In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Let's Just Admit It Among Ourselves.
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Many here would loudly criticize me if I claimed that some guns were more dangerous than others and that at least having a minimum of gun control laws cannot be avoided. Thanks to Wounded Wolf and his post about buying firearms from a vending machine, the responses posted prove to me that most everyone here thinks there should be some sort of control over that type of sale. Most everyone here thinks that either guns should not be avilable in vending machines and/or that not just anybody with the money should be able to walk up to a vending machine and walk away with a firearm. So in order to control that vending machine and/or sale from, ergo, you must have gun control.
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
In regards to some firearms being more dangerous than others. Many here will say that is not true. So let me offer a couple of examples. Say you and several armed shooting buddies were standing around at the range when off in the distance you see a man running towards your group. The man is carrying a single shot .223 rifle. The man has a known history of being unstable to the edge of violence. As he approachs you, he fires one shot in the air to signal his angry intentions. Now what would you and your armed group do in response to this?
I am guessing you would seek cover and ready your firearms for possible defense. But I am also guessing you and your group would feel that the threat level to your group was pretty low. That because of your armed group opposing a single man with a single shot rifle.
OK, here is the other example. Every thing is the same EXCEPT the man running towards you has a fully automatic M-16 with a 100 round Beta Mag. I contend that you and your group would now take his threat to be at a MUCH higher and dangerous level. And while your reactions would probably be much the same, youwould feel a higher level of threat. True or false?
If true, then you have just admitted that you share some of the anti-gunners fears that some firearms are more dangerous than others. If anyone wants to trump my argument by mentioning that fully automatic firearms are already illegal, then change the fully automatic example to a semi-auto with the same 100 round Beta mag. I believe your group will still feel a higher level of theat than you would against the single shot rifle; or even a 6 shot revolver.
My only point is that to protect our gun rights we must at least make some attempt to understand our opponents. If you meet opposition, in ANY aspect of your life, and you don't understand much of what it is that you are up against, then you have a smaller chance of defeating that obstacle.
JMHO
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
In regards to some firearms being more dangerous than others. Many here will say that is not true. So let me offer a couple of examples. Say you and several armed shooting buddies were standing around at the range when off in the distance you see a man running towards your group. The man is carrying a single shot .223 rifle. The man has a known history of being unstable to the edge of violence. As he approachs you, he fires one shot in the air to signal his angry intentions. Now what would you and your armed group do in response to this?
I am guessing you would seek cover and ready your firearms for possible defense. But I am also guessing you and your group would feel that the threat level to your group was pretty low. That because of your armed group opposing a single man with a single shot rifle.
OK, here is the other example. Every thing is the same EXCEPT the man running towards you has a fully automatic M-16 with a 100 round Beta Mag. I contend that you and your group would now take his threat to be at a MUCH higher and dangerous level. And while your reactions would probably be much the same, youwould feel a higher level of threat. True or false?
If true, then you have just admitted that you share some of the anti-gunners fears that some firearms are more dangerous than others. If anyone wants to trump my argument by mentioning that fully automatic firearms are already illegal, then change the fully automatic example to a semi-auto with the same 100 round Beta mag. I believe your group will still feel a higher level of theat than you would against the single shot rifle; or even a 6 shot revolver.
My only point is that to protect our gun rights we must at least make some attempt to understand our opponents. If you meet opposition, in ANY aspect of your life, and you don't understand much of what it is that you are up against, then you have a smaller chance of defeating that obstacle.
JMHO
Comments
My wife and I are gun owners, although we have target shot and hunted less is recent years. With the recent changes to the political climate in Congress, we are ramping up our priorities for acquiring a few higher-tech firearms. Fearing that our options to purchase these might be reduced in the future.
It still boils down to this: there will always be good people and evil people. The latter will always find ways to acquire high-tech weapons, and already possess the desire to use them to threaten us good folks. Each of us has an obligation and right to protect ourselves, our homes and families, our communities and our nation should the worst possibilities mateerialize. That is simply being prepared.
On December 8, 1941 the Territorial Governor of Hawaii called upon all "able-bodied men not in the uniformed services to arm themselves, and proceed to the beaches to thwart any attempted Japanese invasion." That was only 66 years ago, and is exactly why the Second Amendment exists (that is, it is ONE of the reasons). Some responded only with knives, because that is all they had. As for me and my house, we will keep at least one large-caliber semiautomatic in our vault.
As long as Diane Feinstein has her carry permit, I will keep buying guns. All kinds.
Many here would loudly criticize me if I claimed that some guns were more dangerous than others and that at least having a minimum of gun control laws cannot be avoided. Thanks to Wounded Wolf and his post about buying firearms from a vending machine, the responses posted prove to me that most everyone here thinks there should be some sort of control over that type of sale. Most everyone here thinks that either guns should not be avilable in vending machines and/or that not just anybody with the money should be able to walk up to a vending machine and walk away with a firearm. So in order to control that vending machine and/or sale from, ergo, you must have gun control.
That certainly doesn't express my views on this subject.
A vending machine dispenses inexpensive goods like food, candy, snacks, smokes, soft drinks, stamps, paper, pencils and pen and little things like that. It also ususally does it at a premium price. This would not be conducive of a good sale's pitch, nor would it be wise to make an unsecured machine dispense goods that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, as they would be prime targets for theft.
I don't believe a law is necessary to make someone who sells guns look at this as if it would be a stupid idea.
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Should it be legal to sell them out of vending machines, YEP!! Would it be a smart thing to do? NOPE!! Would any gun dealer do this? Not on your life!!!
In regards to some firearms being more dangerous than others. Many here will say that is not true. So let me offer a couple of examples. Say you and several armed shooting buddies were standing around at the range when off in the distance you see a man running towards your group. The man is carrying a single shot .223 rifle. The man has a known history of being unstable to the edge of violence. As he approachs you, he fires one shot in the air to signal his angry intentions. Now what would you and your armed group do in response to this?
Draw our own guns and tell him to put the gun down and get on the ground, or he'll be put on the ground. Any attempt to reload his rifle will mean he gets a shot in his *!!
