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.
First, I do not hunt and the Second Amendment CLEARLY has NOTHING to do with hunting.
All my firearms training is related to my military wartime service and my law enforcement career, which is why “I” prefer modern sporting arms that are semi-automatic, like the AR series of rifles and semi-automatic pistols. They are very user friendly, reliable and very durable, WHICH is my reason for my preference for them, over a bolt action rifle, a shotgun or a 5-6 shot revolver.
Plus, the .223 caliber bullet that the AR fires are NOT as powerful as say a 30-06 Springfield bullet, which is a common hunting caliber, that has a far greater chance of over penetrating through the criminal and hitting an innocent person in an urban environment, which I live in, than a .223 fired from an AR.
I would rate myself as a slightly better than a average shooter, due to my training, but in a high stress and critical situation having a firearm that is semi-automatic only increases your chances of survival, especially against two or more attackers that are moving. Plus, people, who’s only knowledge of firearms is from the movies and TV do not understand that bullets don’t “blow you away,” they just punch holes in you and if you do not hit a vital organ within the first or second shot, there is a very good chance that your attacker(s) can still carry out an murderous attack on you and others... Even after being shot over 10 plus times... Please research this for the actual stats, which is a proven fact in numerous situations. Especially if your attacker is high, crazy or whatever. Even being hit several times, they can still fight on and kill you after you put those 10 or more rounds in him.
Yes, after being shot that many times, the person will most likely die, but not after inflicting more harm onto innocent people... Before being remanded to a “higher court” for judgement.
...It’s a false believe, from the movies and TV, that people will stop their criminal attacks, if shot once in the arm or leg... That’s pure BS. Yes, some will, but many more will not and in a gun fight, “I” WANT every advantage so I might survive this deadly encounter and having a semi-automatic firearm with with more than 6-10 rounds slides all or most of the advantage towards me.
Plus, not too many people can hit a moving man size target in the arms or legs.
FYI, I use to carry a revolver as a law enforcement officer when I first started that career. Reloading a standard 6 shot revolver is far more difficult than reloading a semi-automatic pistol for the average person with little to no real training. Especially in a life or death fight where you are under severe stress. Unless you are highly trained in reloading a revolver or bolt action rifle where it’s burnt into your “muscle memory,” in a stressful situation, you will most likely fail since most humans tend to loose most of their fine motor skills in a high stress situation, which again, is a proven fact, which I’ve seen several times before in my careers.
By stating the above, that is why “I,” as a law abiding citizen of the United States, prefer both a semi-automatic pistol and rifle/carbine over a revolver or a bolt action rifle. Plus, most law abiding citizen are not as highly trained as our military and law enforcement to fight and survive, so in any possible fight for their’s and their loved one’s lives, semi-automatic firearms gives them the advantage or at least an equal footing with a criminal.
Also, semi-automatic firearms gives both a female and/or a small statured male the advantage or acts as an equalizer in a fight against a much bigger AND stronger person(s).
I’m leaving out the pump action shotgun since many females have great difficulties with that type of firearm since it has a pretty “stiff” recoil for a small statured person AND required a lot of training on how to load it, chamber a round and manually re-chamber another round, after firing the first round automatically without stopping to think about “what do I do next to make this thing fire again!! That will get you killed, if you have to stop and think... Not a good thing... Trust me on that!!
Plus, a 1oz slug shot from a shotgun will go through several people, doors and walls before stopping... Not a good thing in an urban area. As for double odd buckshot, which contains 8 or 9 .32 caliber pellets and if you do not get a good center-mass hit on a human sized target, most, if not all of those .32 caliber pellets could possibly miss the criminal and hit an innocent person.
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for over 25 years and not being sexist, but many and yes, not all females, but many simply have issues AND fears with a common 12 gage pump-action shotgun’s recoil... Like the Remington 870... I love the shotgun, but I’m also 6 foot tall and 250lbs.
FYI, the shotgun is starting to be replaced in many law enforcement agencies with AR series of rifles and carbines... For all of the above reasons, which IMHO, is a mistake.
In the United States and currently, the two most popular calibers are .223 Remington and the 9x19mm. Both of these calibers are basically mid-range performance calibers. To be honest, I would be far more worried if I was hit with say a .357 or .44 Magnum round that are commonly fired from 5-6 shot revolvers or being hit with a 30-06 Springfield or .270 Winchester round fired from a common hunting rifle since all four of those common “hunting” calibers are high-performance calibers that will often penetrate through a human target AND do massive damage to the human body in the process (If somebody is worried about that.)... Verses what a .223 or 9mm does to the human body.
