default
Mon, 10/02/2017 - 16:36
5322
Gun Control
ad
Default - Use Group's defaults.
I can't say I'm surprised with today's events. Guys do we really need auto or semi automatic weapons. Ofcourse Kennedy may have been killed with a single bolt action. I would say there would be less people dead in Vegas had it not been an automatic weapon. Any opinions out there? Greg please feel free to chime in. While I don't agree with most of your views I do enjoy your perspective.
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
When the bad guys have guns with 30 round mage I like the fact my wife has one too. If we ban AR 15s the bad guys will have them either way and she would be defenseless.
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.
Guns do not kill people !!! People kill people.. what’s wrong is everyone is afraid to profile somebody , they are afraid it’s not politically correct or they might hurt there feelings. Shit back in the day if you had a crazy neighbor you would probably tip the police off . Or if you had a coworker or school mate that was odd or acting weird you would tell somebody .
There needs to be stricter enforcement. Say a mentally ill person who’s had 30 domestic violence complaints. This isn’t about you and you might feel differently if it was one of your children.
I started this forum months ago. After last week once again I can say with certainty there would be less deaths had it not involved a semi auto weapon. You don’t hunt with an AR and you carry a pistol for self defense. All there good for is target practice or mass killings. Time for some common sense.
I love a great debate. I think I’ll post topics regularly. Then I can kick back and enjoy. Beats the news...
Here is my professional opinion on this subject matter.
Evil Violent People will always be evil and violent and will always use whatever inanimate objects they can obtain legally or illegally to do malice on others.
The Armalight Rifle (what AR actually stands for instead of the bs media hyped "assault rifle" nomenclature) is only available to the general public (with required background checks already implemented to purchase) in semi-auto format.
The licensure costs, time frame and the fact the government will know more about you then your closest relatives are all reasons why the general public find it prohibitive to obtain said license in order to then have the opportunity to purchase automatic rifle formats.
No civilian has the legal means in which to procure almost any Militarized Weapons and in particular the small select few without said advanced licenses which require extreme vetting, time and cost.
Also, baseball bats still reign supreme in the #1 Murder Weapon used in America with low tech assaults using common vehicles and even aircraft (911) proving far more deadly and useful at murdering large masses of people.
FBI Statistics:
*Tobacco Use, Medical Errors, Unintentional Injuries, Alcohol Abuse, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Unintentional Posining (otc drugs), Drug abuse, Unintentional Falls, NON-firearm Homicide are ALL KILLING more people than firearm homicides.
The top 4 listed above (in order of killing efficiency in America) are between 10-50x higher in causing death*
...but we're going to concern ourselves with the fact that one specific inanimate object is USED to kill people?
How about we ban all forms of motorized transportation use which is highly more dangerous in all accounts than a firearm then...why not ban baseball bats as opposed to giving access to every kid in little league?
Now that we have those facts out in the forefront here is why banning firearms much less specific ones that are so "big and black" that it scares people are not only a moot point but also DANGEROUS!!!
A violent criminal is just that, a criminal.
Criminals by nature do not follow "laws" and why they are criminals in the first place. Common sense but so many seem to elude straight back to the anti-gun agenda that they forget this.
Laws in particular ones related to firearms are only effecting Law Abiding Persons and their ability to protect themselves and loved ones!!!
Signs clearly have not worked at keeping out Violent Criminals from entering buildings and murdering and having more countless laws much less one that bans Protective Tools will only cause more death by violent crime then anything else.
Countless lives are saved daily because of LEGAL firearm ownership/use and YES, a semi-auto rifle is an excellent defensive TOOL albeit more specifically for home use based on its size for concealment for everyday carry options in public.
Why anyone would believe banning semi-auto rifles much less firearms in general for self defense use would help in anyway to eliminate VIOLENT CRIME is beyond me.
In doing so you enable Violent Criminals the ever increasing advantage of doing malice and murder on victims who would then have little to no recourse for defending themselves.
