Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bakelite

Getting Rid of these Guns

Recommended Posts

Anyone with any sense knows that fireams are only for a "well regulated militia. " Obviously they shouldnt be in the hands of private citizens. All I hear from conservatives is "blah blah founding fathers, inalienable rights, I just want to defend my family, blah blah blah. When can we stop this wild west nonsense, and protect our citizens by disarming them? Only the Police and Military need guns, not simple citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the right of 'simple citizens' to defend themselves. I wish a few people at Pulse had been packing. Certainly the death count would have been lower.

 

I have no confidence in government's ability to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. They've had no luck with drugs, so why would they be able to stop guns? I also have no confidence in the government's ability to protect me from criminals, whether they're armed or not. Perhaps you live next door to a police station, but I do not.

 

Guns are also a key part of our national identity. If only "Police and Military" had guns, there would have been no war of independence. Many see the armed 'simple citizen' as the last resort against a tyrannical government. No, we don't have that here...at least not right now. But, it could happen. This last election should show how fragile the current period of peace and order can be.

 

Yes, I know many people get shot...innocent people like 3 year-old Acen King in Little Rock. But, I don't think you can blame the gun. Maybe, if he didn't have a gun, the criminal would have used his car as a weapon. That's what we see with the terrorists in Nice and Berlin. If a bad man wants to do bad things, he will...gun or no gun. When the bad folks come, I intend to put up a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary said she wished for Australian Style Gun Confiscation, and said the Supreme Court had been interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. Most true liberals were on board with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with any sense knows that fireams are only for a "well regulated militia. " Obviously they shouldnt be in the hands of private citizens. All I hear from conservatives is "blah blah founding fathers, inalienable rights, I just want to defend my family, blah blah blah. When can we stop this wild west nonsense, and protect our citizens by disarming them? Only the Police and Military need guns, not simple citizens.

^^ con troll

You're over the top, too obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with any sense knows that fireams are only for a "well regulated militia. " Obviously they shouldnt be in the hands of private citizens. All I hear from conservatives is "blah blah founding fathers, inalienable rights, I just want to defend my family, blah blah blah. When can we stop this wild west nonsense, and protect our citizens by disarming them? Only the Police and Military need guns, not simple citizens.

 

Welcome to the forum Bakelite:

 

I served in the Army for three years and the reserves (militia) for another three. While in the reserves, we were issued weapons only after reporting for duty and the weapons had to be returned before leaving base.

 

During the era when the Second Amendment was drawn, the militia consisted of the Army, entire. Since the "Well regulated militia" of today, no longer supplies it's own weapons, gun ownership is no longer "necessary to the security of a Free state". But in the 1700s "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was needed to maintain an Army. That is no longer the case.

 

However, people in many parts of the country actually depend on firearms to put meat on the table, especially in these economically hard times. Often, big game animals overpopulate because natural predators have been eliminated. Hunters pay states fees for hunting licenses, valid during big game season. The fees pay wildlife biologists who set the seasons and manage the game population. Small game and fishing licenses may provide longer seasons, depending on local conditions.

 

Can guns be used against a tyrannical government? Not hardly. Most ordinary citizen-sharpshooters wouldn't stand a chance against highly trained military snipers. And then there are tanks, artillery, missiles, fighter jets, heavy bombers, etc.

 

Do guns work for self defense? Sometimes. Most criminals take their victims by surprise leaving no time for defense. One problem is that criminals get guns illegally. They couldn't care less about any permit. And as long as there are armed police and military, there will always be a black market for guns.

 

^^ con troll

You're over the top, too obvious

 

We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary said she wished for Australian Style Gun Confiscation, and said the Supreme Court had been interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. Most true liberals were on board with her.

 

She wouldn't get my guns. No way in hell.

 

I'm way left and a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment. I just want to see common sense laws put in place that keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, violent predators, and terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary said she wished for Australian Style Gun Confiscation, and said the Supreme Court had been interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly. Most true liberals were on board with her.

