default
Mon, 10/02/2017 - 07:36
9808
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
StevebAssault Weapon is a made up term
And that is all I am saying as well. I was just fine before 2005 with the guns we had. Sadly, (for now) not much if anything is going to change.
Columbine happened prior to 2005
Of course they couldn't project what types of weapons would be available, but that doesn't mean that what was true during the writing of the constitution holds true today. They were incredibly intelligent in their writing of the constitution and giving congress the ability to ratify amendments to it in order to modernize it, as has been seen time and again. The civilians do have the right of the 2nd ammendment to bear arms for self defense, and I support that. I also however, would support congress in introducing a new ammendment to limit the types of arms that are available.
I agree with you that we do not need anything over AR weapons. I don't agree with you that we should remove everything from the NFA list though. Just because some form of weapon exists doesn't mean it serves a purpose in civilian life. You're not defending your home with a heavy machine gun, various forms of RPG weapons, howitzer, etc.
I don't believe that falls to the sheriff, rather it falls to the legislative and judicial branches. Our constitution was written in a way to prevent tyrants from coming into power. The 2nd ammendment was a last resort in case that all went to shit. In modern society, I'd say the last line of defense would be our military acting on behalf of the citizenry.
See I feel differently. We currently have a dipshit as president who thinks this is a reality show. We will disagree all day on this, so let's not get into that
I am curious what your opinion is on the bipartisan bill introduced to ban bump stocks. Are you in favor of banning modifications to currently legal weapons, modifications that circumvent the existing laws?
First of all I would like to commend our ability to have a rational, educated and "non-emotional" connection to our discussion here.
Emotional connections sour the purpose of discussion which lead to debate and often times just ranting on both sides...its for the weak minded and those who get paid to pretend they know more than the rest of us
Thank you for your part.
Now.
Of course they couldn't project what types of weapons would be available, but that doesn't mean that what was true during the writing of the constitution holds true today. They were incredibly intelligent in their writing of the constitution and giving congress the ability to ratify amendments to it in order to modernize it, as has been seen time and again. The civilians do have the right of the 2nd ammendment to bear arms for self defense, and I support that. I also however, would support congress in introducing a new ammendment to limit the types of arms that are available.
*We already have something that limits the arms available...the NFA Banned list where plenty of weapons are off the table as per our governments perceived notion as to "what we need" versus giving us choice.
Whenever government decides to over regulate us that is when we see many of the problems of most concern run high. ie: Drug use. We have many laws banning things Federally but that stops no one who has the intent to use them much less the fact that states can and do put the Federal government in their place when they allow it in their state. ie: Marijuana Use.
I prefer small government and it's the very reason we have Governors (presidents of a state) and why we have states that have variance to Federal rule.
Just because we may not actually need something doesn't mean we should not be allowed/afforded access*
I don't believe that falls to the sheriff, rather it falls to the legislative and judicial branches. Our constitution was written in a way to prevent tyrants from coming into power. The 2nd ammendment was a last resort in case that all went to shit. In modern society, I'd say the last line of defense would be our military acting on behalf of the citizenry.
The Sheriff does indeed equate to being our "protector over tyrannical government" however most people fail to realize (including the Sheriffs themselves) is that they are actually the highest level of authority in their own counties. They pass the buck quite often when a Fed agency comes in but if memory serves correct Sheriffs are supposed to have the final say (if they want to) as they are elected by the PEOPLE.
I will respect your decision to not pursue in depth discussion on our new president (but will point out one fact I am happiest about) who has strengthened our borders to the point of reducing illegal immigration by 50+%, ensuring we vet legal immigration even better to ensure we adopt a more "ellis island" policy where people have to prove they actually hold value and can contribute along with wanting to adopt in some way to our American Culture.
Ellis Island was the perfect example of how immigration was and should be and all the PC crap that has happened over the years really ruined growing this nation with people who are coming here with good intent and a desire to live as Americans do.
If we look at Mexico for example they make our immigration policies look like a walk-in center comparatively and that is not how you build a country up.
A country has NO obligation to allow anyone in it much less become a legal permanent resident and should enforce illegal immigration with what is deserved. Deportation.
I am a legal permanent resident of America and I paid thousands of dollars, been vetted with criminal, medical and referral background checks along with also coming here with the intent of adopting American culture (without giving up my birth roots) because that is what a productive, good intentioned person who wishes to come here should be expected to do!
If we are going to give "the American Dream" away for free to anyone willing to break a law to get here I want my money back and restitution for the extreme vetting required that I went through.
I am curious what your opinion is on the bipartisan bill introduced to ban bump stocks. Are you in favor of banning modifications to currently legal weapons, modifications that circumvent the existing laws?
*Banning what is already IMO a less than performance enhancing device for an already perfectly good firearm is useless.
I am indifferent because as we all know banning an inanimate object is not going to solve the Violent Human problem that is the direct concern we should have in regards to Violent Crime in this country.
ALL LAWS only affect the LAW ABIDING and thus any criminal is not held to these laws because that is their nature. Creating more laws is moot.
It is already illegal to murder someone maliciously...yet Violent Criminals are doing this daily and with a myriad of mundane inanimate objects, their hands/fists and of course even motor vehicles along with firearms.