Anyone on here knows that banning anything in this country will not stop some people from doing/obtaining it and everyone here knows there is actually a place for many things (MJ, PEA'S) based on safe legitimate use.
Should someone decide to make you and/or your family victims by way of Home Invasion the first thing you will wish you had is either 1. Professional Armed Security Team protecting you 24/7 or the most affordable and obvious choice for the majority 2. Access to small arms and having the training to use them judiciously to protect the lives of those you love most.
I don't know one victim of a Violent Crime who has survived (especially) that thinks "man, I am sure glad I had no way to protect myself from being a victim" and was thinking they could "simply reason" with the violent criminal instead.
I'm in perfect agreement that not everyone is comfortable in using certain inanimate objects for self defense purposes should the time of desperation arise. However, that is a personal choice.
If someone wants to purposely limit their ability to either equalize or have a greater edge against a VIOLENT CRIMINAL who wishes you harm or death to each their own.
Just leave things as they be so that the rest of us who DO want the access to equalizing/edge enhancing Self Defense Tools to what WE prefer.
If you think shooting someone in self defense is barbaric or messy you simply have not either experienced or fully comprehended the alternate options which if "forced to use" will likely be more barbaric and messy in nature!
Impact Weapons, Edged Weapons and most Improvised Weapons will require even more skillset training, more physical strength and a particular mindset that a large portion of the general public won't be able to optimize because it works so much against this era's "natural defensive thought process" and thus you have a greater chance of being a victim.
Tools are just that, tools.
The INTENT of their use is the only thing we can control to some degree and by that we have a greater issue of figuring out how to ban or lessen Violent Criminals from being what they are rather than focusing on what inanimate object they may use to do their violence.
Violence is an ACTION not a tool.
End of professional rant
"57 killed. 273 injured. This is not Las Vegas"
"This is Chicago in the month of September. Home of the nations strictest gun laws."
The issue with Chicago is while yes, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the surrounding areas do not. It kind of diminishes the effectiveness of the laws.
So you think someone is going to drive outside of IL to purchase legal guns to do an illegal crime?
Facts stipulate that most crimes with guns used are obtained by illegal means...thus the argument of where legal law abiding persons may buy/obtain their firearms in surrounding states have little to do with the fact that most criminals in IL are simply not getting guns by LEGAL means no matter where they are obtained.
IL up until recently has had next to zero opportunity for concealed carry and even now has limited reciprocity with other states. The requirements that only effect Law Abiding persons looking to own and carry a gun for personal protection have ZERO effect on criminals getting them because they simply do not follow law.
Its like the sign laws.
The reason a large majority of mass murder and violent crimes using guns happen in specific places is because signs are not working to make criminals stop their choice to be a criminal and commit violence on innocent people.
The thought that a sign would deter a criminal from entering a building armed when it says "no weapons/guns allowed" is about as logical as thinking criminals obtain their illegally purchased weapons largely from surrounding states.
Why would they need to...plenty of ILLEGAL guns on the market and that should be the sole objective of laws and law enforcement. Get rid of the ILLEGAL guns from the criminals and leave the rest of us alone with our Legally purchased firearms who use them only in training and self defense purposes!
https://gun.laws.com/crime-rate/illegal-versus-legal-guns-and-impact-on-...
This already happens. All crimes are illegal (being a pedantic asshole, I know). The reason the Chicago situation is a moot point for those who point to it as being a clear example of gun laws not working is because of this. You may not be able to legally obtain several types of firearms within Chicago limits, but if you drive out to more rural Illinois or beyond state lines, the purchase of these weapons becomes significantly easier. I forget which documentary I saw it on, could've been Vice or something similar, but the gangs there have a system where they (usually through a means of middle man) purchase firearms this way whether at gun shows, stores in lax law areas, etc. My point is that using Chicago to rail against strict gun laws is a terrible example because it is extremely easily circumvented.
