Gun control

[Double-U]

They might of thought differently if they had weapons such as: machine guns or semi automatic rifles with bump stocks that could shoot almost 600 people in less than 12 minutes! Guns were meant for survival, whether it was for food or protection, you didn't have to worry about someone with a machine gun or semi automatic weapon going into a movie theater, school house, night club or concert looking to kill as many innocent civilians as they could. Time's were different then and they are much different today.

The Founding Fathers would have thought an AR15 is rad AF. Do you honestly think that guys who were willing to kill or be killed in a duel would have been concerned about civilians owning semi-auto assault rifles in 2017? That's how Alexander Hamilton met his fate. Can you imagine Alan Greenspan going out like that?

 

[seb]

So, which guns does anyone want to take away (and by whom)? Would my family's AR-15 with high capacity magazines and drum be included?

-Yes they should be outlawed.

No, NRA didn't create "this predicament." To many Second Amendment supporters, the NRA is considered weak and compromising.
-Yes, they did, if it weren't for them the US would have comprehensive gun control and would of had it a long time ago.

The mass shootings are done by people who didn't even obey the current laws. What makes you believe they would all of a sudden obey new gun laws?
-As you have said before, most of them bought their guns legally.

How many gun owners have bump stocks? Of those, how many have used them in mass shootings? One. In Las Vegas. (See, I didn't forget.)

-I'm sure the made more than 12 of them. So others have them.

 

[seb]

And they would continue coming from "somewhere" after the authorities confiscated all of my guns. Nobody produces crystal meth in a licensed facility, but there's a hell of a lot of it floating around. Guns aren't that difficult to manuracture; we're not talking about ICBMs here.

Not one promised benefit of gun control would materialize. It might prevent a few mass shootings, but those produce a minuscule fraction of gun deaths. Suicides would simply be carried out using other means. Meanwhile, the American people would be vastly more vulnerable in their own homes because street criminals would be emboldened by the knowledge that residents are no longer armed. Crime related fatalities and injuries would rise, not fall. And as all this happened, the justice system would abdicate its responsibility to imprison violent criminals. Liberals, for some unknown reason, care more for criminals than crime victims, as I stated earlier.

And to add insult to injury, a ban on non-lethal self-defense devices would soon follow. Wouldn't want left-wing vigilantes wearing bandanas on their faces to get pepper sprayed or tasered, would we? I'm sure there would also be legislation banning the use of knives and blunt objects for self-defense, too.

In short, I trust gun grabbers and their motives as far as I can thrown them.

I think you've been reading too many NRA Freedom magazines.

 

[seb]

We are not anyones babysitter. We look out for ourselves. Do you think he would have opened fire on a group of 20,000 carrying ARs?

With the firepower he had probably.

 

[seb]

that's your interpretation. the founding fathers had a completely different interpretation.

Please enlighten me, because it has been up to interpretation for many, many years!

 

[seb]

basically.... all law-abiding citizens are criminals.

Right now no, in the future maybe. Who knows where the future will take us.

 

[seb]

I keep hearing this "common sense" stuff. Come out and tell us what you think the gun laws should be. Get specific.

I think it gets my point across. However, to humor you here it is: 1966, Charles Whitman a former marine sharpshooter, went up the tower at the University of Texas at Austin. In 96 minutes he killed 15 and wounded 31 others. His weapons were: 1 Remington 700, 1, M-1 carbine, 1, Remington Model 141, 1, Swears Model 60 shotgun, 1, S&W Model 19, 1, PO-8 Luger, 1, Galesi Brescia and a knife. Not one of his weapons was an AR type weapon. 2017, Stephen Paddock went up to the 32 floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and opened up on 20,000+ concert goers and in 12 minutes he killed 59, including himself and wounded 546, in TWELVE MINUTES! His weapons included 4, DDM4 rifles, 3, FN-15 rifles, 1, AR-15, 1, AR-10 rifle, 1, AK-47, 1, LMT rifle and 1, handgun. Some of his weapons were outfitted with bump stocks turning them into basically machine guns. The weapons Paddock used are basically weapons you would find on a battlefield, for Whitman other than the M-1, the Luger and the Galesi Brescia his others would be found in a hunters arsenal. All of them will kill or can be used to kill, but Paddocks weapons were designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

 

[seb]

"You can have the handguns, shotguns and a regular rifles, nobody will take them away."

LOL. I wonder what the residents of New York City (or state, for that matter) would think of that gem.

I have relatives who have been and are still hunters in upstate NY and I haven't heard of anyone taking their weapons away. But last time I heard they weren't using a semi automatic or bump stock equipped weapon to go deer hunting. It wouldn't be sporting in their eyes!

 

[seb]

An AR is a regular rifle. Who are you to dictate what some one can and cannot own?