But then, how do we know it is a single shot? Unless we have X-ray vision, we won't know. People doing this have a death wish, or something.
I am guessing you would seek cover and ready your firearms for possible defense. But I am also guessing you and your group would feel that the threat level to your group was pretty low. That because of your armed group opposing a single man with a single shot rifle.
If we could guarantee that, perhaps.
OK, here is the other example. Every thing is the same EXCEPT the man running towards you has a fully automatic M-16 with a 100 round Beta Mag. I contend that you and your group would now take his threat to be at a MUCH higher and dangerous level. And while your reactions would probably be much the same, youwould feel a higher level of threat. True or false?
I don't answer true/false questions that have gray answers, fox. What is different about this situation? The type of firearm, and the fact that he is not out of ammo with a single shot means he is still armed. he's liable to get his * shot on the spot, but he now possesses something that could keep our heads down until he runs out of ammo, at which point, he'll probably be shot without question.
But it is not the gun that was the more dangerous thing. And chances are, if he had one, so would I. I would have all the same advantages he would, plus he would be outnumbered, possibly by people armed with the same stuff. It would be another death wish situation.
If true, then you have just admitted that you share some of the anti-gunners fears that some firearms are more dangerous than others.
I think after reading what I posted, you'd find yourself mistaken, at least to me.
If anyone wants to trump my argument by mentioning that fully automatic firearms are already illegal, then change the fully automatic example to a semi-auto with the same 100 round Beta mag.
I'll trump your argument with something else, instead. Whatever the bad guy has should be available to us for adequate defense. If the most useful rifle we could get our hands on was an M4, we could use it as defense against anyone using similar weaponry. The fact that something can be misused is not the grounds for banning any object anymore than it is a good idea to ban fire because arsonists could burn someone's house down, or water because people can drown in it. When it comes to defending my liberties and my life, i want the highest capacity, most relaible suppressed select-fire rifle that can be made available to me, as I may face down someone with similar hardware one day.
I believe your group will still feel a higher level of theat than you would against the single shot rifle; or even a 6 shot revolver.
Which is precisely why we need the same!!!
My only point is that to protect our gun rights we must at least make some attempt to understand our opponents. If you meet opposition, in ANY aspect of your life, and you don't understand much of what it is that you are up against, then you have a smaller chance of defeating that obstacle.
No compromise!! The only way these animals can be defeated is outright, in full measure and for all time. First, you must be willing to understand these points from the enemy:
1. They are of the belief that all violence is wrong.
2. That inanimate objects are responsible for crime.
3. That a citizen who dares exercise this right is a terrorist.
4. That hunting is barbaric.
5. Only the cops need guns.
6. Your life is not worth using a gun to defend. Remember, ALL violence is wrong.
7. Some "Right to feel safe" exists in the Constitution (It doesn't in the BoR's)
8. Only they should have the right to own firearms.
9. All gun owners are barbarians and killers.
10. Ownership of a gun indicates criminal intent.
Look at these things. There is no credible proof to any of these idiotic contentions, no logic in any of it, a whole lot of false stereotyping involved, and a few areas of contradiction involved.
These are people that need outright defeated without show of mercy, or benefit of the doubt, once and for all....
Do not be deceived, and do not cozy up to the wolves.
JMHO
Mine too...
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Don't presume to speak for ALL of us.
Maybe you should go back and read the thread you are referring to again. Most posters there WOULD favor selling guns out of a vending machine, IF the machine could be made "theft" proof.
At 15 years old, I walked into an Army surplus store and bought my first military surplus rifle, and ammo. The guns were in 55 gallon barrels, in the middle of the isle. NO locks, no keys, nothing to stop someone from grabbing one (or more) and running out the door. There was NOTHING wrong (or illegal) about it. No questions, no paperwork, paid cash took the gun home. Yes, it was pre-68.
About the only difference I can see between walking in a store, handing the clerk money and taking the gun home, rather than putting money in a machine and taking the product home, is that it`s hard to start and carry on a conversation with a vending machine.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Don't presume to speak for ALL of us.
Maybe you should go back and read the thread you are referring to again. Most posters there WOULD favor selling guns out of a vending machine, IF the machine could be made "theft" proof.
At 15 years old, I walked into an Army surplus store and bought my first military surplus rifle, and ammo. The guns were in 55 gallon barrels, in the middle of the isle. NO locks, no keys, nothing to stop someone from grabbing one (or more) and running out the door. There was NOTHING wrong (or illegal) about it. No questions, no paperwork, paid cash took the gun home. Yes, it was pre-68.
About the only difference I can see between walking in a store, handing the clerk money and taking the gun home, rather than putting money in a machine and taking the product home, is that it`s hard to start and carry on a conversation with a vending machine.
As I said, should buying a gun out of a vending machine? Yes. Would any gun dealer do it? No!!
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Don't presume to speak for ALL of us.
Maybe you should go back and read the thread you are referring to again. Most posters there WOULD favor selling guns out of a vending machine, IF the machine could be made "theft" proof.
At 15 years old, I walked into an Army surplus store and bought my first military surplus rifle, and ammo. The guns were in 55 gallon barrels, in the middle of the isle. NO locks, no keys, nothing to stop someone from grabbing one (or more) and running out the door. There was NOTHING wrong (or illegal) about it. No questions, no paperwork, paid cash took the gun home. Yes, it was pre-68.
About the only difference I can see between walking in a store, handing the clerk money and taking the gun home, rather than putting money in a machine and taking the product home, is that it`s hard to start and carry on a conversation with a vending machine.
As I said, should buying a gun out of a vending machine? Yes. Would any gun dealer do it? No!!
So......a bank can stick over $20,000.00 outdoors in an ATM machine, and automatically "sell" that $20,000.00 over several days and to numerous people, but a gun dealer would be afraid to put a few thousands dollars worth of guns in an ATM type machine?
I don't think so.
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Wrong! Don't go speaking for me!