Do you have a source for this? From what I gather this is a matter of semantics. While the guns used are technically illegal because the user doesn't own the gun, the actual gun itself was obtained legally. Back on topic in the wake of the mass shooting, you have 80% of the guns used in these shootings obtained legally. This is somewhat of a strawman argument, so I don't want to derail our convo, but just figured I'd throw it in there.
I don't see how it's illogical? Criminals goin' criminal, I have no qualms about that. My qualm is how easy it is to access these weapons, and that Chicago being used as a talking point fails to address that fact.
I have no issues with legal gun ownership, but as stated below there need to be limits on the types. You don't need a HMG to defend your home. Its also not a simple case of take away illegal guns on the market, because the lobbyists will cry slippery slope and the convo will end there. I'd like to see how many citizens who own weapons actually pay for and attend annual tactical training. Im not opposed to having the banned types of weapons located at ranges for a bit of a cheap thrill. I mean shit who wouldn't want to let an HMG rip downrange for a little fun.
Lets use Philly, Detroit or LA then.
If we are going to pretend that violent criminals are obtaining guns by legal means than I could see a point but they are getting them through illegal means.
Strawman purchases, theft and the mountains of guns being imported from South American countries (actually being made there and shipped here) that are illegally made are all illegal.
If it were possible to remove every single gun in America we would still have a Violent Criminal problem.
Why are people less inclined to fix the actual "root" of the problem as opposed to what is being used?
There are many variances to the hunting rifle as time has gone on to make them semi auto and with larger magazine capacities rather than just the ol' bolt action.
Putting a different lower on it and painting it black should not make a firearm more dangerous than its original predecessor when it is still fitting the semi-auto policy requirement.
Yes, sign me up for any bazooka, missile launcher or any type of "daaayuuum" form of weapon that can only be used by military personal whenever it becomes legal to do so!
Glad you have no issues with legal gun ownership and as already discussed we already have a limit on the types.
Don't believe we disagree on that to much since if you need more than a semi-auto rifle there is likely a whole bunch of other law abiding persons fighting along side you using the same!
What about them?
I think you're missing the point. If I shoot someone with your gun, I have used an illegal firearm, even though you legally purchased it. I can go out and purchase 50 weapons, whatever they may be. I then sell them at a gun show, with no background checks, to 50 people who are felons. They use them in a crime, therefore they have illegal firearms involved, even though I legally purchased them. It's all about the availability of the arms, and the ease of obtaining them.
Unless you can cite the use of illegally imported weapons as the culprit in crimes, most weapons used in crimes are manufactured right in the good ol' USA.
Correct. No one here I denying that criminals goin' criminal. But hypothetically removing every single gun in America will lower the rate of murder in the country, hypothetically. But no one here is advocating the elimination of all guns, only certain types.
Why can't we do both? Limit the types of weapons available nationally, and address other socio-economic problems at the same time?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it could just be me not reading properly. It seems we are in agreement that changing out lowers to enable faster rates of fire than originally intended and legal (I know bump stocks are legal on a technicality) shouldn't be allowed.
I'd find this fine as long as you go to a specialized range to shoot what is still military owned weapons under strict supervision. Legalize civilian ownership of these, and you again enable criminal enterprise with these. Which goes back to the original point I was making. Take RPGs being nationally banned. You don't have violent crimes being committed with them, do you.
And it's time to relook at the limit and expand it is the point I'm making. I have no issue with people owning ARs, as unnecessary as I find them. But add to the list modifying rates of fire of these weapons.
Exactly, making Chicago the most laughable of arguments. It actually is easily turned against those who use it.
How about Australia?
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/obama-praises-australias-gun-ban-the-a...
What about Australia? They have nowhere near the murder rates we do. They have nowhere near the firearm issues we have. And I am not going to waste my time on a right wing site link. Keep this in mind tho, most criminals do what they do for financial incentive, that is why you aren't seeing these criminal committing mass shootings. There are a few exceptions always, like that botched bank robbery in LA a long time ago for instance.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-a...
I could keep going Goose but if you bother to look you will see.
