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.
I am against any and all Restrictions!! The idea of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the general populace had access to the latest military arms available in order to be part of the militia. I consider any restrictions an infringement on that right, therefore a non-felon (due process constitutionally conducted) should be able to buy any arm, up to and including a howitzer or tank without any restrictions.
The deadlyist enemy the Second Amendment has is the gun owner that supports tyranny..that being gun laws.
"Paranoid"..a word right off the Anti-Gun talking points page...20,000+++ gun laws is a 'minor inconvience' to the 'lets line up and hand them in crowd'..and you are paranoid if you see the handwriting on the wall.
Not that I necessarily want to register my firearm, but if in this DEMOCRACY, the people decide I must, I will.
DEMOCRACY appears to be a term that you are inspired by only when you agree with the issue at hand. In a DEMOCRACY there will always be those that do not share your point of view.
The deadliest enemy to a DEMOCRACY would be the fanatics, both RIGHT and LEFT. It takes the middle of the road people, those who can compromise, to protect us from FASCISM
As with all good liberals, it sounds like you have fine tuned your selective listening. Rollover and see what it gets you. Read The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. Catchup on current affairs from other than a biased MSM outlet then come back and we will THEN compare notes.
quote:Originally posted by csjs1194
I have no need for a rocket launcher but dont care if you own one
nor do I really need a 300 wby but I do have one and dont care if anybody likes it or not
NOBODY in the government has the authority to take this right away from us but they do it
I have a name for these people.... NAZIS
Excuse me, but taking away guns is a left wing thing, not a right wing thing.
As a NRA member and gun collector i believe STRONGLY in gun control.
ps: Where I live in Georgia, gun control is defined as hitting your target. Our favorite targets are the likes of Hillary, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and all other scum-sucking anti-gun liberals.
As far as the poll goes, I think the only people that shouldn't have guns are violent criminals, mentally unstable people, etc.
Machine gun ban- NO, OK to regulate them. Personally I like the .50 BMG mounted in the truck bed on the Ponderosa site. [:D]
The deadliest enemy to a DEMOCRACY would be the fanatics, both RIGHT and LEFT. It takes the middle of the road people, those who can compromise, to protect us from FASCISM
MrMw: You sound like Nancy Pelosi. She thinks we law abiding gun lovere ARE fanatics.[V]
No, MrMw;
It is painfully obvious that you lack the faintest knowledge of the system put into place by the Founders.
The CONSTITUTION is the balance point between Socialism/Democracy and Fascism..
Democracy is as evil a system as Communism...glad you support it.
Republic is as foreign a term to you as 'freedom' is.
The only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy, you vote now and take orders later. In a dictatorship, you don't have to waste your time voting.
The idea that a majority can vote away any right of a minority flies in the face of freedom, and spits upon the men who fought and died to give us freedom. If you would surrender to those, then rightfully, you deserve no quarter from those smart enough and brave enough to stand up to it.
99% of us will not "just surrender". About 30 million of us will come out of the woodwork and fight.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
) Sort of agree./ Why does any private citizen need a fully automatic weapon? If we are to defend ourselves from a government run wild, really, would an automatic weapon make a difference?
2) Nope./ No way No how. Just a way to track people.
3) No restrictions/ let bad peeps figure it out the hard way
4) Depends./ how many, no. cool down? 3 days won't kill a person to wait.
5) Who needs a machine gun? They're fun but no reason whatsoever to own.
6) Where in the constitution does it say that felons cannot own. Sure, some restrictions are needed eg. using weapon to commit crime, history of violence.
7) Sure. Silence is golden.
8) Ban it. Why does a private citizen need a .50 cal? A little excessive to hunt with, kind of takes the sport out of it.
9) Forget background checks. Again, show me where, in the constitution original, does it say which citizens can/ can not own weaponry?
I'm not sure what the forefathers would have thought, I would venture a guess that if they could come to today and then travel back, there would be some different verbiage but more pointed at government. I think amendments to the constitution should be outlawed. That is merely changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those that wish to "own" something not tangible, our freedoms.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban Stupid, cosmetic Liberal Bigotry. It's Black so they don't like it unless they control it.
2) Gun Registration Pre Confiscation.
3) Conceal Carry Laws Converting a Human Right into a Privelege
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time It's my money. It's Commerce in a LEGAL product. I can do with it as I please. What are they going to do, prevent Museums from buying collections?
5) Machine Gun Laws See "Assault Weapon"
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.) No, I don't think the Government should have the authority to "decide" - by defining a "felon" who loses a RIGHT.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect) See "Assault Weapons"
8) .50 cal ban Ya Mean my Flintlock is in trouble?
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows Private sales are Private sales. a 4473 is a pre-registration scheme
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
On your specifics: See above. In General, here is where I stand.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and Human Right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
I think that's pretty clear. It's called the Atlanta Declaration.
quote:1.) Sort of agree./ Why does any private citizen need a fully automatic weapon? If we are to defend ourselves from a government run wild, really, would an automatic weapon make a difference?
It could make a difference. It certainly helps against multiple assailant JBT's armed with them in formation to take them out. That was the principle behind the select-fire rifles. You can decide what is best at the moment.
quote:4) Depends./ how many, no. cool down? 3 days won't kill a person to wait.
Bet me, it won't. A former flame of mine is alive only because she refused to abide by Kalifornistan waiting period rules and bought a gun at a gun show after her ex-boyfriend threatened to kill her because she wouldn't take him back. Had she waited, she, not he, would be dead.
quote:8) Ban it. Why does a private citizen need a .50 cal? A little excessive to hunt with, kind of takes the sport out of it.
Fine, how about they ban Corvettes, DVD players and writable DVD technology, as well... You don't need them, either....
It isn't up to the gov't to tell us what we can and cannot own.
quote:6) Where in the constitution does it say that felons cannot own. Sure, some restrictions are needed eg. using weapon to commit crime, history of violence.
Turning people like this loose on the citizenry is like letting a lion out of a cage.
Hey Gunphreak;
some of my responses are based more on the moment of thought rather than long, drawn out thought.
On the waiting period, I mean typically. Nothing against your "old flame" but by what I read in that, she got the draw on the ex. Could she not have just as easily been the perpetrator in that scenario? (the one with the bad temper)
The example of type/size you bring up is valid. Do we "need" a dvd/corvette/ etc...? nope. You are correct 100%. However, I was speaking in the idea of what I believe to be constitutional. Defend yourself. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be the trigger man should I be defending for reason. For typical sport, a .50 cal is major over-kill.