Who's stupid enough to think a criminal is going to buy a gun in his name even if he could? There's no criminal going to pay the retail price for a gun that he can steal for nothing that doesn't have his name on it.
It makes no difference if guns are sold out of a vending machine or banned all together a criminal is going to get a gun one way or the other. The only people that obey gun laws are law abiding citizens which don't need any gun laws to begin with. Gun control is a total waste of time and money. If it worked they wouldn't be having the highest murder rates in the world in places that have banned guns all together. Look at England they're looking at a government sponsored program to teach gun shot first aid to all their citizens. Something is wrong when the need for all citizens to be trained in first aid for something that is supposed to not exist.
Smitty
Smitty, I hadn't heard about this, but if this is indeed true then it is my opinion that it is merely more anti-gun scare tactics by the gun grabbers. Remember when we were all gonna die from bird flu and West Nile virus?
I don't doubt that Britain's recent wave of murders is a direct result of the disarmament of the law-abiding citizens. It is unfortunate that they have put all of their faith in the government to protect them. As old Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". And indeed they will receive neither.
Since I introduced the topic, I will fess up and say that I indeed support some measure of gun control. I believe there should be a check system for 1) Citizenship, 2) Legal age, and 3) Criminal background (or lack of). Obviously there would need to be mechanisms for checking each of these things, so some system of identification would be necessary. And I would not discount the "face-to-face" factor of the individual having to deal directly with another human being. I don't think a vending machine could adequately perform these tasks.
However, I appreciate the purist point-of-view that a gun is no different than any other object, and therefore should be treated as such. The idea of walking into a country store and pulling a Springfield 1903 out of a barrel, as if it were an axe handle, sounds like a wonderful thing to me. It makes me think that there was once a time when the people of this country respected each other, and perhaps they truly lived in a climate of hard-earned safety and security. But I was born well after those times.
Why? We have no border security; illegal aliens and foreign subversives are abound in our society. We have a decaying criminal justice system; violent felons are parolled for their "good behavior" well before completing their sentences. And we have experienced the breakdown of the family; far too many parents don't know and don't care who, what, or where their juvenile children are doing.
Without making this unduly verbose and unnecessarily long, I think the real question is not what level of gun laws are acceptable, but rather how much decay of our society is acceptable?
When I can go to the car wash and hear all of the people around me speaking English, don't see anyone wearing prison tatoos, and don't have to step around a band of roving juvenile hyeenas, THEN that will be the time that the rifles in the barrel at the general store will be welcomed by me.
I have one more opinion about the "more dangerous" types of guns, but I will let it rest for this evening.
-WoundedWolf
The reservations I have is children dropping money in a slot and walking off with a gun.
That is a parents decision...not the kids.
Pickenup amd Gunphreak spoke my piece..beter thenI could have myself.
Come just a little futher, old friend...the Constitution is a FINE spot to be standing upon....
Something that is always left out of these discussions, mostly, is personal rsponsibility..because it is a dying virtue...once we understand that personal responsibility MUST be enforced...either by the individual...OR those around him...suddenly...many things clear up in the mind....
Don't paint too broad a picture in my name either. I refer you to my response on the thread "Would you support.... By Rack Ops"
"The only way I might accept any form of item two would be if it read; Firearms owners must register with LOCAL Law Enforcement as a Firearms owner. Make, model, calibers or number of firearms owned shall NOT be required for this registration."
My response here would be my ONLY acceptable level of Gun Control simply because there must be someone "In Charge". The Federal Government should get out of the business. Put that "Control" at the "Lowest Level Of Competence". After all is said and done who else better knows the locals? Who is task with responding to real or perceived threats within the community? If I were a Police Officer or Sheriff responding to. say a domestic violence call, it would be nice to KNOW if the homeowner/perp has a firearm. With that level of knowledge up front it would give Local Law Enforcement a leg up on their personal security (real or perceived) and may help them get onboard to do away with all these restrictive gun laws. If you remember, ONE of the opponents we face IS law enforcement. I say bring them onboard.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If anyone here disagrees and needs to remind me that I misunderstand them and in fact they DO favor selling firearms from vending machines, then please speak up again. Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
Don't presume to speak for ALL of us.
Maybe you should go back and read the thread you are referring to again. Most posters there WOULD favor selling guns out of a vending machine, IF the machine could be made "theft" proof.
At 15 years old, I walked into an Army surplus store and bought my first military surplus rifle, and ammo. The guns were in 55 gallon barrels, in the middle of the isle. NO locks, no keys, nothing to stop someone from grabbing one (or more) and running out the door. There was NOTHING wrong (or illegal) about it. No questions, no paperwork, paid cash took the gun home. Yes, it was pre-68.
About the only difference I can see between walking in a store, handing the clerk money and taking the gun home, rather than putting money in a machine and taking the product home, is that it`s hard to start and carry on a conversation with a vending machine.
As I said, should buying a gun out of a vending machine? Yes. Would any gun dealer do it? No!!
So......a bank can stick over $20,000.00 outdoors in an ATM machine, and automatically "sell" that $20,000.00 over several days and to numerous people, but a gun dealer would be afraid to put a few thousands dollars worth of guns in an ATM type machine?
I don't think so.
As I recall some ATM's are broken into, and other people experience thefts while at ATM's. ATM's have been hacked into, and excessive amounts of money withdrawn, while still other people have had their cards stolen and their accounts put into the red by thieves.
Don't tell me this fooey doesn't happen!!!
But illegal immigration is a totally different animal. An armed illegal immigrant would perhaps make naturalization kill them on the spot, rather than deport them, so that tomorrow, they can come right back.
Of course, I wouldn't care if all illegals were slaughtered rather than deported. That might make the argument for coming over here a little less appealing.