 

Anyone's stance on guns, pro or con, cannot define a "true Liberal". The issue of gun ownership has been politicized by the NRA, the Right Wing Noise Machine, and Liberal politicians. Conservative hoplophobes are not rare and Liberal gun enthusiasts can be easily found. No one's political sentiments can be identified by one issue. And very few people are pure Conservatives or Liberals. It is the sum total of an individual's beliefs that are significant.

 

I have owned and shot guns all my life. It is one of my hobbies. But I have NEVER voted for any candidate on a single issue; Guns included. I supported Bernie Sanders because of his advocacy of Democratic Socialism and all the positions that go with it. The fact that he was not entirely against gun ownership was incidental to me. My guns have never gotten in the way of my overall politics and they won't in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people need guns for hunting, then why not allow them to be rented from a local Government office? All rented guns could be equipped with GPS trackers to prevent crime and shenanigans. After the hunt, the single shot only weapons could be easily returned.

 

The Government needs to protect us from these archaic devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, including most Democrats want to feel self-sufficient. Not as though they are in total control of government. The criminal use of guns meant for hunting, is extremely rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people need guns for hunting, then why not allow them to be rented from a local Government office? All rented guns could be equipped with GPS trackers to prevent crime and shenanigans. After the hunt, the single shot only weapons could be easily returned.

 

The Government needs to protect us from these archaic devices.

Having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing "fun" about gun violence.

Minorities are disproportionately committing gun crimes and being victimized by guns. Not very "fun" if you ask me.

What do you suggest to solve the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people need guns for hunting, then why not allow them to be rented from a local Government office? All rented guns could be equipped with GPS trackers to prevent crime and shenanigans. After the hunt, the single shot only weapons could be easily returned.

 

The Government needs to protect us from these archaic devices.

 

I prefer to own my own firearms. I am a responsible gun owner and will conduct myself in a responsible manner. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kinds of guns should be banned?

I think those kinds of questions will get this thread on the right track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kinds of guns should be banned?

I think those kinds of questions will get this thread on the right track.

 

IMO.

 

LONG GUNS:

Semi auto rifles and shotguns. Magazine capacity limited to no more than six.

This leaves single shots, double barrels, bolt action, lever action, slide action

 

PISTOLS:

Revolvers of over six shots. Semi-auto pistols.

This leaves revolvers of six shots or less.

 

None of the above guns are needed for hunting or necessary for sport shooting.

 

Semi auto rifles, shotguns and pistols allow the shooter to fire rapidly enough to make it very difficult for people to get away. When semi-auto action is combined with large capacity magazines, the firing can go on for a longer period without changing magazines, which just takes a second or two.

 

The above limitations, if fully implemented, will prevent massacres like Orlando Fla, Newtown Conn and Aurora, Colorado. Stickups, robberies and homicides will occur with or without guns. The ability to shoot continuously is what has made the recent spate of massacres possible.

 

In the event of military or police sources for large quantities of black market full-auto or semi-auto weapons as happened in Northern Ireland, restrictions will be meaningless. Restrictions make black market sales more lucrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As liberal as I am, that's one place where I tend to disagree. Bakelite.... Chicago is one of the toughest on gun control but it's one of the worst for shooting deaths. My few Con friends always come with that one argument that if you take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, then only the criminals will have guns. And as much as I hate to admit it... they're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother owns an ak15 and he loves it, but I was adopted so anyway. He has multiple large capacity clips too, I think the only way he would turn it in is if he was offered a few thousand dollars in a gun buy back. We need smart gun technology to track guns down if they are stolen or bought by the insane, so we can get them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an AR=15 not an AK. You're thinking of an AK47. My brother and father have plenty of those and I grew up shooting them. They're easy and fun to shoot. I think a lot of people might turn theirs in for money, but probably not the majority. It's a matter of principal to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bludog== first off, thank you for your service.

