You can't have my guns.

[pontifex]

Good luck against fighting the government that has nukes, aircraft carriers, bombers with your shotgun or whatever.



LOL, no, citizens don't, and never will, no matter how freely you and the government decides to interpret the 2nd amendment. The government has all the nice expensive toys to kill anyone they want.

Using the argument that we need guns just in case we need a revolution is a dumb argument. When everyone fought with muskets, yeah sure, people were on more equal footing.

interesting, the Afghanis have been doing a wonderful job at it now. Russia tried to take them over twice and failed twice. And they are using mostly antiquated weapons from WWII or even earlier.

We did real well in Vietnam didn't we?

The US isn't going to use nukes on it's own soil. Do you really think they are going to bomb cities and stuff?

Do you really think that poorly of the people in the armed forces that they would sit by and do the bidding of a corrupt government and kill their families, friends, and neighbors?

You don't think other countries would give us aid in the form of troops, weapons, vehicles, etc?

Reading these threads, its clear that anti-gunners base everything on feelings and emotions and pro-gunners base things on facts and real world applications/events.

 

[CVSiN]

interesting, the Afghanis have been doing a wonderful job at it now. Russia tried to take them over twice and failed twice. And they are using mostly antiquated weapons from WWII or even earlier.

We did real well in Vietnam didn't we?

The US isn't going to use nukes on it's own soil. Do you really think they are going to bomb cities and stuff?

Do you really think that poorly of the people in the armed forces that they would sit by and do the bidding of a corrupt government and kill their families, friends, and neighbors?

You don't think other countries would give us aid in the form of troops, weapons, vehicles, etc?

Reading these threads, its clear that anti-gunners base everything on feelings and emotions and pro-gunners base things on facts and real world applications/events.

lol my sentiments exactly.

 

[Leyawiin]

No private citizen needs a rapid fire assault rifle or semi-automatic handguns. Hunting rifles and revolvers for personal defense is about all anyone should have in their homes. All this tin-foil hat bullshit from NRA type lackeys is not a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which was drafted long before such weapons were ever dreamed of.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That was drafted as a protection against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. There was no national standing army - local/state militias made up of private individuals was all the country had for defense. It was never meant to be Carte Blanche for any weapon of any type for personal use.

I grew up in a house with guns. Old man had about three hunting rifles and two shotguns. We went duck and deer hunting yearly. Mom kept a .38 Smith and Wesson for protection since dad worked away from home a lot. I know guns and I know how to use them properly. I have no problem with the guns people have traditionally used for generations. Again, there is no good reason for the kind of weapons Lanza unleashed on those 6 - 10 year old children and their teachers to be in private hands.

 

[Farmer]

LOL, no, citizens don't, and never will, no matter how freely you and the government decides to interpret the 2nd amendment. The government has all the nice expensive toys to kill anyone they want.

Why do you speak of "citizens" and "government" as if they were distinct and separate?

You don't think if a drone pilot, a tank gunner, or the guy in the nuke silo would think twice if he were directly ordered to kill Americans on American soil?

 

[HumblePie]

Why do you speak of "citizens" and "government" as if they were distinct and separate?

You don't think if a drone pilot, a tank gunner, or the guy in the nuke silo would think twice if he were directly ordered to kill Americans on American soil?

They have previously done so.

 

[spidey07]

No private citizen needs a rapid fire assault rifle or semi-automatic handguns. Hunting rifles and revolvers for personal defense is about all anyone should have in their homes. All this tin-foil hat bullshit from NRA type lackeys is not a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which was drafted long before such weapons were ever dreamed of.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That was drafted as a protection against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. There was no national standing army - local/state militias made up of private individuals was all the country had for defense. It was never meant to be Carte Blanche for any weapon of any type for personal use.

I grew up in a house with guns. Old man had about three hunting rifles and two shotguns. We went duck and deer hunting yearly. Mom kept a .38 Smith and Wesson for protection since dad worked away from home a lot. I know guns and I know how to use them properly. I have no problem with the guns people have traditionally used for generations. Again, there is no good reason for the kind of weapons Lanza unleashed on those 6 - 10 year old children and their teachers to be in private hands.