I looked at every one of those liberal bias sites. Lol
At the end of a couple of those articles they even say the rape/violent crimes went right up shortly after the buy back.
Same with burglary/home invasions
But congrats on the suicide rate there after the buy back.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-austral...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LqAlgdtLW3s/Uh_aWj123JI/AAAAAAAAG9s/eLE6U3Z30i...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-48mg9ixrdlU/UCkfN_-IluI/AAAAAAAADW0/XNZZGpFEtR...
Ok pale... man up and look at mine ;)
Man up?
Sorry does that offend you?
It was literally a figure of speach lol
Yea, because if we are going to discuss shit like adults the juvenile shit is no way to advance your idea. This has nothing to do with Manning up, I am willing to bet I own more firearms than anyone else on this thread. My favorite one is not my AR it is actually my 22-250. My second favorite is probably my 870 wingmaster with my rifled slug barrel. Next would be my Benelli M1 super 90. Anyway, my point is give me a tax credit for the AR and you can have it.
I was saying man up because I read your links... everyone of them.. and knew you wouldn't read mine. (So I was saying I manned up and read your links so man up and read mine) Perhaps you did since all you want to talk about now is me saying man up lol.
Sorry Darth I said "man up" you obviously misunderstood.
Would you care to actually comment on my original post or are you too worked up now?
"I am willing to bet I own more firearms than anyone else on this thread."
And that's how a dick measuring contest starts. Lol
Since you branded my links "liberal" I took that as you weren't bothering to read it. Both fact check and Snopes are fairly well known as sticking to facts. The site you posted, not so much. I am not interested in reading more propaganda bro. And yea, I could have left out the dick measuring. I could have articulated better that I am a gun owner and I am a believer in 2A. I just firmly believe high capacity, assault rifles are not needed and our experiment with them has went terribly awry.
Snopes "used to be credible" that went out the window years ago though.
And sorry "fact checker" is another liberal bias organization. I guess we can argue that another day lol.
So what I'm gathering is you would much rather see the gun laws which are implemented in California throughout the country? 10 round clips?
So the California law plus a ban on bump stocks?
Am I close?
I don't know if I would go as low as ten personally but 30 is definitely top end for me and realistically I am ok with 15
Good thing mine is too small to even qualify!
No homo.
Dammit....you know how hard it is to get coffee to come out your nose and mouth at same time!
That was a funny way to start the day.
Now for clean up in aisle 3.
Same here lol ;)
No homo
One of my favorite arguments is the one that claims the need to defend against a tyrannical government. This was all well and fine back when there was an even footing, ie. Muskets. Nowadays I'm really curious how one plans to overthrow a hypothetcal tyrannical force with the ability to use missiles, heavy armor, air support, etc. with their various assortment of handheld weapons.
I feel like the Chicago situation is a circle jerk, and that's the entire point. To keep the argument focused on "see it can't work" rather than implementing a policy nationwide and then re-evaluation the success when you can no longer take a 20 minute drive out of the restricted zone to circumvent the ban.
Well the forefathers could not project what types of small arms would be available to us in this era and you are correct that there should be NO infringement on what a civilian should purchase based on the God given right to protect ourselves which is simply reiterated as a "reminder" to the government in the way of the 2A.
In those days you could buy guns, cannons and other incendiary devices which in theory should allow us the opportunity to do so with whatever is available in this era. I will agree however that outside of Arma-light Rifles and handguns, we should not need (doesn't mean we should not have access) everything be removed from the NFA banned list.
That is the point of having a Sheriff...they are sworn to protect the constitutional rights of the communities they serve and are indeed considered the last form of authority to protect us from said Tyrannical government.
The good news is at least for the next few years (likely a second term too) we have a president who is finally putting America first and protecting us both outside and inside the country in a way that the former failed miserably.
"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."
These are the words of a newly formed federal republic. As was then it is today, the bulk of our military is in the national guard/colonial "state" militia.