Its to bad that tr fox would even start a thread like this----what are his intentions???---Is he trying to put up walls around different type of gun owners----Bottom line is that we are gun owners not single shot rifle owners or so called rapid fire semi auto evil black rifle owners!!! We are just law biding Gun Owners!!!----I just think it is in everyone's best interest if people like tr fox would quit siding with Sarah Brady and the other anti groups and just be thankful that your just a plain old GUN OWNER !!!---Because I will guarantee you that if the day ever came to turn in your single shot sniper rifles people like Mr.tr fox would be the first people in this forum asking (WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?] [WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER AND FIGHT THIS]. So as it is I think it would be better to stick together today rather than tomorrow. Just y 2 cents
Well excuse me for trying to use some commonsense and logic to try and understand how the anti-gun crowd thinks and to maybe better prepare for the next big battle to grab our guns. BTW, I am a decades long member of the NRA, a dues paying member of GOA, SAF (if you even know what those letters stand for) as well as the KSRA. I was heavily into the 1994 to stop Clilnton's semi-auto ban as well as heavily into the fight in 2004 to stop the semi-auto ban from being renewed.
The unity you describe is certainly the way thinks should be, but they do not reflect reality. There are a lot of different types of gun owners in this world, just look at the General Discussion forum. There are waterfowl hunters that believe a double barreled 20 gauge is the only gun anyone should be allowed to own. There are Class 3 machine gun owners out there that think there should be more restrictions on full-autos because it increases the value of their investment and inflates their superiority-complex (I have seen one of these post on this very forum).
Stick around a while and I think you will gain a wider perspective on the issue. And lay off of Mr. Fox. He has taken much worse from a lot better.
I am a long time gun owner and know guns pretty well. Trying to mention, in relation to my post, such things as "semi-autos are the same as a single shot, they are all just guns" will not stick to me. But as a gun owner and 2A supporter (maybe not the exact support some of you want; too bad) I am at least smart enough to make a true statement that not only are some type of firearms more deadly than others, but the anti-gun crowd is going to use this fact to beat us gun owners to death.
For example, if a perp started kicking in your door and he had a more conventional firearm such as a revolver or 15 round semi-auto handgun, I believe you would tell your family to go into the back bedroom, call 9-1-1 and you yourself would confront that intruder with whatever firearm you chose to grab. But if you knew he had a 100 round drum full-auto AK-47, I believe you would tell you family to flee out the backdoor and you would grab another handgun or two and take cover rather than rush to meet the intruder. Don't tell me you would react to each of the two different scenes the same way because I won't believe you.
So there is one example of some firearms being more "deadly" in the hands of a violent criminal than other type of firearms. And the more we try to deny this the more we are going to lose the support of the common, non-gun owning citizens and then we will have lost the gunrights war.
I am positive no gun kontrol is necessary to fix this problem. No gun law is necessary, because the people can take care of this on their own, with no help from the .gov.
quote:I am a long time gun owner and know guns pretty well. Trying to mention, in relation to my post, such things as "semi-autos are the same as a single shot, they are all just guns" will not stick to me. But as a gun owner and 2A supporter (maybe not the exact support some of you want; too bad) I am at least smart enough to make a true statement that not only are some type of firearms more deadly than others, but the anti-gun crowd is going to use this fact to beat us gun owners to death.
And I am determined to be sure they realize, when it comes to defending against this type of assault, we need to be likewise armed, or become dead. Those are the only two options. You outnumber criminals and bear the exact same or better weapons, the response of criminals will be what? The prospect of gov't sponsored genocide will be what??
quote:For example, if a perp started kicking in your door and he had a more conventional firearm such as a revolver or 15 round semi-auto handgun, I believe you would tell your family to go into the back bedroom, call 9-1-1 and you yourself would confront that intruder with whatever firearm you chose to grab. But if you knew he had a 100 round drum full-auto AK-47, I believe you would tell you family to flee out the backdoor and you would grab another handgun or two and take cover rather than rush to meet the intruder. Don't tell me you would react to each of the two different scenes the same way because I won't believe you.
Actually, fox, if there was any intruder in my home armed with anything, I would be picking up my AR-15 and gunning him down. If you think I like to play on even field, you're out of your damned mind. You enter my home unwanted, you can, at best, hope to match my firepower, but you won't exceed it.
quote:So there is one example of some firearms being more "deadly" in the hands of a violent criminal than other type of firearms. And the more we try to deny this the more we are going to lose the support of the common, non-gun owning citizens and then we will have lost the gunrights war.
Using that strategy, you're probably right. That's why gun owners like me use a different strategy. The good guys need to be better equipped, and quit playing with fire. Gov't's are responsible for exponentially more deaths than criminals, so I would say we have more a right to fear them than we do criminals. You keep framing the argument so that our freedoms and liberties are curtailed because the lawless won't play nice, you're punishing me and my guns for the acts of someone else, while full well knowing that my guns in my hands could have stopped it.
I'm tired of you talking us in circles, so I'm breaking the circle now. No gun laws are needed for a gun dealer to know that selling guns from a vending machine is a stupid idea!! No amount of perceived "dangerousness" justifies banning any gun. No amount of laws will stop those determined to live free from owning a gun, and if the push keeps up, a civil war will be upon us.
That is all!!
First of all, if somebody was coming after me with a single-shot black powder pistol vs. an AK with 100 round drum magazine, then yes I would probably react differently between these two situations. However, I don't think that the difference has anything to do with either gun being more dangerous or more deadly than the other, they can both harm or kill me. I think that there is a tactical difference between these two type of arms. A high capacity AK has many tactical advantages over a single shot pistol. It is this tactical superiority that is the exact reason why citizens should be able to keep and bear fully automatic arms. Remember, the primary intention of the 2nd Amendment is to defend our nation against threats, foreign or domestic.
Granted, the average public think that full-autos are "scary". And due to a warped media campaign, they also think that an AR-15 with a bayonet, flash hider, pistol grip, and black synthetic stock is "more dangerous" than a Mini-14. In reality there is no practical difference between these two firearms. They are both .223 semi-auto rifles, yet in places like California you can buy one and not the other. Incrementally, the average public is being indoctrinated with misinformation about firearms. They are being convinced that certain superficial or cosmetic features are "more deadly" than others, when in fact these features have no functional bearing on the firearm and provide little, if any, tactical differences.