Most hunting calibers are meant to take down Bears, Elk and Moose, which are a lot bigger, which greater mass than a human.
FYI, the media makes the .223 and the 9mm to be the most powerful and most dangerous calibers out there AND available to the public... Which is a myth at best, but I’ll lean towards a lie to purposely confuse the people with no knowledge of firearms.
I just told you my background, so what is your background relating to firearms, to include any training involving the legal and safe usage of them to qualify your statements on why you do not believe that private citizens should have ARs, AKs and High Capacity magazines?
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but an opinion isn’t a fact and often not based on any factual information.
As for what can be done about firearm violence, the number ONE first step should be to ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS, IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME!!! Until that happens, why do we need more laws AND how are more laws going to work better when they’re not enforcing the laws we already have? In my law enforcement career, one of the FIRST charges that are dropped or pleaded down is the FIREARMS VIOLATIONS... which as a private citizen, now, makes me sick since it’s often done for political AND political correctness reasons. AND the criminal tends to walk with “time served,” often less than a week and some probation, which only makes criminals more bolder to commit more and often, more violent crimes since they see our “Justice System” as a joke... Trust me, they proudly boast about that once arrested.
Cal Guy, hopefully “I” answered all your questions in a respectful manner, so I’m now looking forward to your response.
Good post but, unfortunately MOST was over his/her head.
"ONE first step should be to ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS"
In my old state there was an AUTOMATIC 5 years sentence when using a gun doing a crime. Sounds great, right ? EXCEPT it is the FIRST thing plea bargained away.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 03-26-2021 at 06:42 AM..
Good post but, unfortunately MOST was over his/her head.
"ONE first step should be to ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS"
In my old state there was an AUTOMATIC 5 years sentence when using a gun doing a crime. Sounds great, right ? EXCEPT it is the FIRST thing plea bargained away.
Use to be a hanging!
Militia is forbidden as the police state has suppressed the free state, the privilege of citizens 21 years of age who are non-felons & mentally sane may keep but never bear the small arms government allows, this may be altered when government feels threatened.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
The new amendment would have many articles incorporated into it, unlike the two sentences of the current amendment.
In no particular order, except the first article,(Article numbers not included) I feel this is how a new 2nd amendment would read.
"Article 1. The right of adult citizens with in the United States to bear arms shall be the law of the land with some exceptions, those being, for persons other than military or law enforcement, a firearm that has the ability to fire more than two bullets consecutively will be illegal to own, manufacture, import, export, or otherwise be privately manufactured by any person.
The use of computer software in the manufacture of guns is unlawful.
Firearms manufactured, imported or exported, used for the military and law enforcement shall not be infringed in any way.
Gun sales will be administered by qualified, licensed dealers only.
All gun purchases are to be done in person.
It is illegal to purchase a gun through any electronic device, whatever that device may be.
A background check must be done before any and all gun purchases.
The time allotted for such a check would be within a period of ten days.
A longer time would mean the proposed sale would be null and void, and no purchase would take place.
No sale of guns will be made to anyone unless the person buying the gun has evidence that the person has passed a gun training course in a state approved facility, qualified and licensed by a state in the training and use of firearms.
A certificate will be issues by the facility upon successful completion of the course.
This certificate shall remain in the state records for a period of five years, and will stay in effect for that period of time.
Beyond that time, the gun owner will re-apply for a new certification, by attending another training course.
The states are required to forward all records of firearm sales once yearly to the federal government's ATF department.
All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
There are perhaps other articles that could be added, but I feel this "new" amendment covers most of what is needed in addressing this firearms issue.
If any reading this have additional points that were not addressed in this posting, please post them.
The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. People who understand history, especially the history of government, do well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political philosophy for a free people.
The thing is, even if every crazy person or criminal on planet earth was prevented from buying a gun, what's to stop them from taking someone elses gun? Go ahead and make gun ownership illegal and it won't stop people from procuring one illegally and shooting people with it? Nothing.
It's already against the law to shoot people, and yet people get shot. So making a new law will only effect honest, legal gun owners.
"Go ahead and make gun ownership illegal and it won't stop people from procuring one illegally and shooting people with it? "
The places with the STRICTEST gun laws, ALSO have the HIGHEST incidents with a gun.