The supreme court disagrees with you. The 2nd amendment has been ruled a fundamental right for all, and they cited self defense as the reason. That is a natural and fundamental right of man and shall not be infringed.

Regarding use for self defense, a semi-auto rifle with lots of bullets is the best tool there is for multiple attackers/intruders. Bad guys don't break in alone, they've got all their buddies. Same for a semi-auto pistol.

Next you'll tell me that a semi-auto shot gun is useless as well.

 

[CVSiN]

They have previously done so.

some but never all..

in every revolution the military split.
that is the problem as in the USSR fall entire bases/states rebelled. and the weapons were used against them.

this would for sure happen if the USA ever came apart at the seams again.

 

[HumblePie]

some but never all..

in every revolution the military split.
that is the problem as in the USSR fall entire bases/states rebelled. and the weapons were used against them.

this would for sure happen if the USA ever came apart at the seams again.

I'm talking about here. I'm talking about our American government rounding up American citizens unable to defend themselves on masse and killing some on American soil and imprisoning others. All without dissension from the military.

Please don't tell me our remembrance if history has already forgotten this.

 

[Train]

...Again, there is no good reason for the kind of weapons Lanza unleashed on those 6 - 10 year old children and their teachers to be in private hands.

Remove the rifle from his personal arsenal that day and the only difference is he would have had to spend maybe 10 more seconds changing mags.

He could have arguably done it faster with the much larger caliber hand guns, as he could have spent less rounds killing the same number of people.

 

[CVSiN]

I'm talking about here. I'm talking about our American government rounding up American citizens unable to defend themselves on masse and killing some on American soil and imprisoning others. All without dissension from the military.

Please don't tell me our remembrance if history has already forgotten this.

and when exactly did that happen? My history books seem to have missed us having a Tyrant that mass murdered and imprisoned citizens.

 

[HumblePie]

and when exactly did that happen? My history books seem to have missed us having a Tyrant that mass murdered and imprisoned citizens.

Do you not remembered what happened to certain japanese decent citizens in our country at a certain time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Most were just imprisoned, but some were killed. Many also died in those camps that shouldn't have. Although those that died there weren't killed by a bullet fired from an American Military gun, they were killed by them all the same. The method of the killing doesn't really matter to the person that is dead does it?

Also, some were shot such as James Wakasa and others seeking to protect their freedom and rights.

 

[jagec]

Is there a reason that this shitshow hasn't been kicked to P&N where it belongs?

 

[crownjules]

Is there a reason that this shitshow hasn't been kicked to P&N where it belongs?

To piss you off. It worked!

 

[pontifex]

and when exactly did that happen? My history books seem to have missed us having a Tyrant that mass murdered and imprisoned citizens.

maybe that means the 2nd amendment is doing its job then.

 

[ManBearPig]

Question: why are people advocating revolvers over semi autos? It's gotta be the lower capacity, right? Otherwise, revolvers fire just as fast or faster (I've seen some people do crazy little stunts with revolvers) and can kill just as equally, right? I think a lot of revolver loads are more powerful than semi auto loads too.

 

[TallBill]

Question: why are people advocating revolvers over semi autos? It's gotta be the lower capacity, right? Otherwise, revolvers fire just as fast or faster (I've seen some people do crazy little stunts with revolvers) and can kill just as equally, right? I think a lot of revolver loads are more powerful than semi auto loads too.

They look less scary.

 

[pontifex]

Question: why are people advocating revolvers over semi autos? It's gotta be the lower capacity, right? Otherwise, revolvers fire just as fast or faster (I've seen some people do crazy little stunts with revolvers) and can kill just as equally, right? I think a lot of revolver loads are more powerful than semi auto loads too.

possibly because of lower capacity, slower reload, and people think they are antiquated technology

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

I have a few guns - no "assault" weapons and nothing with hi-cap mags. I'm not a gun aficionado like some who can tell you ever spec on every weapon since the beginning of time and have their own personal arsenal. I'm not a range rat and I don't get some "high" from shooting a weapon. It's a tool - just like any other tool. It has its purpose and in the wrong hands it's a disaster waiting to happen. But I don't think a ban on "not-so-assault-weapons" OR magazine capacity solves anything really.. It's just reaction for the sake of reaction.. What's the difference between my 30/30, or 7mm hunting rifles and an "assault" weapon? What...? A rail system and a forward pistol grip? Maybe a collapsible butt stock? Phuleeze... It's all a bunch of nonsense.