The problem here is not that some gun-rights supporters support the right to own these "scary" guns, the problem is that the general public has been convinced that these guns are "scary" in the first place! I think the worst thing we can do is say "Yes, Mr. and Mr. America, these guns are very scary. Now may we please keep our pump action shotguns and cowboy revolvers?" If we do that, then we are merely feeding the beast. The semi-autos will be banned next, and then the revisionist historians will talk about how dangerous the Old West was and how revolvers should be banned. Incrementalism is the name of the game.
The high capacity full-auto AK does not make the man coming after me dangerous. It is the flawed biochemistry in his brain that makes him dangerous, which is only more reason why I should be able to retrieve my full-auto AK to defend myself.
-WoundedWolf
Okay, here is my opinion on the "more dangerous" types of guns.
First of all, if somebody was coming after me with a single-shot black powder pistol vs. an AK with 100 round drum magazine, then yes I would probably react differently between these two situations. However, I don't think that the difference has anything to do with either gun being more dangerous or more deadly than the other, they can both harm or kill me. I think that there is a tactical difference between these two type of arms. A high capacity AK has many tactical advantages over a single shot pistol. It is this tactical superiority that is the exact reason why citizens should be able to keep and bear fully automatic arms. Remember, the primary intention of the 2nd Amendment is to defend our nation against threats, foreign or domestic.
Granted, the average public think that full-autos are "scary". And due to a warped media campaign, they also think that an AR-15 with a bayonet, flash hider, pistol grip, and black synthetic stock is "more dangerous" than a Mini-14. In reality there is no practical difference between these two firearms. They are both .223 semi-auto rifles, yet in places like California you can buy one and not the other. Incrementally, the average public is being indoctrinated with misinformation about firearms. They are being convinced that certain superficial or cosmetic features are "more deadly" than others, when in fact these features have no functional bearing on the firearm and provide little, if any, tactical differences.
The problem here is not that some gun-rights supporters support the right to own these "scary" guns, the problem is that the general public has been convinced that these guns are "scary" in the first place! I think the worst thing we can do is say "Yes, Mr. and Mr. America, these guns are very scary. Now may we please keep our pump action shotguns and cowboy revolvers?" If we do that, then we are merely feeding the beast. The semi-autos will be banned next, and then the revisionist historians will talk about how dangerous the Old West was and how revolvers should be banned. Incrementalism is the name of the game.
The high capacity full-auto AK does not make the man coming after me dangerous. It is the flawed biochemistry in his brain that makes him dangerous, which is only more reason why I should be able to retrieve my full-auto AK to defend myself.
-WoundedWolf
Good call!!!
He cannot...or will not. Too many years of NRA and government propaganda.
I am also tired of the effort. The line was drawn, surely, with Zumbo...foxes position is just a tad short of that.
The only value I can see in any more discourse is so that people reading the anti-gun positions of the NRA..pesonified by Fox...can make up their minds if they want to support the Second...or the government and NRA.
Also..trying to drum up support for gun control by trying to include "parents ought to have control their kids"..in " Waiting periods and NICS Checks" is really reaching..worthy of the finest gun controllers...the Shumers,ect..
Highball, please elaborate on this. How is your expressed concern about juveniles retrieving firearms from vending machines more acceptable than a background check system to see if someone is an adult?
Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless of how many of you want to huff and puff about me "speaking for you" (I never went that far)
Yes, you went that far.
Welcome aboard. Your statement is dripping with signs of MSM Indoctrination and misinformation.
Read AND Study the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and The Bill Of Rights. Actually study and compare verbiage and references to "We the People". Read some history, preferably in reference to how gun control was, has been and IS now being used to enslave and subjugate entire countries.
Don't take this post wrong. I'm not calling you a dumba@@ or anything like that. What I am saying is that you are just another TYPICALLY misinformed person. Another Victim (or convert) of MSM, and Liberal Left Wing, brainwashing.
Back in the day, firearms training were a function of your ol' pap. Due to years of restrictive gun controls, ol' pap (in a lot of places) no longer has a gun to train you with or a place to shoot. I have no problem with firearms training and it should be offered (it is here), but NOT REQUIRED A BY LAW or a license.
Tax GUNS? Insane. I don't have the time or the room to explain to you why more taxes (of any kind) are a VERY bad idea. Especially on guns.
Look at some, or preferably all, the gun control bills. (Past and Present). Notice who authors and co-sponsors these bills. Actually read the bill and notice, your hunting and personal firearms ARE included. These Liberals, Democrats, have one agenda; ban ALL guns. They are like 2 year-olds; you can't turn your back on them for a minute. Turn your back and they try to slip something past you, every time. Two year-olds with 10, 20 and even 30 years experience perfecting the art of abusing (and stripping away) our rights. If they're lips are moving they're lying. It's criminal!!
The Second Amendment says, "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." Exactly what is it that you do not understand about "shall not be infringed"? I'll post a definition for you if necessary but I believe if you take my recommendations above you'll figure it out for yourself.
Again, Welcome.
Don't take them too personally. I myself am EXTREMELY pro-gun. However, the people who are not totally informed, such as yourself, are exactly the people we should be trying to help. Stick around!
Lets just leave it a the most clueless thing I have every heard and that includes the five years I spent in the military. I actually have a copy of the bill of rights and United states constitution on my hard drive, that I never got around to deleting because it was cool to have a scanned copy of both of them. When I was younger I'm one of the few scouts that made it through my citizenship badges in scouts. I chose to serve my country, because it was the right thing to do, so don't tell me I'm mis-informed because what I'm saying is not what you want to hear. I do think that most of this country needs to have their hand held, until common sense becomes more common. In both senses of the phase. To borrow a quote off the saf page
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)"
Even they understood a firearm in an idiots hands is far more dangerous than the alternative.