Automatic weapons? again. Same response as above.
Ex Felons. Note what I wrote. Not ALL. Just the one's that are not a "threat". What I am driving at there is that we ALL have made bad judgment calls at one time or another. Most have done things that would in fact land a person in jail (by all laws written, as in biblical law as well as mans law) we are pretty much just crap. Anyway, the government is finding more and more reason to take away rights. Really, you evade (constitutionally legal mind you) paying taxes. They put you in prison. Is THAT a reason to strip your rights? You get he idea I am sure.
My thoughts come from if the majority can benefit by not asking for the whole pie but the pieces that are more than reasonable than the government has less a leg to stand on.
Don't get me wrong. I am a conspiracy theorist that truly believes that this government, regardless of who is in office, is hell bent and determined to in one way or another leech off the very foundation of what this country was formed by and for; The people.
We need a system of government and laws and even taxes. We don't need a majority of what we have. What we have is the same as treating a cancer with a cancer. We have a lesser of evils in comparison to other countries but in reality, we are prisoners of our own making. Prisoners of hate and discontent and we are quickly coming to an end.
Ok. I've ranted.
We are on the same page. Given a choice, I'd fight to the end for what is true and just. Not being the one who wants to make that determination of correctiveness I would suffice for anyone that has the funds and insight to return this country to a prospective idealism of "by the people, for the people" but alas, it'll never happen. [:(]
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
A. I'm again it.
2) Gun Registration
A. I'm again it.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
A. They are unconstitutional in forty-eight of the fifty states. Vermont and to a lesser degree Alaska have it about right. I do have two CCW permits/licenses though, because at this point in my life I don't care to go to war with city hall. A requirement to have a CCW permit/license is in itself an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
A. I'm again it.
5) Machine Gun Laws
A. I'm again it.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
A. I don't have a problem with a felon loosing his rights via due process of law. Felony wife-beating would be included.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
8) .50 cal ban
A. I'm again it.
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
I agree with James other than #6...I believe a felon should have his rights restored once his debt to society has been paid.
I am against all with a caveat on #6. The statutes need to be redone and what constitutes a felony should have a much higher bar (ie drugs should be stricken from the criminal code altogether). Once the debt is paid and they can vote they should be able to own a firearm as well.
I firmly believe the general law abiding public should be able to keep and bear anything that law enforcement personnel have access to at the very least. The 2nd is there to give the citizenry the check and balance of lethal force. No more and no less.
Gun crime should carry a lifetime penalty and a stigma no different from that of a child molester. In fact, we could lock them all up together. Those that do not deserve to live out there days with child molesters should be publicly hung. That is a deterrent.
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
triple: If I'm not mistaken, some states have a "Romeo and Juliet" clause in their statutory rape laws, giving a teenage couple up to a 4 year "cushion" in age difference.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
With all that has passed between us you have to go and start being agreeable.
quote:Originally posted by chaoslodge
quote:Originally posted by freemind
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
With all that has passed between us you have to go and start being agreeable.
quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
Then just what do you think child molestation or statutory rape is -
A 19 yo and a 14 yo?
A 21 yo and a 12 yo?
A 40 yo and a 6 yo?
Statutory rape is a bunk charge on its face....
There is a difference between a child who is manipulated and has no grasp on what is happening, vs. one who knows and is dumbstruck with love the same way the rest of us are.
I think the only recourse a person should have when they catch their 15 year old daughter willingly having sex with an adult of any age is civil recourse, only when they try to flee responsibility. The same would go for any teen who knows what is going on. Let a shrink figure the extent of the knowledge, and then turn it in to predatory rape. If a relationship is established between the two of anything reasonable, then predatory rape is not applicable.
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
quote:Originally posted by Dangerous T
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
Something tells me that "Dangerous T" is NOT going to be at the top of everyone's Christmas list.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"He is honest".
Yup.
Refreshing to see a man step up shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein...anti-gunners all.
I can respect that.
You whacked.
What did I say that I was antigun? When I said that I am for letting gus have full auto stuff? When I said that I am all for short barrel rifles? When I said that I am against gun registration? When I said that only a severe felons should be banned from having guns? When I said that I am for consealed carry? When I am agains gun purchasing limits? You call that anti gun? You, dude are either whacko or illiterate. You choose.
Yes, I am against silencers.Yes, I think that before some dude conseal carries a full auto micro uzi, we better have his head checked so he don't go postal on your wife and your kids, since you, Mr. Super ninja special forces who can take on anyone and dodge bullets are not gonna be around your wife and kids 24/7 since you have a job (I hope).
Same goes for silencers.
Yeah< I see NO reason for anyone to have a 50 cal rifle. However, before running your mouth off, you better go back to school and learn how to read: I have no reason for ME to have one. You wanna waste your money? Go ahead, buy 10 50 cal rifles for 4000 bucks each. Help US economy.
So, if you think that my stance is antigun. You are a lunatic. I DO NOT BELIEVE that everyone in USA is sane and is a responsible person.
I know that there are some crazies out there. Like for example the loon who called me anti gun. We can't have crazy people have guns. Ok?
We do, and then some weirdo goes postal, like in Northern Illinois University and what do we have? Media going bonkers screaming about gun violence. We can't have that. Go through safety course, get a clearence from a psychiatrist, get a background check and then you can have your conseal carry short barrel full auto mall ninja gun. With laser, red dot, optical sights, super flashhider and silencer attached. ok? However, if you think that my stance is antigun, you so crazy that they won't be giving you any licenses if that rule is implemented.
quote:Originally posted by Dangerous T
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"He is honest".
Yup.
Refreshing to see a man step up shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein...anti-gunners all.
I can respect that.
You whacked.
What did I say that I was antigun? When I said that I am for letting gus have full auto stuff? When I said that I am all for short barrel rifles? When I said that I am against gun registration? When I said that only a severe felons should be banned from having guns? When I said that I am for consealed carry? When I am agains gun purchasing limits? You call that anti gun? You, dude are either whacko or illiterate. You choose.
Yes, I am against silencers.Yes, I think that before some dude conseal carries a full auto micro uzi, we better have his head checked so he don't go postal on your wife and your kids, since you, Mr. Super ninja special forces who can take on anyone and dodge bullets are not gonna be around your wife and kids 24/7 since you have a job (I hope).