However... you contradict yourself.

Earlier you stated that criminals don't obey the law and they could care less about a permit or not, then you say "The above limitations, if fully implemented would prevent a massacre like in Orlando."

I would argue your first point. A criminal doesn't care about breaking the law and there will always be a black market for these weapons. So... which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy and fun to shoot, that's some pretty nice adjectives to describe killng machines fitted with super capacity clips.

I'm all for having a shotgun or a 6 shooter revolver, but automatic killing machines aren't needed for protection unless you live in Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you call it a killing machine because you see it as a killing machine. The Semi truck that killed those people in Germany was used as a killing machine. The Jets that were flown into the towers on 9/11 were used as killing machines. Hammers used to bludgeon someone are used as a killing machine. They're all just tools. It's the person behind them that make the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm OK with citizens owning firearms for hunting and target shooting but assault rifles are a completely different beast. These things have 30 round semi-automatic clips. My neighbor showed me one of his assault rifles. I think it was an AR-47. It was simply terrifying. No way anyone but police or military should own those!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bludog== first off, thank you for your service.

 

I try.

 

 

However... you contradict yourself.

 

Earlier you stated that criminals don't obey the law and they could care less about a permit or not, then you say "The above limitations, if fully implemented would prevent a massacre like in Orlando."

 

I would argue your first point. A criminal doesn't care about breaking the law and there will always be a black market for these weapons. So... which is it?

 

That's exactly why I added the proviso "if fully implemented".

 

I find it highly unlikely that a ban on, high-capacity, fast-firing small arms can ever succeed. Unscrupulous arms dealers are always waiting to make a bundle when demand spikes. Northern Ireland is a good example.

 

Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation - Wikipedia

Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation into the Republic of Ireland for use in Northern Ireland .... these major sources of arms, the IRA has also bought weapons on a smaller scale from various arms dealers in continental Europe.

 

Profit motive also exists on the part of rogue elements in the military and police who are in position to take a chance on making big money without getting caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm OK with citizens owning firearms for hunting and target shooting but assault rifles are a completely different beast. These things have 30 round semi-automatic clips. My neighbor showed me one of his assault rifles. I think it was an AR-47. It was simply terrifying. No way anyone but police or military should own those!

Glock machine guns should only be allowed for police too, a guy from work has one, I held it, and it felt like a plastic toy. I swore that night when I got home I would never own one or a banana clip. Joe was right you only need a shotgun to protect yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as an AR-47. It's either an AR-15 or an AK-47. And both, in semi-auto models are not assault rifles. An Assault rifle is a rifle that has select fire between simi-automatic and fully automatic fire, which are illegal to ALL private citizens unless you have a very special permit. An AR is called an AR because it is an ArmourLite Rifle, model 15. It doesn't stand for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle. The AK is a Kalashnikov made in Russia.


There is no way someone you know has a Glock Machine Gun unless they're an arms dealer, an arms manufacturer or in law enforcement.Period.

I was in ROTC when I was in H.S. because my father insisted and learned a lot about weapons. Again, I have one for personal protection and this is the one thing that I just don't understand about my party. I mean, like, I understand why they don't like guns, but I just don't understand like why you all don't at least educate yourself about it. I have to debate some of my Con friends on other issues and I at least want to be educated on the subject so I don't sound like an idiot.


 

I try.

 

 

 

That's exactly why I added the proviso "if fully implemented".

 

 

Haven't laws against murder been "Fully implemented"? Haven't laws against Heroin, cocaine, Meth, etc... been "Fully implemented"? What about laws against robbery, Incest, rape, etc... Haven't they been "Fully implemented?" How's that working out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ar and ak are both one in the same military killing machines.

 

And 100% positive it was a glock machine gun, I held it read it and even seen him unload it before handing to me. I'm pretty sure he's not a arms dealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...