You don't give a loaded gun to child, you start with teaching them gun safety. Well many in
this country did nada have pappy to teach them guns are dangerous before they even get to
hold a gun. Which is part of the reason I think you should have to go to local police force
be it even a deputy at a local range who makes sure you know which end of the gun the bullet
comes out of, or maybe more local ranges paid for with local tax dollars even, so that every
one with a firearm actually nows how to use it. Scary thought government actually doing something useful. Then again I don't see how something like a gun safety course or a tax on
the sale of guns much like the sale on hunting tags is a bad thing. I could see point only if I said they could decided not to give you a license if they did not like you but all I said was they had to know how to use their firearm. Even the military does not even give you a gun until you have some basics like if you point it at a DI he is going to shove it some place the sun don't shine. Is knowing gun safety really optional in owning a gun?
Then again I do not see requiring a population that did not grow up with pappy but Hollywood to explain guns to them, to need someone to show them the reality of guns before handing one to them. Of course I would happy simply requiring everyone to have to go through a gun safety course before they are old enough for adults to become un-cool.
My views are harsh and I do know the road to Germany is paved with bodies, yet just because he said something does not mean it was evil, some the worse things were good ideas that were corrupted. You need not throw the baby out with the bath water because it is dirty. For what is worse those who would take your rights away, or those who take your responsibilities away?
That is what I see when people say anyone can have gun because it is a right, when the whole reason it is a right is that people who understand what liberty means need have the means to keep it, not because some hilly thinks guns are shiny. The right is the liberty, the means is the firearm, which is why some thought such things in the bill of right were self evident.
So as far as the taxes on guns, many of the pros and and cons, are do to how the taxes would be implemented, since hunting tags are taxed and many hunters don't even know where the money is going, plus if we are all suddenly buy two and three fire arms even a few dollars on every guns times the how ever many million people there are in this country is a lot of money that could be put toward paying for the training of all the people with their shiny new guns to not shoots holes in their neighbors dog because they were a wee bit drunk. Also do not assume that such taxes have to be an unholy register of who owns what they could simply be part of the sales tax much like the current one on cigs, as registry are only possible when there are a few owners and everyone else is scare of being on the list.
When I first read your post I wrote a very sarcastic response but when I looked at it, it served no purpose other than a gut reaction to assumption that has to be driven by a dead horse, so much so that you clearly did not read the post past a certain point. Most of post was in telling I'm misinformed and clueless when you do not know me, and tell me that I should read history with out a clue as to what I do and do not know, when you with your refusal to see what I'm asking for is what allows that enslavement. What I asked for was that people be trained and licensed which means they know how to shoot, those are things you would avoid at all cost if you were trying to enslave a people since those with training will find a way, since like reading if people know how they can chose to use that knowledge in ways you have no way of planning for. Knowledge is power, and requiring that everyone have that knowledge makes certain problems unrealistic, since you can not remove it without doing massive damage to the person and knowledge can be spread very easy.
Last I'm going to ignore the gun control political nonsense of who started what, because in the end without a population that understand what is at stake, they did not stand up and said your full of it, because they were not forced to understand what was going on. I'm not asking for gun control but that every one lacking in common sense be required to show they understand how a deadly tool works before being given one. Also it is one more thing that shows as an achievement, that people will value the fact they got through it, much like a driving test if everyone has to do it, then everyone assumes that there is some skill you are supposed to get out it. As to your last statement, I'm sure I have a very good idea why it was written, and that in context, the right to bear arms is assumed to be by the people that were all expected to understand how to use said weapon, as "A well regulated militia" suggests. Do you think the men of Concord and Lexington had no clue how to use a gun? Just because our current society is clueless how a gun works means they hold no responsibility for those skills expected by those who wrote the bill of rights. I have no problem with every one having a gun, I just think that every one should know at least some minimum amount of gun safety and it is their responsibility what they do with that training.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
Exactly what is it that you do not understand about "shall not be infringed"? I'll post a definition for you if necessary but I believe if you take my recommendations above you'll figure it out for yourself.
FYI do not try and tell someone that you are not calling them a dumb a__ when the tone of the post is clearly defined by such statements as the final sentence in your post. Oh and I'm not new I just could not figure out how to reset my password on my other user name, as it has been a while since I've posted and with such a warm welcome to new comers I'm surprised you have any.
oh and wagon if you live in the US you don't live in a democratic country you live in a republic. Greece was a democratic country, where every man had a voice.
We should have been teaching ALL kids, as they went/go through SCHOOL, about gun safety, and how to shoot them? Instead of how to use a condom.
OK, maybe along with.......[;)][:o)][:D]
Welcome to the board bast.
Who were you in your past life?
Under YOUR system, no 'under some magical age' may buy a gun.
I believe that PARENTS are the logical people to decide if a child is competent...and I have no problem with a 10 year old buying his OWN rifle..with a parent along.
Surely, you can understand the difference between the GOVERNMENT deciding if YOU are fit to own a gun...and a PARENT deciding a childs' purchase..and LEAVE THE HELL ALONE ADULTS !!! ??
Dsmith;
This guy is another NRA wetdream...and I think the line has become a chasm that is increasingly becoming impossibly to drag people across.
They have chosen the Beast and his tender care...turning their backs upon the Founders and their wise words.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Otherwise we will all seem to have agreement on at least some basic gun control laws.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless of how many of you want to huff and puff about me "speaking for you" (I never went that far)
Yes, you went that far.
The key to this is my use of the word "seem to" have agreement. That means while I think we have agreement (it "seems" that way to me) I could be wrong and perhaps we DON'T have agreement.
That means I am not attempting to "speak for you". Even though you are trying to convict me of that.
quote: Regardless of how many of you want to huff and puff about me "speaking for you" (I never went that far) no one here, without qualifying it, agreed with the idea of selling guns out of a vending machine. Some danced around the idea by saying such things as "parents should control their kids buying guns" or "no gun dealer would risk the loss of putting guns into a vending machine", etc. But bottom line,and you CANNOT deny it is that if you have ANY objections to freely and unrestricted selling of firearms out of a vending machine then YOU HAVE JUST COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF AT LEAST SOME GUN CONTROL.