What will protect us from a tyrannical (federal) government is that each state has its own army. The members of which are citizens of that state. Not likely that Texans would fire upon Texans.
Now, the real debate is what was meant by "the people" when we have a government that is, "for the people, by the people, of the people".
I would argue that our right to defend against a tyrannical government is well founded in our modern militia (national guard). I would also argue that we have the right to bear arms as private citizens under the 2nd amendment and that interpretation has been decided as true by the Supreme Court.
I do not think that we as individuals need assault weapons.
StevebThere is no such thing as an Assault Weapon. It's a made up category where they add anyt type of gun they want to it. The proposed Assault Weapons bans have had types of revolvers, pistol, and shotguns all listed in there. Assault rifles worked pretty good in the hands of Korean Liquor store owners during the LA riots. There is a place for them and they should not be banned.
Well said.
Yes and assault weapon is indeed a made up category used to demonize firearms, in particular by those who pretend that removing all or most firearms is somehow going to make a safer society feasible when Violent Criminals abound.
This is why any inanimate object can be put in the same "assault weapon" category ie: baseball bats, knives, cars, vans, trucks, airplanes, candle stick holders, chairs, lamp shades or good ol' heavy rock or brick.
How many times do we have to tell Gregg civilians do not have access to military grade weapons in the first place
you are incorrect.
That aside, I'm arguing from the viewpoint of the second amendment and you are arguing a more restricted view based in the gun debate.
Your childish argument over the word "assault" is like being offended I called a truck a pickup truck because we all know trucks can't pick things up, People pick things up and put them in the truck.
And, yes you can toss in all of your bric-a-brac items and place them under the umbrella of "assault weapons"
but you know as well as I that everyday items that can be repurposed as a weapon do not fall under what is commonly understood as an assault weapon. I might be able to use a cane as a weapon, not likely to use a M-16 as a cane.
For something that is "made up" it is sure well defined and used a lot by those of us in the US. Perhaps it is a colloquialism, but none the less carries meaning.
Military-grade weapons have no place in civilian life and have been shown to be unnecessary for self-defense.
The second amendment and the argument over gun laws are not the same thing.
The 2nd amendment does not distinguish between a musket, sword, or cannon. The writers did not envision modern weapons. So we rely on intent. The 2nd amendment is to protect us from ourselves.
Putting gun laws (i've never said ban) aside there are 2 aspects to the 2nd amendment.
I don't believe gun ownership for hunting was even thought about. that was an everyday fact of life, what family would be without a hunting rifle? It was a given.
I've argued that our state militia is the long standing tradition/manifestation of right of the people to bear arms for protection from a tyrannical government.
There is no reason a group of cultists, supremacists, lone wolfs, et al NEED to have an arsenal/army of their own. I can't imagine that being anyone's intent when drafting the 2nd amendment.
There should be no uproar over restricting ownership of all assault weapons which include fully automatic rifles or modified semiautomatic weapons because we fulfil our right in this area vis-à-vis the state guard.
Las Vegas and all other past events has not changed my view that we also have the right to personally bear arms to protect, hunting, and sport.
And, I'll go so far as to say that great grand pappy should be able to keep his WWII sherman tank if he meets a strict criteria.
StevebIt's a made up term. Anything they want can be on that list.There are revolvers on that list because someone in congress thought that revolver was too scary. Assault weapon is like the word "pro active". So many morons started using it that they put it in the dictionary.
Semantics, pick a term, any term, and it will be precisely defined in a bill or law. I can go to the floor and argue we need laws to protect use from "Bad guns" that term will be defined in law precisely.
Because I did not define "bad gun" you might interpret that to be any gun that can kill someone. I might be talking about workmanship; a gun that can misfire and explode in your hand.
So you can be sure when it comes to writing law, that term, or any term, will be carefully defined. And don't underestimate the cunning of those writing law... look at how the simple term, "all men are created equal" penned when slavery was the norm. So much so even those who wrote it had slaves.... fast forward to today.