And this is only March!
"Baltimore reaches 63 homicides in 2021 following violent weekend. BALTIMORE (WBFF) - After a violent weekend Baltimore surpassed 2020's homicides to date. Three people were killed in separate shootings Friday, including a woman found shot to death in a car in east Baltimore.4 days ago" Baltimore reaches 63 homicides in 2021 following violent ."
Try getting a Concealed Carry in Balt, or the rest of Md.
"In Chicago, 116 people have been killed this year. That is 17 more than 2020"
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
Not my problem YOU have reading comprehension PROBLEM!
The words I used were in QUOTES, means the poster I responded to used them, not ME.
"There is indeed an assault weapon definition"
I SAID there is NO universal definitions and the ORIGINAL name was MADE UP BY A "JOURNALIST"
I SAID STATES have come with its OWN DEFINITION of the phrase.
Being you like to throw juvenile insults, I will lower myself your level. YOU are not as NEAR "educated' on the subject as you think you are!
"The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals"
In REALITY if you look at the TOTAL number of guns Americans have and the TOTAL numb of gun crimes, you will find a much SMALLER % then you think and claim.
2nd vast MAJORITY of gun crimes are centralized in DEM CONTROLLED urban areas like Chicago, Balt, etc., so how does passing a law in, say Montana, do ANYTHING to "fix the problem" you claim exists in Montana, etc.?
To pass more restrictive gun laws, OVER 20,00 isn't enough, where gun crime is NOT a problem, is useless.
I ask this often an seldom get a response. What does "infringed" mean to you?
Last edited by Quick Enough; 03-26-2021 at 06:44 AM..
For millions of Americans the right to keep and bear arms is freedom itself. Representative of the individuality that they deem to be the single most important thing in life. It allows an individual to state to anyone or any entity...….. I have a line that won't be crossed unless you are willing to pay the ultimate price. There are millions of Americans who are willing to pay that price to keep their firearms. Are there millions of Americans willing to pay that price to take them? I think not.
So once again I must repeat what I posted of believing no government being stupid enough to even entertain the notion of confiscating any firearms. I have been referring to the crafting of laws of prohibition nothing more or less.
Somehow numbers of you just cannot seem to grasp the written word and instead auto default to the silly hollywoodesque Charlton Heston nonsense. No one is coming to pry your musket from your cold dead hands.
Who are you arguing with exactly, because it certainly isn't me.
Well, I'll just have to assume, like myself oft-times, you're using YOU and YOUR figuratively as I don't have a stance one way or the other and agree the definitions used to describe basically every single semi-auto rifle out there as an "assault weapon" are at the very least completely useless.
My point, if you'd care for a light recap, was that those are exactly the discussions that need to happen in a formal nature with all parties represented, including 13 year old Kevin who is collecting bounties using his grand dad's old semi-auto Marlin .22 with the optional 10 shot mags for every groundhog he delivers to farmer Dave for keeping his dairy cattle from stepping into holes they dig.
I am not an "anti-gunner"- I am an "anti-completely unrestricted ownership" gunner. The group that is growing with each and every mass shooting that is followed by all of this blather with no meaningful, sensible and logic based response.
I believe I also mentioned that there would be vast and terrible repercussions if any move was made to actually confiscate already owned weapons.
So in summation; you and I are essentially only a small ditch apart on this issue as the AR15 in the .223 config. is a very useful tool in the arsenal of the feral hog and coyote hunters.
In that respect I agree that the definitions of assault weapons as used by various entities including legislators needs to be challenged, but to simply state there should be no discussion and any further restrictions would result in anarchy is both ludicrous and misguided.
"each and every mass shooting", ANOTHER DISTORTION.
1 used to mean a single person, a pair was 2 people. A few meant 3 to 5 people.
So once again I must repeat what I posted of believing no government being stupid enough to even entertain the notion of confiscating any firearms. I have been referring to the crafting of laws of prohibition nothing more or less.
Somehow numbers of you just cannot seem to grasp the written word and instead auto default to the silly hollywoodesque Charlton Heston nonsense. No one is coming to pry your musket from your cold dead hands.
Who are you arguing with exactly, because it certainly isn't me.
Pay attention...…….. you asked a question. I bolded it...….. I gave you the answer. I am not arguing a point with you. Do you grasp that?
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.
