopper bodied AA/FC funny car on city streets? your judgement is in question here because you are jumping to conclusions that dont exist. once again you have absolutely no clue about who i am, all you are doing is jumping to conclusions that are completely wrong based on your own fears and hysteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
really? then you have just proven you have no clue about firearms. ANY semiautomatic rifle could be used to do the same thing, you just believe the rubbish posted in the media. and just about ANY semi auto pistol can do the same thing as well. in fact it would be easier to use a semi auto pistol since it can be easily concealed, as can the magazines. a glock 17 holds 17 rounds of ammunition in the magazine and one in the chamber, and the magazines can be changed as quickly as the ones in an AR15. top that off with the glock being easier to maneuver in confined spaces like a school hallway, and add to the fact that you can carry not only more ammunition and magazines, but more weapons as well. three glocks, or other semi auto pistols, especially ones using the same magazines, can easily be carried.
you really need an education and some time with a therapist.
i agree with you ken, while classed as an "arm" a nuclear weapon comes under the proper purview of explosive, and is regulated much differently than firearms.
yes yo do fear guns, just because you have them doesnt mean you dont fear them. i dont go waving any of my guns in front of anyone else. its none of anyones business what firearms i choose to own, or build, its mine and mine alone.
once again you are acting like you know best, and sorry but you dont. reality check here, there are people that own old fighter jets, A4 skyhawks, F4 phantons, mig15s, even mig29s and retired F16s are among the variety of fighter jets in civilian hands here in the US. there are even people that own vintage bomber aircraft, like the B17 from world war two, among others. i am sure that if i searched the net i could find more modern bombers in private hands as well. i know the confederate air force has some A6 intruders in their inventory.
the point here is that you are not the one who can tell everyone what they can and cannot own, you are not god, or any other higher power. and you do base your attitude on your fears and not reality.
Most of your reply to me has been asked and answered in other posts by myself.
However, you are claiming that I am judging you based off of your posts, and that is wrong, yet you do the same thing to me?? So which is it? Can you judge people off their posts, or not?? I am typing from a cell phone most of the time, so I may not always be able to make my arguments as clear as I could if I were at a desktop, or as clear as I would like, just due to time and frustration with the autocorrect and touchy screen.
But please, continue with your irrational, foaming at the mouth "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" arguments. Just proves my point.
Last edited by ImissThe90's; 02-16-2018 at 03:45 PM..
Reason: trying to fix rbohm's terrible post editing...
Change it from a "right" to a privilege that requires significant standardized training, an national database along with rigid background checks and yearly evaluations .
Change it from a "right" to a privilege that requires significant standardized training, an national database along with rigid background checks and yearly evaluations .
"But but but... That would be taking away our ability to... to... not be inconvenienced!"
I agree with that. I don't know why a responsible gun owner wouldn't agree with it, to be quite honest. Unless they are the paranoid "They gon take our guns!" type. In that case though, they are the reason we even need such a thing to begin with...
Now if they put a bunch of fees on it, I could see an issue arising with some people. As long as it was a very small fee, or something that could be done for free, I would be all for it.
Change it from a "right" to a privilege that requires significant standardized training, an national database along with rigid background checks and yearly evaluations .
Of course you blindly trust government to not abuse that power, and make it cost prohibitive for the law abiding to own guns. What other rights do you want to give government total control over? Speech, travel? How about having to demonstrate a "need" to travel, and pay the appropriate fees, and have the appropriate papers?
No thanks. We are not East Germany because of our Constitution AS WRITTEN.
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.