StevebThey'd pass the assault weapon ban and add things to it little by little til pretty much all guns are banned. It's a truck.
That is not at all what happened the last time we had an "Assault weapon ban". Another inconvenient truth.
my point, so what does it matter what they call it?
I personally draw the distinction at any weapon that is not primarily used for hunting or protection. And I will fight vigorously to protect my right to carry a handgun and/or a normal, unmodified semi automatic or bolt action rifle or shotgun.
Guns are nothing though... the real control is ammo. Having a government with the ability to control the ammo is more dangerous than unpopular/unconstitutional gun laws
Agreed on ammo.
No ammo you end up with a very unique throwing star or impact weapon only which I am sure everyone here has trained in utilizing (impact weapon part...throwing star not likely a good option) in case one does run out at the wrong time.
You keep hitting the nail on the head with your own comments when you say "personal" and by that your opinion
You are welcome to it and to allow it to determine "your" options etc for self defense.
Just remember that the rest of us are also due our own opinions and decision making for what works best for us.
There is nothing worse than someone with an opinion that thinks it should override all others and for it to be enforceable.
We've already had that for the prior 8yrs and the country was on a death spiral and only in this year have we begun to become the AMERICA we and those from outside the country recognize as such.
Welcome to your opinion.
Thankful that far greater minds disagree with you and why the 2A RIGHTS stands as it is today!
I've heard the term assault weapons get used often by people that keep pretending AR stands for assault rifle.
That is incorrect.
AR stands for Armalite Rifle as was the name when it was manufactured.
ASSAULT is an ACTION.
Actions require someone to commit to them and most inanimate objects are incapable of doing so (unless we are going Hollywood and no were are to pretend everyone wants a motion censored firearm on a tourret) because it requires a human element. I've personally seen various forms of inanimate objects that could cause harm sit perfectly still and not harm anyone so long as they were left alone or handled by people with good intent.
Therefore any inanimate object (as proven by those using low tech vehicle assaults, aircraft in 911, any bladed or impact weapon etc.) can be considered for use "in an assault" but your media inspired broadly used term, is highly incorrect.
Militarized weapons are NOT available to the general public which include Full-Auto rifles (unless you want to get extremely technical to think someone is willing to spends THOUSANDS of dollars and have their lives completely open up to government authorities for a very specialized license to purchase full auto) and thus civilians do have "ability" to purchase legal semi-auto rifles and pistols after obtaining a background check.
Also, your thoughts and opinion on what "individuals" outside yourself should have is a moot point since you get zero say in what another person thinks or does when in the confines of law.
Similar to how many of us are utilizing HRT/TRT and within the rules of law while many are still under the naïve impression that PEA have no proven effect to work much less place in our society.
Have a great week.
Too entrenched in your dogma to not project yourself into my comments?
I fully support the second amendment and am a gun owner and member of the NRA
Did I say AR? no, I said assault weapons. And even if I did say AR how does that change things? Oh, I know, it restricts my comment to just riffles. Is the 2nd amendment just about rifles?
All weapons used exclusively for war be it a RPG's, fully automatic guns, grenades, tanks, canons, etc. In short, anything that is not used for personal protection or hunting.
I feel that under the 2nd Ammendment that, personally bearing arms to protect us from a superior force (tyrannical government) has already been accomplished via the state national guard.
I did not say we should not be allowed to own assault weapons. I stated my view that there is no reason that we need to have them. Like booze, we don't need it so it's highly taxed. Assault weapons should be very difficult to get and own. Not so with your standard rifle or handgun.
I realize that there should be a way for historians, collectors, and other such individuals to own such weapons but I have no qualms about making those things extremely regulated and tough to get.
My thoughts are not moot and I do get a say (as well as you) by voting for those that support gun laws that make sense.
Tech is going to outpace this argument anyway.
A handgun for example that will only fire when the registered owner(s) palm print is holding the grip. Useless if the gun is taken from you in a struggle, or stolen from your home, or taken to school by a moody teen pissed off because he couldn't get a date to the prom.