Same goes for silencers.
Yeah< I see NO reason for anyone to have a 50 cal rifle. However, before running your mouth off, you better go back to school and learn how to read: I have no reason for ME to have one. You wanna waste your money? Go ahead, buy 10 50 cal rifles for 4000 bucks each. Help US economy.
So, if you think that my stance is antigun. You are a lunatic. I DO NOT BELIEVE that everyone in USA is sane and is a responsible person.
I know that there are some crazies out there. Like for example the loon who called me anti gun. We can't have crazy people have guns. Ok?
We do, and then some weirdo goes postal, like in Northern Illinois University and what do we have? Media going bonkers screaming about gun violence. We can't have that. Go through safety course, get a clearence from a psychiatrist, get a background check and then you can have your conseal carry short barrel full auto mall ninja gun. With laser, red dot, optical sights, super flashhider and silencer attached. ok? However, if you think that my stance is antigun, you so crazy that they won't be giving you any licenses if that rule is implemented.
I would respond in detail, but why bother.
Obviously you are simply a "New American" who is clueless of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I initially had a modicum of respect for you for stepping up and staking out your position, although I abhor the position you take.
Your answer, quoted above, shows that I was mistaken in placing that modicum of respect.
Look. The truth of the matter is that americans are just plain crazy.
Period. The amount of people on prozak and stuff like that is really. I mean REALLY high. Do YOU want the person who is on prozak have an access to guns? I don't. The stuff thats going on in american schools is plain scary. And we ain't talking about no project and hood schools. The kids in the perfectly fine white neighbourood schools are bullying each other, torturing anyone who is even a bit different socially. Now, give a guy like that a gun and watch bodies pile (see Northern Illinois University). Thats the problem.
Now, as far as the rest of the stuff. Specifically for those who graduated from american public schools, I will explain my stance.
1) Assault Weapons. Weapons themselves are not dangerous. People who use them are. To me, the most dangerous guy is not someone with an AK, but someone with Remington 700 sitting half a mile away with a sniper scope. THATS the most dangerous guy. I am AGAINST the assault weapons ban. How is that ANTI GUN?
2) Gun registration. Do you register your kitchen knives? Your baseball bats? No. And yet more people die by these utensils then by guns. I am AGAINST gun registration. How is that ANTI GUN?
3) Conseal carry laws. Now. If you buy gun for self defence, and yet you work, so you are only home like 12 hours per day. You need to defend yourself 24 hours per day. However. As much as armchair commando and mall ninjas love to say "Hey, if he didn't know the safety and got blown away - his fault", that ain't works like this. Treating a fool who accidentally shot himself in the foot costs money.
Besides, if the guy has an anger manegement problem (like road rage), do I want him to have a gun when I am driving near him? No. Therefore, I am FOR conseal carry being permitted. However, I would SUPPORT the measure that would require a person to take a safety class, and have a psychologist give an OK for person to have a conseal carry permit. How is that anti gun?
4) No LIMITS ON HANDGUN PER MONTHS. Now, some mall ninja or armchair commando thinks that the more guns he has the more cool of a badass he becomes. Wrong. If the guy is good, he is as dangerous with one handgun as he is with a dosen. NO LIMITS ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN BUY PER MONTH. Now, someone, explain to me how is that anti gun??
5) I support the citizens right to have a fully automatic weapons.
PERIOD. More people die in USA from cars then from weapons. Now, we don't go around banning cars, do we? So. I say let people have any weapon they want.
6) Giving a person who has commited a serious crime (murder 2, murder 1, rape, child molestation, animal torture) a gun, is just plain dumb.
However, in america people are crazy, laws are even crazier. I know a man, his wife flipped out on him, slapped him, he pushed her away and she fell. Cops came and he was charged with spousal abuse, though it was clearly a defence. So I would be very careful about whom you ban the guns for. I would say that if someone commited certain crime (child molestation or murder 1), he can't have guns PERIOD. EVER. Not even a SHOTGUN. Not even a slingshot. For the rest, I would give grace period. A person is a thief, lets say. After he gets out of jail, let him wait 3 years before he can get any guns. For example. How is THAT anti gun?
7) Shor barrel guns. Heck, you want to deteriorate your guns performance just for pretending that you are some sort of a special forces commando? Go ahead. I think that the short barrel gun laws are just stupid. I myself would NEVER get a SBR, but if someone else wants - he should have a freedom to do it. How is that anti gun?
Silencers are a bit different. Though, to be honest, I would say that if someone wants to, he should have a right to get one. Though that should require a special permit. How is that anti gun?
8) .50 cal ban. Now, I would NEVER buy such gun. I have no targets to warrant its use. It is useless in self defence. It is expensive, and ammunition costs are very high. However, if you want to spend the money on it. Go ahead. I am AGAINST 50 caliber ban. In fact, I would say let people have weapons up to 20mm. I would LOVE to have a PTRD. Just as a historical replic. How is that anti gun?
9) Private sales of firearms should require a background check. Period. You don't want some gang banger or white supermacist or some religious whacko who sees demons all around himself getting a hold of the gun. How is that anti gun?
You have quite clearly staked out your position as being in support of government regulation of firearms. I got that message loud and clear.
Sir, like it or not, that puts you contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Call yourself pro-gun all you want.
Seems simply to be a lack of fundamental understanding.
You further have very clearly identified a number of societal issues, but your solution is "people/group control", rather than the sanctioning of an individual for specific bad acts.
"Collectivist" thought -vs- "Individualist" thought.
Which is the Constitutional approach Dangerous?
Find the answer and your eyes may well open. It is never to late to see.
You have quite clearly staked out your position as being in support of government regulation of firearms. I got that message loud and clear.
Sir, like it or not, that puts you contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Call yourself pro-gun all you want.
Seems simply to be a lack of fundamental understanding.
You further have very clearly identified a number of societal issues, but your solution is "people/group control", rather than the sanctioning of an individual for specific bad acts.
"Collectivist" thought -vs- "Individualist" thought.
Which is the Constitutional approach Dangerous?
Find the answer and your eyes may well open. It is never to late to see.
Dear Sir. Thank you for responce. Let me address your valid issues.
For the last 30 years, americans are NOT taught personal responsibility. No matter what happens, they blame someone else.