Colt marketed it as a civilian semi automatic copy of the M-16 in a 1964, ad. Out of the box it might be just a rifle, but once you add on all the accessories that are available it isn't like any rifle the framers could of imagined.

 

[Foxrac]

Gun rights is a political issue. Without the NRA, GOA and others, the gov would errode the 2A in a flash.

NRA and GOA side with republicans over democrats, even if they are pro-gun rights.

Two parties with great division, also pro-gun democrats got wiped out easily due to lack of support.

Without moderates, it is dangerous to our country, if government changes that lead to more anti-gun democrats and take control of court balance, so you can thanks to NRA for spewing the division because they allocated their resource to focus on republicans, no matter if they lose instead of pro-gun democrats, so it means republicans and pro-gun democrats get wiped out, so anti-gun democrat is elected due to lack of moderate influence in our political system.

 

[Foxrac]

The gun rights aren't on my priority when consider to vote someone, so I'm focus on DB and disability issue, they are first.

If politician is DB friendly but anti-gun rights, they still get my vote, so it is tough decision.

 

[seb]

we already have the version of Kent State. what do you think why President GWB signed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006? and there were report of some citizens being killed/shot by government gangsters. The Danziger Bridge shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings

So you better get your gun and get busy because questionable police shootings happen all the time. Here are a few of them.

 

[seb]

so when tempers flare in tense situation... government cannot be trusted. that's why we citizens are armed to keep them in check.

When tempers flare in a tense situation, NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED and that includes armed citizens!

 

[Jiro]

Please enlighten me, because it has been up to interpretation for many, many years!

and the interpretation continues to hold which is why Amendment Two is still intact. God bless America.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm not a member but I like some of the things NRA does. Their magazine is interesting. We don't donate to their lobbying requests. We don't use their gun insurance either. We prefer USCCA insurance.

I prefer NRA goes back to old way to support both parties to put pro-gun democrats back and sticking with guns, so back in 1994, 77 democrats opposed to assault weapon ban and background check law, but those laws were passed by extremely closer margin, so they changed the strategy to focus on republicans and conservatives rather than pro-gun moderates and liberals, so no matter if republican can't win the election.

I'm not concerned about gun insurance nor magazine, but I prefer NRA to focus on oust anti-gun democrats in primary election, however both parties are corrupted, anyway.

 

[seb]

Gun rights is a political issue. Without the NRA, GOA and others, the gov would errode the 2A in a flash.

Gun rights is a safety issue. It all boils down to how many of the other rights do you want to give up to protect your right to own whatever gun you want to own? So are you against screenings at airports and sports events too? Do you want to pass through a metal detector or be searched at random to go shopping,watch a movie or you are your kids entering a school? One way or another your rights will be restricted to curb these senseless mass shootings it's inevitable.

 

[Jiro]

When tempers flare in a tense situation, NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED and that includes armed citizens!

yea especially the government which I have proven to you that government have illegally bullied and killed citizens. and that includes a modern time.

 

[Jiro]

So you better get your gun and get busy because questionable police shootings happen all the time. Here are a few of them.

which is why you are much more likely to get killed by cops than people like Stephen Paddock

 

[Foxrac]

Gun rights is a safety issue. It all boils down to how many of the other rights do you want to give up to protect your right to own whatever gun you want to own? So are you against screenings at airports and sports events too? Do you want to pass through a metal detector or be searched at random to go shopping,watch a movie or you are your kids entering a school? One way or another your rights will be restricted to curb these senseless mass shootings it's inevitable.

I don't like NRA and GOA because of political reason, apart from gun issues, so they became partisan nowadays, but it was unheard in early 1990s.

I'm all for gun rights and not agree with you, but I do understand about your point, but not agree with you.

Conservative and liberal judges interpreted 2A differently.

 

[Jiro]

I have relatives who have been and are still hunters in upstate NY and I haven't heard of anyone taking their weapons away. But last time I heard they weren't using a semi automatic or bump stock equipped weapon to go deer hunting. It wouldn't be sporting in their eyes!

I'm going to guess that your relatives are into big game hunting. so if you know anything about hunting and gun... AR-15 (which is mostly 5.56) is a wrong rifle for hunting big game. it can't even kill a deer. in fact... it's illegal to hunt a big game with that kind of rifle in several states because since it can't effectively kill a deer, it is considered as cruel and inhumane.

there are handful of other semi-automatic rifles capable of killing a deer but lot of hunters typically don't carry those types because once you fire and you miss, deers are long gone. and plus - they hike for hours on foot. why carry all the unnecessary weight? they don't need 30 rounds magazine.

duh. your logic is invalid.

oh - there are plenty of Texan hunters with semi-automatic weapons flying around in helicopters, killing dozens of wild hogs. YEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!

if you have $35,000 to spend... you can do this! .... with fully-automatic guns! yeeeeee hawwwwwww!!!!