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.
I do, however, see little use in the general public owing assault rifles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
However, I also believe that the 'average' person doesn't need to own an AK47 or Tec-9 any more than I need to drive a Sherman tank.
There is a big difference between a semi-auto rifle that most of us own and a full-auto assault rifle. A Tec-9 is a 9mm. Same as the Beretta I carry every day. My .30-06 deer rifle is more powerful, more accurate and has a longer range than a semi-auto AK-47.
Assault Rifle Myth:
"Liberals" get painted with the gun control nut brush because they make no distinction between responsible , legal firearms owners and total nutcases. In the liberal/progressive mind, ANYONE who owns a firearm is a "billy bob hillbilly redneck gun toting militia type swilling beer and breaking the bottles with their shotgun" blah blah blah. All the spew and hurl about 'manhood compensation", calling firearms enthusiasts 'wannabe Rambos' on and on it goes. If a 'liberal' does not want to be indentified this way, then don't identify with the ideology that bathes itself in this mudhole. I have gotten rather used to being lumped into the 'bubba' category, because I am conservative, live in a very rural area, believe in God, own firearms and am unapologetic about the lot. Thus runs the ideological line in the US today. There ain't no in between according to the rabid left and rabid right that profess to speak for everyone.
I'm not a liberal, but I am left wing. I support the second amendment and make distinctions between responsible gun owners and nutcases. If I lived in a rural area I'd probably own a rifle and a handgun myself. Your strawman just got blown away.
"Liberals" get painted with the gun control nut brush because they make no distinction between responsible , legal firearms owners and total nutcases. In the liberal/progressive mind, ANYONE who owns a firearm is a "billy bob hillbilly redneck gun toting militia type swilling beer and breaking the bottles with their shotgun" blah blah blah. All the spew and hurl about 'manhood compensation", calling firearms enthusiasts 'wannabe Rambos' on and on it goes. If a 'liberal' does not want to be indentified this way, then don't identify with the ideology that bathes itself in this mudhole. I have gotten rather used to being lumped into the 'bubba' category, because I am conservative, live in a very rural area, believe in God, own firearms and am unapologetic about the lot. Thus runs the ideological line in the US today. There ain't no in between according to the rabid left and rabid right that profess to speak for everyone.
I am proudly a leaping, screaming liberal.
I own LOTS of guns, and I shoot regularly and reload my own ammo.
Liberals on guns: let's burn this strawman right up
I'm an Obama supporter and I own multiple guns and have a concealed handgun permit. I'm an NRA member and I strongly support the public's right to keep and bear arms.
I believe the crime statistics show that law-abiding gun owners are not a law enforcement problem.
I own guns, I carry them regularly. Living on the Mexican Border has its risks, between the Drug Cartels and the looney minutemen I'd be a fool not to carry
Really now, and here I am thinking you like that vermin.
I'm 100% for guns for any responsible citizen who can afford them.
I do think limits should be placed on what type of firearms one has.
Allowing government to transform the "right of self defense" into a privilege, subject to regulation and restriction, is the issue.
When government disarms the people, it empowers those who can bully without needing weapons, and the real beneficiaries are those who still have weaponry - the criminals in the public and private sector.
That's a major point of law, as in law of the jungle.
Under that law, predators are good, and prey who fight back are bad.
"""My .30-06 deer rifle is more powerful, more accurate and has a longer range than a semi-auto AK-47.'''
yup sure is. Off hand o for get if the 30-06 is 61 or 63 mm's long in the case, but it sure is a 7.62.
Our .308 is real close to 7.62x51, and the Ak round is 7.62x39, pretty much ballisticly a 30-30 round, which is short to mid range.
I am not going to get into what poly tick leech scum said what when since i would have to go back 45 years to get them all.
We have the 2nd because ahead of it we have the 1st. Then we have the right to defend outselves from the foriegn and domestic enemy, which could be the Govt.
The states wrongly IMO Infringe, where it say Shall not be infringed.
NY law and Fla Law are totally different laws, just one example is there is no gun registry what so ever in Fla, but there sure is in NY, atleast for hand guns, all types, and NY even has it so with a black powder hand gun if you have ball for it, you are breaking the law, just because you have both the weapon and the ammo.
Total BS.
In 90 for personal reason I moved to NY, for a year. Trying to do the right thing, I called about a NY carry permits and was told I must surrender my guns for nothing less than 9 months. To hell with that idea, so I just broke NY law... There is just one way to get me to surrender anything. This will cause a fight, no matter what. But I won't start it.
I was sent this in e-mail. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it makes sence. Take it as you will. I DID NOT WRITE THIS.
.................................................. .................................................. .....
"The Gun Is Civilization"
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun
Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine)
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
paragraph of the letter...
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I'm a liberal who does not own a gun and I don't like guns. But I am in favor gun ownership. However, I would like to see stricter regulations at point of purchase.
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.
Liberals on guns: let's burn this strawman right up