Congress blames bush for "lying" thought they had the real information. Parents blame "music and videogames" for bad behavior of the children, though they perffere to watch TV rather then raise the children. Teachers are afraid to be sued and simply lecture instead of educate. Everyone is blaming each other for the problems.
It is anyone'es fault but mine. Thats the motto of many americans.
The levels of personal responsiblity among people here is very low, among both, blacks and whites. You think that an average jow the blow will have enough common sence and responsibility to handle a deadly weapon? Good for you. I do not. I see a lot of pretty disturbed people around me. In a bar, for example. Lots of frustrated people at work. I see people at work snap and punch the walls for no reason.
Do I want these people packing some heat? Maybe, provided that they can control themselves.
I honestly believe that responsiblity should be granted to responsible only. You see, sir. Today the guy beats his dog to make up for the fact that he is a loser. Tomorrow he may pick up his short barrel full auto rifle, snap on a silencer and go postal in a local mall. Now, I understand that all of you folks here are certified ninjas, snipers, green berets and you all can shoot off balls of a fly. At least judging by your own words. However, the sad reality is that the guy will have a chance to cap some people before someone will get him. Be it someone who is packing some heat, or be it a cop, or be it anyone. The point is, that by the time the situation is resolved, there will be some bodies laying down in chalk.
I don't want none of that crap. I would much rather have checks and balances in ths system. I know this dude. Not only he has an FFL and has a bunch of real full auto machineguns in his house. He is also a grouchy old man. One day I came to his house to pick up an ammo, and he was drunk as a skunk, waving around a 1911 and screaming that "he is sick and tired of that damned IRS taxing him out of business".
Now, let me tell you something. I got my ammo from him (10 boxes of silver bear 223 for total of $50) and got out.
If he would ask me to pay $50 for a single box of silver bear 223, I would still pay for it. A drunk guy, pissed off, waving around a pistol... Scary. Same guy having a machinegun and a collection of military rifles (Cetme, 5 FALs, bunch of AKs and AR15s), is even scarier. Now, he did everything on his property. He didn't threaten me. However, I didn't feel very well or comfortable there.
I would much rather government deal with loons like that. No, I did NOT call cops on him. I figure that the dude is having a bad day. However, having a bad day is not an excuse to greet your customer drunk and waving a damn 1911.
I have bunch of guns myself. I have a rule. Guns in - drinks out.
I do not have alchohol at home. Simply because I have guns at home.
Nice safety rule.
Recent shootings in NIU and other places have the same sad pattern:
a young person is driven to the brink, and finds no better way to let his frustrations be known then get a gun and go postal. Now, I would rather have all of us pay a $20 for a visit to psychologist and get a mental check once every year, then have my kid getting capped by some looney who has no previous record, but nutty as a fruitcake and now has a gun.
" 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. "
27 simple words, Dangerous t..and you flunked.
The thousands of words you write attempting to refute those few words merely confirm your lack of moral fiber and strength of character ..not a flaw in those few words.
The fact that you demand the government punish tens of millions of decent citizens instead of vicious criminals speaks VOLUMES about YOU, `t' ..not a failing in the Second.
The fact that society ..that would be YOU.'t' ..refuse to demand an accounting for the tens of thousands of crazy people running about is a flaw in .guess who.'t'..?? How about .YOU.'t' ?
No ..you prefer instead to force ME to crawl on my belly just like you enjoy doing, `t' ..because YOU live in fear.
You fear drunks.you fear crazy people.you fear other people with guns.
You fear EVETHING except what you SHOULD fear.big, out of control government.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
lt496,
Dangerous T "says" he is NOT from this country.
He DOES NOT CARE about our silly little pieces of paper.
Of course, MANY of the people that were born here, have the same NON CARING attitude. [V]
Didn't know that pickenup. Haven't really read much from him up to now.
Regardless of where Dangerous T is from, it is getting harder and harder to separate the views of socialist-collectivist foreigners from the mass of "New Americans" who are home grown .
quote:Originally posted by Highball
" 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. "
27 simple words, Dangerous t..and you flunked.
The thousands of words you write attempting to refute those few words merely confirm your lack of moral fiber and strength of character ..not a flaw in those few words.
The fact that you demand the government punish tens of millions of decent citizens instead of vicious criminals speaks VOLUMES about YOU, `t' ..not a failing in the Second.
The fact that society ..that would be YOU.'t' ..refuse to demand an accounting for the tens of thousands of crazy people running about is a flaw in .guess who.'t'..?? How about .YOU.'t' ?
No ..you prefer instead to force ME to crawl on my belly just like you enjoy doing, `t' ..because YOU live in fear.
You fear drunks.you fear crazy people.you fear other people with guns.
You fear EVETHING except what you SHOULD fear.big, out of control government.
Go figure.
Pretty much sums up his rambling positions, near as I can figure Highball.
II cannot use words with your finesse, Captain ..I merely attempt to slay the evil that walks among us with as few of them as possible.
I admire your ability to use words like a rapier ..puncturing bloated egos and stuffed shirts alike with the skill of a master swordsman ..the victim often not even aware that he is down and out till thirty moments after the fatal stroke..
Whereas I tend to have gore spattered on the ceilings, walls, and standing ankle deep in it.messy, what ?
[:D][:0]
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
Dangerous,
"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."
means:
1) Government has no lawful power to regulate the sale of firearms. Period.
2) Government has no lawful power to regulate the transfer of firearms. Period.
3) Government has no lawful power to regulate the possession of firearms. Period.
4) Government has no lawful power to regulate the ownership of firearms. Period.
5) Government has no lawful power to regulate who can or cannot carry a firearm in any manner the individual sees fit. Period.
And yes, it is that simple. Accepting the Constitution of the United States for what it is and abiding by it is not difficult at all.
Comments
I'm Glad your NOT my neighbor.
"Paranoid"..a word right off the Anti-Gun talking points page...20,000+++ gun laws is a 'minor inconvience' to the 'lets line up and hand them in crowd'..and you are paranoid if you see the handwriting on the wall.
You said it, DEMOCRACY.
Not that I necessarily want to register my firearm, but if in this DEMOCRACY, the people decide I must, I will.
DEMOCRACY appears to be a term that you are inspired by only when you agree with the issue at hand. In a DEMOCRACY there will always be those that do not share your point of view.