By definition an assault weapon has to have some sort of automatic firing mechanism and the last time I checked, AR-15's were still semi-auto... But but but... he had a 30 round mag!! Ok, then what about hi-cap mags? Do you really buy the argument that having only 10 rounds vs. 16,... or 30 is going to save lives in a mass shooting? How quickly can the police respond, vs. how fast can I change out a drop-free magazine in a pistol?.. For me, it's under 3 seconds and I can reload another 10 round mag. So what difference does it REALLY make? You want to pass a gun restriction that really makes a difference, then fine.. Ban all semi-automatic weapons and we'll all go back to single shot muzzle loaders. Then.. maybe then... the whole stopping to reload argument carries some weight... Until then, we've still got drop-free's and speed loaders for the revolver crowd.

Now, with all of that said...
I personally don't believe that anyone needs more than 3 rounds.. period...
-If you're deer hunting and you don't drop him by the 3rd shot.. guess what... the deer won and go find another hobby because you suck at this one.
-For personal defense, if you can't take down your armed assailant with three rounds - you're already dead...
-If your armed assailant brings company with him and you draw down on one of them period then you're dead. You're not going to get the drop on all of them and Doc Holiday only did it in the movies.

So.. do we "NEED" high capacity magazines as civilians for hunting and home defense? I say no, and you could make the same argument for 400HP cars too but it doesn't stop me from wanting and owning one and why should anyone tell me I can't have 400HP if I'm clearly responsible enough to handle it?

So,.. what am I for? I'm for something to change. It needs to.. Kids shouldn't have to fear school like it's life or death.. ever! What happened at Sandy Brook make this grown man cry - literally. It broke my heart.What I'm not for... A bunch of blow-hards up on the hill posturing and trying to act like they have the solution to all of this violence when what they're doing is solving nothing. It amounts to nothing more than window dressing for their party constituents and to a lesser extent, the victims, but in reality it stops nothing!

It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is... or if it holds infinite ammo, comes with a three forward pistol grips or even a waist band and a tri-pod so you can shoot it hands free using your cock..!! A gun - any gun - is a lethal weapon! And the issue isn't even the process of background investigations, this, that, or whatever the hell it is you want to put in place to make it more difficult for people to get their hands on a gun. That process is sticky enough as it is and the people who do this kind of sick shit aren't going to play by the rules anyway. In this case I place some of the blame on the killer's mother... She knew he was unstable - even wanted to have him committed herself so WTF was she doing taking him to a gun range and leaving her weapons accessible!? Maybe he would have gotten them somewhere else, but maybe not.

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is and I don't think anyone in Washington does either, but doing something just for the sake of showing the public you're doing something...especially something that doesn't even come remotely close to passing the common sense test...that's just wrong.

 

[jpeyton]

No private citizen needs a rapid fire assault rifle or semi-automatic handguns. Hunting rifles and revolvers for personal defense is about all anyone should have in their homes.

Firearms use has evolved far past defense and hunting. Many people shoot for recreation, competition shoot, collect, build, etc. It's like saying nobody needs SUVs because you personally don't have the need to haul anything large or go off-road.

I grew up in a house with guns. Old man had about three hunting rifles and two shotguns. We went duck and deer hunting yearly. Mom kept a .38 Smith and Wesson for protection since dad worked away from home a lot. I know guns and I know how to use them properly. I have no problem with the guns people have traditionally used for generations.

Firearms technology evolves. People used black powder muskets for generations, you seemed to be fine with using more advanced firearms technology than that.

What you are, in simple terms, is a hypocrite. What was okay for you isn't okay for us.