I am positive no gun kontrol is necessary to fix this problem. No gun law is necessary, because the people can take care of this on their own, with no help from the .gov.
quote:I am a long time gun owner and know guns pretty well. Trying to mention, in relation to my post, such things as "semi-autos are the same as a single shot, they are all just guns" will not stick to me. But as a gun owner and 2A supporter (maybe not the exact support some of you want; too bad) I am at least smart enough to make a true statement that not only are some type of firearms more deadly than others, but the anti-gun crowd is going to use this fact to beat us gun owners to death.
And I am determined to be sure they realize, when it comes to defending against this type of assault, we need to be likewise armed, or become dead. Those are the only two options. You outnumber criminals and bear the exact same or better weapons, the response of criminals will be what? The prospect of gov't sponsored genocide will be what??
quote:For example, if a perp started kicking in your door and he had a more conventional firearm such as a revolver or 15 round semi-auto handgun, I believe you would tell your family to go into the back bedroom, call 9-1-1 and you yourself would confront that intruder with whatever firearm you chose to grab. But if you knew he had a 100 round drum full-auto AK-47, I believe you would tell you family to flee out the backdoor and you would grab another handgun or two and take cover rather than rush to meet the intruder. Don't tell me you would react to each of the two different scenes the same way because I won't believe you.
Actually, fox, if there was any intruder in my home armed with anything, I would be picking up my AR-15 and gunning him down. If you think I like to play on even field, you're out of your damned mind. You enter my home unwanted, you can, at best, hope to match my firepower, but you won't exceed it.
quote:So there is one example of some firearms being more "deadly" in the hands of a violent criminal than other type of firearms. And the more we try to deny this the more we are going to lose the support of the common, non-gun owning citizens and then we will have lost the gunrights war.
Using that strategy, you're probably right. That's why gun owners like me use a different strategy. The good guys need to be better equipped, and quit playing with fire. Gov't's are responsible for exponentially more deaths than criminals, so I would say we have more a right to fear them than we do criminals. You keep framing the argument so that our freedoms and liberties are curtailed because the lawless won't play nice, you're punishing me and my guns for the acts of someone else, while full well knowing that my guns in my hands could have stopped it.
I'm tired of you talking us in circles, so I'm breaking the circle now. No gun laws are needed for a gun dealer to know that selling guns from a vending machine is a stupid idea!! No amount of perceived "dangerousness" justifies banning any gun. No amount of laws will stop those determined to live free from owning a gun, and if the push keeps up, a civil war will be upon us.
That is all!!
Now you are talking like the gun banners. You criticize a gun selling idea by saying that it is so stupid there is not even any need for you to explain just why it is stupid. If you believe in maximum freedom for people, business owners, gun merchants, etc. then if they wanted to sell guns out of a vending machine you should have no objection to the idea. Maybe such a seller would want to offer guns from a vending machine just to get free publicity for his actual store sales. or maybe just to make a constitutional point or to try and expand other gun selling freedoms. Or maybe there would actually be a profit ind selling out of a vending machine. AS I have already mentioned, there are thousands of ATM "vending machines" all across the country and those "vending machines" contain thousands and thousands of dollars. That must work because in spite of occassional ATM robberies, I don't see any ATM machines being closed down.
I think you just don't want to give the vending machine seller total freedom to sell out of the vending machine because the minute you do you have just supported at least limited gun control. And to remain pure in your own mind you cannot allow yourself to do that.
Sadly, I had hopes that Mr. Fox would finally understand what the Second Amendment means.
He cannot...or will not. Too many years of NRA and government propaganda.
I am also tired of the effort. The line was drawn, surely, with Zumbo...foxes position is just a tad short of that.
The only value I can see in any more discourse is so that people reading the anti-gun positions of the NRA..pesonified by Fox...can make up their minds if they want to support the Second...or the government and NRA.
Also..trying to drum up support for gun control by trying to include "parents ought to have control their kids"..in " Waiting periods and NICS Checks" is really reaching..worthy of the finest gun controllers...the Shumers,ect..
I believe you stated that you don't suppport selling guns from vending machines because children might buy them. If you believe in total freedom for gun ownership and for citizens in general, then you must agree that just because some kid might do something dangerous like buying a gun from a vending machine is no reason to limit my freedom to buy or sell a gun from that same vending machine. Instead, it should be the parent's job to ensure that their child does not buy a gun from that vending machine.
If you disagree, then you are either limiting my freedom as an adult to do as I wish as long as I don't harm anyone, or you are supporting at least a little gun control.
Which is it? Or is it both?
Upon your astute observation...
I believe that setting a vending machine up to sell firearms is indeed the truest measure of the Second Amendment. I support the idea without reservation.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote: Regardless of how many of you want to huff and puff about me "speaking for you" (I never went that far) no one here, without qualifying it, agreed with the idea of selling guns out of a vending machine. Some danced around the idea by saying such things as "parents should control their kids buying guns" or "no gun dealer would risk the loss of putting guns into a vending machine", etc. But bottom line,and you CANNOT deny it is that if you have ANY objections to freely and unrestricted selling of firearms out of a vending machine then YOU HAVE JUST COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF AT LEAST SOME GUN CONTROL.
I am positive no gun kontrol is necessary to fix this problem. No gun law is necessary, because the people can take care of this on their own, with no help from the .gov.
quote:I am a long time gun owner and know guns pretty well. Trying to mention, in relation to my post, such things as "semi-autos are the same as a single shot, they are all just guns" will not stick to me. But as a gun owner and 2A supporter (maybe not the exact support some of you want; too bad) I am at least smart enough to make a true statement that not only are some type of firearms more deadly than others, but the anti-gun crowd is going to use this fact to beat us gun owners to death.
And I am determined to be sure they realize, when it comes to defending against this type of assault, we need to be likewise armed, or become dead. Those are the only two options. You outnumber criminals and bear the exact same or better weapons, the response of criminals will be what? The prospect of gov't sponsored genocide will be what??
quote:For example, if a perp started kicking in your door and he had a more conventional firearm such as a revolver or 15 round semi-auto handgun, I believe you would tell your family to go into the back bedroom, call 9-1-1 and you yourself would confront that intruder with whatever firearm you chose to grab. But if you knew he had a 100 round drum full-auto AK-47, I believe you would tell you family to flee out the backdoor and you would grab another handgun or two and take cover rather than rush to meet the intruder. Don't tell me you would react to each of the two different scenes the same way because I won't believe you.