The deadliest enemy to a DEMOCRACY would be the fanatics, both RIGHT and LEFT. It takes the middle of the road people, those who can compromise, to protect us from FASCISM
As with all good liberals, it sounds like you have fine tuned your selective listening. Rollover and see what it gets you. Read The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. Catchup on current affairs from other than a biased MSM outlet then come back and we will THEN compare notes.
I have no need for a rocket launcher but dont care if you own one
nor do I really need a 300 wby but I do have one and dont care if anybody likes it or not
NOBODY in the government has the authority to take this right away from us but they do it
I have a name for these people.... NAZIS
Excuse me, but taking away guns is a left wing thing, not a right wing thing.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html/url]
ps: Where I live in Georgia, gun control is defined as hitting your target. Our favorite targets are the likes of Hillary, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and all other scum-sucking anti-gun liberals.
As far as the poll goes, I think the only people that shouldn't have guns are violent criminals, mentally unstable people, etc.
Machine gun ban- NO, OK to regulate them. Personally I like the .50 BMG mounted in the truck bed on the Ponderosa site. [:D]
Highball,
The deadliest enemy to a DEMOCRACY would be the fanatics, both RIGHT and LEFT. It takes the middle of the road people, those who can compromise, to protect us from FASCISM
MrMw: You sound like Nancy Pelosi. She thinks we law abiding gun lovere ARE fanatics.[V]
It is painfully obvious that you lack the faintest knowledge of the system put into place by the Founders.
The CONSTITUTION is the balance point between Socialism/Democracy and Fascism..
Democracy is as evil a system as Communism...glad you support it.
Republic is as foreign a term to you as 'freedom' is.
The only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy, you vote now and take orders later. In a dictatorship, you don't have to waste your time voting.
The idea that a majority can vote away any right of a minority flies in the face of freedom, and spits upon the men who fought and died to give us freedom. If you would surrender to those, then rightfully, you deserve no quarter from those smart enough and brave enough to stand up to it.
99% of us will not "just surrender". About 30 million of us will come out of the woodwork and fight.
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
) Sort of agree./ Why does any private citizen need a fully automatic weapon? If we are to defend ourselves from a government run wild, really, would an automatic weapon make a difference?
2) Nope./ No way No how. Just a way to track people.
3) No restrictions/ let bad peeps figure it out the hard way
4) Depends./ how many, no. cool down? 3 days won't kill a person to wait.
5) Who needs a machine gun? They're fun but no reason whatsoever to own.
6) Where in the constitution does it say that felons cannot own. Sure, some restrictions are needed eg. using weapon to commit crime, history of violence.
7) Sure. Silence is golden.
8) Ban it. Why does a private citizen need a .50 cal? A little excessive to hunt with, kind of takes the sport out of it.
9) Forget background checks. Again, show me where, in the constitution original, does it say which citizens can/ can not own weaponry?
I'm not sure what the forefathers would have thought, I would venture a guess that if they could come to today and then travel back, there would be some different verbiage but more pointed at government. I think amendments to the constitution should be outlawed. That is merely changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those that wish to "own" something not tangible, our freedoms.
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban Stupid, cosmetic Liberal Bigotry. It's Black so they don't like it unless they control it.
2) Gun Registration Pre Confiscation.
3) Conceal Carry Laws Converting a Human Right into a Privelege
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time It's my money. It's Commerce in a LEGAL product. I can do with it as I please. What are they going to do, prevent Museums from buying collections?
5) Machine Gun Laws See "Assault Weapon"
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.) No, I don't think the Government should have the authority to "decide" - by defining a "felon" who loses a RIGHT.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect) See "Assault Weapons"
8) .50 cal ban Ya Mean my Flintlock is in trouble?
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows Private sales are Private sales. a 4473 is a pre-registration scheme
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
On your specifics: See above. In General, here is where I stand.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and Human Right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
I think that's pretty clear. It's called the Atlanta Declaration.
It could make a difference. It certainly helps against multiple assailant JBT's armed with them in formation to take them out. That was the principle behind the select-fire rifles. You can decide what is best at the moment.
quote:4) Depends./ how many, no. cool down? 3 days won't kill a person to wait.
Bet me, it won't. A former flame of mine is alive only because she refused to abide by Kalifornistan waiting period rules and bought a gun at a gun show after her ex-boyfriend threatened to kill her because she wouldn't take him back. Had she waited, she, not he, would be dead.
quote:8) Ban it. Why does a private citizen need a .50 cal? A little excessive to hunt with, kind of takes the sport out of it.
Fine, how about they ban Corvettes, DVD players and writable DVD technology, as well... You don't need them, either....
It isn't up to the gov't to tell us what we can and cannot own.
quote:6) Where in the constitution does it say that felons cannot own. Sure, some restrictions are needed eg. using weapon to commit crime, history of violence.
Turning people like this loose on the citizenry is like letting a lion out of a cage.
some of my responses are based more on the moment of thought rather than long, drawn out thought.
On the waiting period, I mean typically. Nothing against your "old flame" but by what I read in that, she got the draw on the ex. Could she not have just as easily been the perpetrator in that scenario? (the one with the bad temper)
The example of type/size you bring up is valid. Do we "need" a dvd/corvette/ etc...? nope. You are correct 100%. However, I was speaking in the idea of what I believe to be constitutional. Defend yourself. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be the trigger man should I be defending for reason. For typical sport, a .50 cal is major over-kill.
Automatic weapons? again. Same response as above.
Ex Felons. Note what I wrote. Not ALL. Just the one's that are not a "threat". What I am driving at there is that we ALL have made bad judgment calls at one time or another. Most have done things that would in fact land a person in jail (by all laws written, as in biblical law as well as mans law) we are pretty much just crap. Anyway, the government is finding more and more reason to take away rights. Really, you evade (constitutionally legal mind you) paying taxes. They put you in prison. Is THAT a reason to strip your rights? You get he idea I am sure.
My thoughts come from if the majority can benefit by not asking for the whole pie but the pieces that are more than reasonable than the government has less a leg to stand on.
Don't get me wrong. I am a conspiracy theorist that truly believes that this government, regardless of who is in office, is hell bent and determined to in one way or another leech off the very foundation of what this country was formed by and for; The people.
We need a system of government and laws and even taxes. We don't need a majority of what we have. What we have is the same as treating a cancer with a cancer. We have a lesser of evils in comparison to other countries but in reality, we are prisoners of our own making. Prisoners of hate and discontent and we are quickly coming to an end.