I find it odd that some gun owners are eating their own to appease some false notion of security from an "assault weapons" ban. It's absurd. Look at the statistics; "assault weapons" gun crime is rare, and mass shootings are even rarer.

 

[jpeyton]

So,.. what am I for? I'm for something to change. It needs to.. Kids shouldn't have to fear school like it's life or death.. ever!

Teaching our children statistics at an early age will help them realize that:

1) Homicide is rare; living your life in fear because mass media puts the spotlight on violence/death is an exercise in stupidity
2) They are 50 times more likely to die from eating cheeseburgers for lunch than from a firearms-related homicide
3) They can feel safe at school, just like they can feel safe flying after 9/11.

 

[CVSiN]

Do you not remembered what happened to certain japanese decent citizens in our country at a certain time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Most were just imprisoned, but some were killed. Many also died in those camps that shouldn't have. Although those that died there weren't killed by a bullet fired from an American Military gun, they were killed by them all the same. The method of the killing doesn't really matter to the person that is dead does it?

Also, some were shot such as James Wakasa and others seeking to protect their freedom and rights.

OMFG... it was WARTIME against their country of heritage sorry being ex Military myself I find that locking them up actually makes sense. You never know who would be feeding info back to their country of heritage and who immigrated on behalf of their government to become sleepers to gain intelligence.
but then again I'm all for Gitmo as well...

 

[HumblePie]

OMFG... it was WARTIME against their country of heritage sorry being ex Military myself I find that locking them up actually makes sense. You never know who would be feeding info back to their country of heritage and who immigrated on behalf of their government to become sleepers to gain intelligence.
but then again I'm all for Gitmo as well...

Constitution doesn't state when it's appropriate to have rights and when it's appropriate for the government to temporarily strip those rights for security reasons.

I'm just saying that it is something that has been done before and not that long ago. I could go back even further with examples to what the American Government did to the indigenous population that was already here.

I'm trying to state that eventually history repeats itself. No country/empire has lasted forever. Eventually they get conquered by another country, or a revolt happens and the empire/country gets reinvented for a short time. Even America has gone through a massive change through the use of war such as the Civil War.

What I'm trying to state, and the same thing the founding fathers knew as intelligent men who studied history/human nature, is that eventually a given government will go corrupt on itself to the point that only violence is going to rectify the situation. Freedom of speech will solve a lot of problems, but not everything. Being diplomatic is great, but even a diplomatic solution can always be backed by force.

Maybe America with its values with be the one true thing in human history to stand forever. But in the case it doesn't, the people always have a recourse to change the situation.

 

[desertdweller]

The weapons ban will solve nothing. If someone wants to kill, they will. This school disaster was even worse than Newtown and no one was shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

[CVSiN]

Constitution doesn't state when it's appropriate to have rights and when it's appropriate for the government to temporarily strip those rights for security reasons.

I'm just saying that it is something that has been done before and not that long ago. Not like say the American Government and what they did to the indigenous population that was already here.

I'm trying to state that eventually history repeats itself. Not country/empire has lasted forever. Eventually they get conquered by another country, or a revolt happens and the empire/country gets reinvented for a short time. Even America has gone through a massive change through the use of war such as the Civil War.

What I'm trying to state, and the same thing the founding fathers knew as intelligent men who studied history/human nature, is that eventually a given government will go corrupt on itself to the point that only violence is going to rectify the situation. Freedom of speech will solve a lot of problems, but not everything. Being diplomatic is great and maybe America and it's values with be the one true thing in human history to stand forever. But in the case it doesn't, the people always have a recourse to change the situation.

I agree with everything other than what you think was over the top.
In a time of World War Germans and Japanese citizens were all detained and rightfully so.

Everything else I have been saying for quite some time.
and The Republic of Texas is ready to make a comeback if it does.

 

[OlafSicky]

Same of you are bat shit insane ... seriously. Mass roundups executions by the government etc. If they ban your guns sad sad sad. Fantasies that you would protect your self with a rifle if the government would come to execute you.
I'm convinced mental health is a bigger issue than gun control now. I vote for mandatory mental health checks for everyone.