Actually, fox, if there was any intruder in my home armed with anything, I would be picking up my AR-15 and gunning him down. If you think I like to play on even field, you're out of your damned mind. You enter my home unwanted, you can, at best, hope to match my firepower, but you won't exceed it.
quote:So there is one example of some firearms being more "deadly" in the hands of a violent criminal than other type of firearms. And the more we try to deny this the more we are going to lose the support of the common, non-gun owning citizens and then we will have lost the gunrights war.
Using that strategy, you're probably right. That's why gun owners like me use a different strategy. The good guys need to be better equipped, and quit playing with fire. Gov't's are responsible for exponentially more deaths than criminals, so I would say we have more a right to fear them than we do criminals. You keep framing the argument so that our freedoms and liberties are curtailed because the lawless won't play nice, you're punishing me and my guns for the acts of someone else, while full well knowing that my guns in my hands could have stopped it.
I'm tired of you talking us in circles, so I'm breaking the circle now. No gun laws are needed for a gun dealer to know that selling guns from a vending machine is a stupid idea!! No amount of perceived "dangerousness" justifies banning any gun. No amount of laws will stop those determined to live free from owning a gun, and if the push keeps up, a civil war will be upon us.
That is all!!
Now you are talking like the gun banners. You criticize a gun selling idea by saying that it is so stupid there is not even any need for you to explain just why it is stupid. If you believe in maximum freedom for people, business owners, gun merchants, etc. then if they wanted to sell guns out of a vending machine you should have no objection to the idea. Maybe such a seller would want to offer guns from a vending machine just to get free publicity for his actual store sales. or maybe just to make a constitutional point or to try and expand other gun selling freedoms. Or maybe there would actually be a profit ind selling out of a vending machine. AS I have already mentioned, there are thousands of ATM "vending machines" all across the country and those "vending machines" contain thousands and thousands of dollars. That must work because in spite of occassional ATM robberies, I don't see any ATM machines being closed down.
I think you just don't want to give the vending machine seller total freedom to sell out of the vending machine because the minute you do you have just supported at least limited gun control. And to remain pure in your own mind you cannot allow yourself to do that.
I'm not the one suggesting "We all support at least some gun kontrol", fox.
I don't support any gun kontrol. On the same token, I don't think anyone is so stupid they would dispense guns from vending machines, not because they don't think they should be able to sell them any way they want, but because vending machines are for items that are fairly inexpensive and extensively used or consumed.
Fact: Firearms are attractive targets for theft.
Fact: Firearms are rather expensive.
Fact: Firearms in an unattended machine is an invitation to thievery.
Fact: No dealer will put that kind of capital in a machine with the hope that the machine will not be destroyed, stolen from and ripped off of any money it may have held.
Fact: Locks only keep the honest out.
Fact: No gun law is necessary for a gun dealer to say "BS on that. I'm not putting my money into a machine so it can be destroyed and my products ripped off."
Had it ever occured to you what would happen if a guy put $400-$500 into a machine to get a Glock, and it didn't dispense the gun?? If that were me, I would have no problem busting into the damned thing and taking a Glock. I'm its legal owner, and a machine that is preventing me from taking my property isn't going to be happy with my reaction to it.
Now, if you want to talk about dispensing ammunition out of a vending machine, I see no problem with that.
I would like to see every department store selling their own guns, where people can hold them, get a feel for them, take them out back and test them out (if a range is available) rather than making unhappy customers who buy a gun that they find doesn't feel right to them, and be out large sums of money for a product they won't use. That's nuts.
Consider being issued a car. No chance to test drive it, and you will take it and like it. Does that sound like a good idea to you???
In their minds, it is all or nothing...either you support NICS,registration, CCWs,background checks..or whatever else the NRA and government comes up with..or you want to sell to 5 year olds and idiots.
Personal responsibility means nothing to that type mentality.
The fact that I sold guns at gun shows for many years, and refused to sell guns to unescorted kids and gang-bangers makes me as bad as them, in their minds...like I TOO am handing over to the government my Rights...as they feel comfortable doing.
I, as an INDIVIDUAL, made the decision to sell...OR NOT... to WHOMEVER I deemed responsibile...or not.
I...PERSONALLY...would not sell out of a 'vending machine'..because I wish to see and talk to the party buying the gun.
THAT is responsibility.
As far as security goes...the day we are free enough to sell guns out of a vending machine, with the jack-boots of government off our necks, is the day the rapid clean-up of those criminals that will break into that machine commences...and I predict that within 30-60 days, that clean-up will have yielded a few new graveyards...and far fewer animals praying upon the populace.
Very good argument, TR;
Upon your astute observation...
I believe that setting a vending machine up to sell firearms is indeed the truest measure of the Second Amendment. I support the idea without reservation.
Thank you for stepping up and putting your money on the counter. You truly do not support any kind of gun control.
In regards to anyone else here, if you would not vote to allow selling guns out of vending machines (REGARDLESS of how good/bad an idea that is) then you have just admitted to supporting at least limited gun control. Besides, it should be easy for you to maintain cover and come out IN FAVOR of selling guns out of vending machines, even if you believe it is an unworkable, stupid idea.
Reason being that if it IS such a bad idea no one will ever do it anyway. So you can easily maintain your "no gun control law" stance and at the same time no have to worry about any guns being sold out of vending machines. Since you believe it is such a bad idea that no one will ever do it, that is.
The only form that has a chance of working to keep a country free.
An aroused, alert citizenry..well trained with firearms..and a moral, upstanding decent background.
Prepared to shoot ANYONE endangering other peoples lives with a gun...OR a knife,baseball bat,chair, gas malotov...or WHATEVER...
THAT gun control I can support.