Ok. I've ranted.
We are on the same page. Given a choice, I'd fight to the end for what is true and just. Not being the one who wants to make that determination of correctiveness I would suffice for anyone that has the funds and insight to return this country to a prospective idealism of "by the people, for the people" but alas, it'll never happen. [:(]
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
A. I'm again it.
2) Gun Registration
A. I'm again it.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
A. They are unconstitutional in forty-eight of the fifty states. Vermont and to a lesser degree Alaska have it about right. I do have two CCW permits/licenses though, because at this point in my life I don't care to go to war with city hall. A requirement to have a CCW permit/license is in itself an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
A. I'm again it.
5) Machine Gun Laws
A. I'm again it.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
A. I don't have a problem with a felon loosing his rights via due process of law. Felony wife-beating would be included.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
8) .50 cal ban
A. I'm again it.
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
I agree with James other than #6...I believe a felon should have his rights restored once his debt to society has been paid.
I firmly believe the general law abiding public should be able to keep and bear anything that law enforcement personnel have access to at the very least. The 2nd is there to give the citizenry the check and balance of lethal force. No more and no less.
Gun crime should carry a lifetime penalty and a stigma no different from that of a child molester. In fact, we could lock them all up together. Those that do not deserve to live out there days with child molesters should be publicly hung. That is a deterrent.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
Then just what do you think child molestation or statutory rape is -
A 19 yo and a 14 yo?
A 21 yo and a 12 yo?
A 40 yo and a 6 yo?
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
With all that has passed between us you have to go and start being agreeable.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
#2 Child molesters (by a better definition) AND rapists should be hung from the gallows JUST like murder perps should. Neither crime is any less hanious than the other.
#3 Traitors to America should be hung as well. For one to comit treason against their country, THAT is JUST as lowly as murder or rape.
THESE crimes OUGHT to define WHAT a felony IS. Other than that, what crime would be hanious enough to warrant losing rights forever?
With all that has passed between us you have to go and start being agreeable.
Yeah, I can throw a surprise out, once in awhile.
#1 We need to better define what "child molesting" IS.
An 18 Y.O. having sex with a 15 Y.O. and both parties are willing, is NOT child molestation.
Then just what do you think child molestation or statutory rape is -
A 19 yo and a 14 yo?
A 21 yo and a 12 yo?
A 40 yo and a 6 yo?
Statutory rape is a bunk charge on its face....
There is a difference between a child who is manipulated and has no grasp on what is happening, vs. one who knows and is dumbstruck with love the same way the rest of us are.
I think the only recourse a person should have when they catch their 15 year old daughter willingly having sex with an adult of any age is civil recourse, only when they try to flee responsibility. The same would go for any teen who knows what is going on. Let a shrink figure the extent of the knowledge, and then turn it in to predatory rape. If a relationship is established between the two of anything reasonable, then predatory rape is not applicable.
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
Something tells me that "Dangerous T" is NOT going to be at the top of everyone's Christmas list.
Yup.
Refreshing to see a man step up shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein...anti-gunners all.
I can respect that.
"He is honest".
Yup.
Refreshing to see a man step up shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein...anti-gunners all.
I can respect that.
You whacked.
What did I say that I was antigun? When I said that I am for letting gus have full auto stuff? When I said that I am all for short barrel rifles? When I said that I am against gun registration? When I said that only a severe felons should be banned from having guns? When I said that I am for consealed carry? When I am agains gun purchasing limits? You call that anti gun? You, dude are either whacko or illiterate. You choose.
Yes, I am against silencers.Yes, I think that before some dude conseal carries a full auto micro uzi, we better have his head checked so he don't go postal on your wife and your kids, since you, Mr. Super ninja special forces who can take on anyone and dodge bullets are not gonna be around your wife and kids 24/7 since you have a job (I hope).
Same goes for silencers.
Yeah< I see NO reason for anyone to have a 50 cal rifle. However, before running your mouth off, you better go back to school and learn how to read: I have no reason for ME to have one. You wanna waste your money? Go ahead, buy 10 50 cal rifles for 4000 bucks each. Help US economy.
So, if you think that my stance is antigun. You are a lunatic. I DO NOT BELIEVE that everyone in USA is sane and is a responsible person.
I know that there are some crazies out there. Like for example the loon who called me anti gun. We can't have crazy people have guns. Ok?
We do, and then some weirdo goes postal, like in Northern Illinois University and what do we have? Media going bonkers screaming about gun violence. We can't have that. Go through safety course, get a clearence from a psychiatrist, get a background check and then you can have your conseal carry short barrel full auto mall ninja gun. With laser, red dot, optical sights, super flashhider and silencer attached. ok? However, if you think that my stance is antigun, you so crazy that they won't be giving you any licenses if that rule is implemented.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"He is honest".
Yup.
Refreshing to see a man step up shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Shumer/Kennedy/Fiendstein...anti-gunners all.
I can respect that.
You whacked.
What did I say that I was antigun? When I said that I am for letting gus have full auto stuff? When I said that I am all for short barrel rifles? When I said that I am against gun registration? When I said that only a severe felons should be banned from having guns? When I said that I am for consealed carry? When I am agains gun purchasing limits? You call that anti gun? You, dude are either whacko or illiterate. You choose.
Yes, I am against silencers.Yes, I think that before some dude conseal carries a full auto micro uzi, we better have his head checked so he don't go postal on your wife and your kids, since you, Mr. Super ninja special forces who can take on anyone and dodge bullets are not gonna be around your wife and kids 24/7 since you have a job (I hope).
Same goes for silencers.
Yeah< I see NO reason for anyone to have a 50 cal rifle. However, before running your mouth off, you better go back to school and learn how to read: I have no reason for ME to have one. You wanna waste your money? Go ahead, buy 10 50 cal rifles for 4000 bucks each. Help US economy.
So, if you think that my stance is antigun. You are a lunatic. I DO NOT BELIEVE that everyone in USA is sane and is a responsible person.
I know that there are some crazies out there. Like for example the loon who called me anti gun. We can't have crazy people have guns. Ok?
We do, and then some weirdo goes postal, like in Northern Illinois University and what do we have? Media going bonkers screaming about gun violence. We can't have that. Go through safety course, get a clearence from a psychiatrist, get a background check and then you can have your conseal carry short barrel full auto mall ninja gun. With laser, red dot, optical sights, super flashhider and silencer attached. ok? However, if you think that my stance is antigun, you so crazy that they won't be giving you any licenses if that rule is implemented.