That wouldn't protect us from crazy, but will go along way to protect us from inanimate objects, legally obtained, getting into the hands of an individual who might want to use said object, including a child, in a way that would cause harm to innocents.
Got it.
So you are just miss informed on the term assault weapon as again, any inanimate object can be used to commit the action of assault (a human act) thus almost everything can be deemed an assault weapon based on your definition.
I'm clear on your opinion on that now.
Thankfully the handgun that actually has already been made and rejected (with great reason) based on its inability to function properly with the "palm print technology" will not be rearing its head any time soon.
There are several ways to make a firearm inert using particular safety measures that would be known to unauthorized users (visible indicators) as well as ones that are not/would not be known because they are not readily visible to the unauthorized person.
Once an attempt to fire the weapon/tool was made it would actually decommission itself requiring knowledge on how to remedy and make the weapon/tool active again.
It also does not cause any form of harm to the firearm itself and once the weapon was cleared using the "correct means" not simply the usual means (would not work as it jams the gun) it would be useful once again for live fire.
Many programs exist to EDUCATE children through adults on how to optimize firearm safety based on their maturity levels and skill sets.
Failure to educate is the usual reason almost all accidents in general and especially related to firearms are caused. If we educate proper firearm safety we minimize the uneducated misuse of a firearm to those who need the education.
Of course this is not ever going to change Violent Criminals from doing what they will with any inanimate object that in turn can be used as an "assault weapon" if we use your prefered definition.
Again this is merely my professional opinion and as we all know everyone is allowed to have their own personal opinion but it does not make it right.
Have a great rest of the week gents.
I also have personal opinions on this subject but as an S.M.E. it requires me to use the guidelines required of that of a professional first. The Constitution is a document that is simply used as a reminder of the already God Given Rights we all have, to a government that is notorious for attempting to figure out ways of diminishing our Freedom and Choices in certain matters. God Given Rights are even less open to interpretation much less opinions on inaccurate interpretation of the Constitutional Provisions itself
You're arguing semantics and poorly at that, none of us, particularly me, need your rephrasing, and lengthy definition of, *"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." montra
Did I not mention that I'm a member of the NRA, you're schooling me on gun safety courses? I wrote tests for my kids using NRA educational resources which they needed to pass before I would allow them to own or fire a gun. My kids will handle a nerf gun as a real weapon because I didn't want bad habits to form.
It is you who are miss informed on the term assault weapon. Google it. I also understand the 2nd amendment does not define the word arms. Google that too. The second amendment gives me the right to have weapons. Period. Any kind I want. including a catapult.
Being that it is too costly for me to own a M1 Abrams, a bunch of us in our state started a guard unit and bought a few. So I'm satisfied that when Russia, facebook, and the socialist progressives, try and strip my of my constitutional rights, we're ready.
For myself, I have a few rifles for hunting and sport. I have no need for a handgun but will support anyones right to own and carry one.
Damn Greg might be time for us to take are feeble minds back to the Golden Corral...
What exactly are you guys considering "assault weapons"
Biased of what? They look dangerous?
Don't get me wrong i think there should be regulations on automatic weapons (and currently you need a stamp to obtain one) I'm also for regulating the bump stocks and anything that's able to convert a single shot to fully automatic.
I just don't see Americans voluntarily surrendering their arms. And we shouldn't have to either.
And where the hell is the United States government going to come up with money for a buy back program? We're already like 22 TRILLION dollars in debt. Lol.
See, we aren't that far apart.
Well I don't want the assault rifle ban like the one lifted in 2005 as you say. No offense.
I'm not scared of a "assault rifle" I would however be scared of a fully automatic rifle (which is intended for war) which we have laws on.
Bump stocks to me = a sneaky way around the law which needs to be handled. When I say handled I'm perfectly ok with banning them.
Assault weapons, at least to me, are fully automatic weapons, in addition to converted semi-automatics.
StevebNo
Lol, that's your entire retort? No?