I would respond in detail, but why bother.
Obviously you are simply a "New American" who is clueless of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I initially had a modicum of respect for you for stepping up and staking out your position, although I abhor the position you take.
Your answer, quoted above, shows that I was mistaken in placing that modicum of respect.
Period. The amount of people on prozak and stuff like that is really. I mean REALLY high. Do YOU want the person who is on prozak have an access to guns? I don't. The stuff thats going on in american schools is plain scary. And we ain't talking about no project and hood schools. The kids in the perfectly fine white neighbourood schools are bullying each other, torturing anyone who is even a bit different socially. Now, give a guy like that a gun and watch bodies pile (see Northern Illinois University). Thats the problem.
Now, as far as the rest of the stuff. Specifically for those who graduated from american public schools, I will explain my stance.
1) Assault Weapons. Weapons themselves are not dangerous. People who use them are. To me, the most dangerous guy is not someone with an AK, but someone with Remington 700 sitting half a mile away with a sniper scope. THATS the most dangerous guy. I am AGAINST the assault weapons ban. How is that ANTI GUN?
2) Gun registration. Do you register your kitchen knives? Your baseball bats? No. And yet more people die by these utensils then by guns. I am AGAINST gun registration. How is that ANTI GUN?
3) Conseal carry laws. Now. If you buy gun for self defence, and yet you work, so you are only home like 12 hours per day. You need to defend yourself 24 hours per day. However. As much as armchair commando and mall ninjas love to say "Hey, if he didn't know the safety and got blown away - his fault", that ain't works like this. Treating a fool who accidentally shot himself in the foot costs money.
Besides, if the guy has an anger manegement problem (like road rage), do I want him to have a gun when I am driving near him? No. Therefore, I am FOR conseal carry being permitted. However, I would SUPPORT the measure that would require a person to take a safety class, and have a psychologist give an OK for person to have a conseal carry permit. How is that anti gun?
4) No LIMITS ON HANDGUN PER MONTHS. Now, some mall ninja or armchair commando thinks that the more guns he has the more cool of a badass he becomes. Wrong. If the guy is good, he is as dangerous with one handgun as he is with a dosen. NO LIMITS ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN BUY PER MONTH. Now, someone, explain to me how is that anti gun??
5) I support the citizens right to have a fully automatic weapons.
PERIOD. More people die in USA from cars then from weapons. Now, we don't go around banning cars, do we? So. I say let people have any weapon they want.
6) Giving a person who has commited a serious crime (murder 2, murder 1, rape, child molestation, animal torture) a gun, is just plain dumb.
However, in america people are crazy, laws are even crazier. I know a man, his wife flipped out on him, slapped him, he pushed her away and she fell. Cops came and he was charged with spousal abuse, though it was clearly a defence. So I would be very careful about whom you ban the guns for. I would say that if someone commited certain crime (child molestation or murder 1), he can't have guns PERIOD. EVER. Not even a SHOTGUN. Not even a slingshot. For the rest, I would give grace period. A person is a thief, lets say. After he gets out of jail, let him wait 3 years before he can get any guns. For example. How is THAT anti gun?
7) Shor barrel guns. Heck, you want to deteriorate your guns performance just for pretending that you are some sort of a special forces commando? Go ahead. I think that the short barrel gun laws are just stupid. I myself would NEVER get a SBR, but if someone else wants - he should have a freedom to do it. How is that anti gun?
Silencers are a bit different. Though, to be honest, I would say that if someone wants to, he should have a right to get one. Though that should require a special permit. How is that anti gun?
8) .50 cal ban. Now, I would NEVER buy such gun. I have no targets to warrant its use. It is useless in self defence. It is expensive, and ammunition costs are very high. However, if you want to spend the money on it. Go ahead. I am AGAINST 50 caliber ban. In fact, I would say let people have weapons up to 20mm. I would LOVE to have a PTRD. Just as a historical replic. How is that anti gun?
9) Private sales of firearms should require a background check. Period. You don't want some gang banger or white supermacist or some religious whacko who sees demons all around himself getting a hold of the gun. How is that anti gun?
You have quite clearly staked out your position as being in support of government regulation of firearms. I got that message loud and clear.
Sir, like it or not, that puts you contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Call yourself pro-gun all you want.
Seems simply to be a lack of fundamental understanding.
You further have very clearly identified a number of societal issues, but your solution is "people/group control", rather than the sanctioning of an individual for specific bad acts.
"Collectivist" thought -vs- "Individualist" thought.
Which is the Constitutional approach Dangerous?
Find the answer and your eyes may well open. It is never to late to see.
Dangerous T,
You have quite clearly staked out your position as being in support of government regulation of firearms. I got that message loud and clear.
Sir, like it or not, that puts you contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Call yourself pro-gun all you want.
Seems simply to be a lack of fundamental understanding.
You further have very clearly identified a number of societal issues, but your solution is "people/group control", rather than the sanctioning of an individual for specific bad acts.
"Collectivist" thought -vs- "Individualist" thought.
Which is the Constitutional approach Dangerous?
Find the answer and your eyes may well open. It is never to late to see.
Dear Sir. Thank you for responce. Let me address your valid issues.
For the last 30 years, americans are NOT taught personal responsibility. No matter what happens, they blame someone else.
Congress blames bush for "lying" thought they had the real information. Parents blame "music and videogames" for bad behavior of the children, though they perffere to watch TV rather then raise the children. Teachers are afraid to be sued and simply lecture instead of educate. Everyone is blaming each other for the problems.
It is anyone'es fault but mine. Thats the motto of many americans.
The levels of personal responsiblity among people here is very low, among both, blacks and whites. You think that an average jow the blow will have enough common sence and responsibility to handle a deadly weapon? Good for you. I do not. I see a lot of pretty disturbed people around me. In a bar, for example. Lots of frustrated people at work. I see people at work snap and punch the walls for no reason.
Do I want these people packing some heat? Maybe, provided that they can control themselves.
I honestly believe that responsiblity should be granted to responsible only. You see, sir. Today the guy beats his dog to make up for the fact that he is a loser. Tomorrow he may pick up his short barrel full auto rifle, snap on a silencer and go postal in a local mall. Now, I understand that all of you folks here are certified ninjas, snipers, green berets and you all can shoot off balls of a fly. At least judging by your own words. However, the sad reality is that the guy will have a chance to cap some people before someone will get him. Be it someone who is packing some heat, or be it a cop, or be it anyone. The point is, that by the time the situation is resolved, there will be some bodies laying down in chalk.
I don't want none of that crap. I would much rather have checks and balances in ths system. I know this dude. Not only he has an FFL and has a bunch of real full auto machineguns in his house. He is also a grouchy old man. One day I came to his house to pick up an ammo, and he was drunk as a skunk, waving around a 1911 and screaming that "he is sick and tired of that damned IRS taxing him out of business".
Now, let me tell you something. I got my ammo from him (10 boxes of silver bear 223 for total of $50) and got out.
If he would ask me to pay $50 for a single box of silver bear 223, I would still pay for it. A drunk guy, pissed off, waving around a pistol... Scary. Same guy having a machinegun and a collection of military rifles (Cetme, 5 FALs, bunch of AKs and AR15s), is even scarier. Now, he did everything on his property. He didn't threaten me. However, I didn't feel very well or comfortable there.
I would much rather government deal with loons like that. No, I did NOT call cops on him. I figure that the dude is having a bad day. However, having a bad day is not an excuse to greet your customer drunk and waving a damn 1911.
I have bunch of guns myself. I have a rule. Guns in - drinks out.
I do not have alchohol at home. Simply because I have guns at home.
Nice safety rule.
Recent shootings in NIU and other places have the same sad pattern:
a young person is driven to the brink, and finds no better way to let his frustrations be known then get a gun and go postal. Now, I would rather have all of us pay a $20 for a visit to psychologist and get a mental check once every year, then have my kid getting capped by some looney who has no previous record, but nutty as a fruitcake and now has a gun.
Dangerous T "says" he is NOT from this country.
He DOES NOT CARE about our silly little pieces of paper.
Of course, MANY of the people that were born here, have the same NON CARING attitude. [V]
27 simple words, Dangerous t..and you flunked.
The thousands of words you write attempting to refute those few words merely confirm your lack of moral fiber and strength of character ..not a flaw in those few words.
The fact that you demand the government punish tens of millions of decent citizens instead of vicious criminals speaks VOLUMES about YOU, `t' ..not a failing in the Second.
The fact that society ..that would be YOU.'t' ..refuse to demand an accounting for the tens of thousands of crazy people running about is a flaw in .guess who.'t'..?? How about .YOU.'t' ?
No ..you prefer instead to force ME to crawl on my belly just like you enjoy doing, `t' ..because YOU live in fear.
You fear drunks.you fear crazy people.you fear other people with guns.
You fear EVETHING except what you SHOULD fear.big, out of control government.
Go figure.
lt496,
Dangerous T "says" he is NOT from this country.
He DOES NOT CARE about our silly little pieces of paper.
Of course, MANY of the people that were born here, have the same NON CARING attitude. [V]
Didn't know that pickenup. Haven't really read much from him up to now.
Regardless of where Dangerous T is from, it is getting harder and harder to separate the views of socialist-collectivist foreigners from the mass of "New Americans" who are home grown .
Ain't it grand?
" 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. "
27 simple words, Dangerous t..and you flunked.
The thousands of words you write attempting to refute those few words merely confirm your lack of moral fiber and strength of character ..not a flaw in those few words.
The fact that you demand the government punish tens of millions of decent citizens instead of vicious criminals speaks VOLUMES about YOU, `t' ..not a failing in the Second.
The fact that society ..that would be YOU.'t' ..refuse to demand an accounting for the tens of thousands of crazy people running about is a flaw in .guess who.'t'..?? How about .YOU.'t' ?
No ..you prefer instead to force ME to crawl on my belly just like you enjoy doing, `t' ..because YOU live in fear.
You fear drunks.you fear crazy people.you fear other people with guns.
You fear EVETHING except what you SHOULD fear.big, out of control government.
Go figure.
Pretty much sums up his rambling positions, near as I can figure Highball.
Still cutting effectively to the quick I see.[;)]
I admire your ability to use words like a rapier ..puncturing bloated egos and stuffed shirts alike with the skill of a master swordsman ..the victim often not even aware that he is down and out till thirty moments after the fatal stroke..
Whereas I tend to have gore spattered on the ceilings, walls, and standing ankle deep in it.messy, what ?
[:D][:0]
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
I am AGAINST the ban. All the way. However, I do believe that a background check is nessessary for anyone purchasing ANY firearm. Any capacity, made anywhere, in China or in Iran. Semi or Full auto
2) Gun Registration
Guns should NOT be registered.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
I support Conseal Carry Laws, however, this SHOULD require not only special training class, but also a deep background check and psychological evaluation of the applicant for history of Severe anger management problems
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
If you can afford it, you can buy it
5) Machine Gun Laws
I support the right of citizens to have machineguns, provided that they pass a background check and psychological evaluation.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
I support the restriction of the ownership, however, I would only restrict if for people who commited robbery. Wife beater is a term under which ANYONE can be placed: you push your wife accidently during the shopping, she trips and falls. Police comes and writes: YOU PUSHED YOUR WIFE - YOU ARE A WIFE BEATER. Say bye bye to your guns. I do not trust the police who are bullies or the courts who are scared and motivated by political gains and not by justice.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
I OBJECT TO people having silencers. I am OKay with people having any rifles. they want. You want to deteriorate your rifle performance - go ahead, have an 8 inch barrel. I will stay with 20 incher:-)
8) .50 cal ban
I PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone should have this weapon. Reasons: there are no legit targets for it, it is useless for self defence and the ammunition is expensive and there are not many places to shoot it. HOWEVER. THAT MEANS THAT I WILL NEVER BUY ONE. If you want one - go ahead. I OPPOSE the 50 cal gun ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows.
I SUPPORT that all gun purchases must be accompanies with background check.
Dangerous,
"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."
means:
1) Government has no lawful power to regulate the sale of firearms. Period.
2) Government has no lawful power to regulate the transfer of firearms. Period.
3) Government has no lawful power to regulate the possession of firearms. Period.
4) Government has no lawful power to regulate the ownership of firearms. Period.
5) Government has no lawful power to regulate who can or cannot carry a firearm in any manner the individual sees fit. Period.
And yes, it is that simple. Accepting the Constitution of the United States for what it is and abiding by it is not difficult at all.