If the best plan of action to prevent Violent Crime is to simply continue to ban all things used by Violent Criminals we would no longer have access to any knives, motor vehicles, aircraft much less firearms. Does that sound logical to do?
Does anyone really believe that banning any inanimate object from the use of Law Abiding Persons going to reshape how Violent Criminals think and what they will use to reign their terror on innocent victims?
No. It simply will cause it to be much easier to maim/murder innocent people because they lack access to tools that have been successfully used for self defense purposes (much less everyday use such as cars for convenience of travel) to protect themselves from what we actually need to ban...Violent Criminals.
The only course of action is to raid Violent Criminal syndicates/persons for their illegal weapons they have and to come up with far more strict punishment for Violent Criminals so that the incentive to be one is dramatically reduced if not their numbers.
Causing more innocent victims to be at the mercy of Violent Criminals by way of removing functional tools for self defense has not proven successful in the decades it has been attempted by our local and national governments.
How many decades does something have to be done to prove it is not working...
I found it's harder to get ammo sometimes than it is to get a gun. I also think it is a slippery slope when you start taking away rights.
Separation of church and state was never intended to whitewash our country of all religious symbols found on public lands. It was purely a means to protect the people from a state sponsored religion as was the case in England in those days. Look at us now, The basis of all western Law is the 10 commandments, --removed from the steps of the courthouse, The attempt to remove the Las Cruces NM crosses from the hill and city logo, and on and on... Happy holidays you all...
Ironically, I don't think the Founding fathers meant that everyone should be able to own an assault weapon.
"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."
In those days, the militia, (aka minutemen), were everyday citizens who had to tend their farms and shops. There was not much "leisure time" for the minutemen, pay, or structure for the militia. Today, our state militia is the national guard; our "weekend warriors" get paid and are protected from having their day jobs taken away when they are deployed. There is no reason why the rest of us need anything more than hunting rifles, or a standard handgun.
At the top level, the federal level, We need to protect our rights to be as close to the intent of the constitution as it most possibly can be. The states can enact laws that are more restrictive, and counties and cities stronger still. A "one-size-fits-all" law should not be passed by the federal government.
We have a ton of gun regulation and I see nothing wrong with cities and states banning handguns within their borders. Obviously the kneejerk reaction is to ban guns when something like Las Vegas happens, but that is not any more of a solution than it is to ban pressure cookers and nails.
We need to find out why people are acting out the way they are and fix that.
We need to look at security and fix that as well. I wouldn't be too keen on getting searched at every hotel I checked into, but maybe common sense measures could be put into place. Metal detectors/x-ray machines overhead at the doorways that are non evasive like cameras are now. Temporary security screening during events only. Do not disturb signs that expire in a few hours or a day. Allowing daily room checks etc.
I will go against the grain. The assault weapon ban should never have been lifted. I am fairly confident if President Bush knew then what he knows now he would have left alone as well. Unfortunately they make killing way too easy and I own one myself. We should have reinstated the ban after the first couple mass shootings with them but now we have 10 million AR's and AK's on the ground or more. We blew it, a few people have wrecked it again for everyone.
We should institute a ban on all future sales of AR's, AK's and similar high capacity semi autos. Then I would be for a mandatory buyback of all of them in existence. I am sorry guys but there is no good reason for them.
Thankfully last night that guy was shooting in full auto, it likely caused him to miss many times where in Semi-auto he would have been actually aiming. The casualty count likely would have been worse.
I agree there is no reason for the average citizen to own one but pale where do we draw than line in the sand and say enough is enough with the government regulating what I can and can’t own? There is no way our founding fathers new when they wrote “The right to bear arms “ that these types of weapons or events would take place ! Like I said it’s a slippery slope we start down once we start banning again because illeagle or not he would had found away to commit his crime , there just has to be a better way
We were all doing just fine pre-2005. And the line is clear as a bell to me. I own enough weapons to arm my entire street so I say this as a gun owner.
I agree to an extent I own more than I prob should but , I just don’t know if I like the all out ban but this debate will go on for a long time
Great post Greg. WV is an open carry state. A lot of folks around here walk around wearing holsters. Not my thing but I think it's a cool thing that the constitution as old as it is still works. I'm what you would call a moderate. Some of my beliefs are liberal but some are very conservative. I enjoy discussions over the net. I try never to discuss politics on the street. That was a solid post.
I agree at a airport or hotel I’m ok with giving up my personal privacy when entering to a search or X-ray etc.. if it meant the greater good of everyone
I agree.
IIRC correctly the sale of fully automatic weapons is illegal... But I could be mistaken. From what I do know there are parts available online to convert semi-autos into fully automatics, but honestly what difference does it make? We could increase background checks, sure. But someone who is hell bent on obtaining a weapon for purposes like the Vegas incident will obtain it regardless.
There is very little that can be done to stop these kinds of events. For example, Where I used to live there were two ways to obtain a handgun. Go through the legal means and present your case, file paperwork, etc. After spending several hundreds of dollars and waiting several months for a review, you could still be turned down. Or go to a less savory neighborhood and pay couple hundred bucks cash.
You can buy fully automatic AR-15 where I live as long as you meet the following criteria ..
Automatic’ refers to the firing rate of a given weapon. For instance, most handguns and pistols are semi-automatic, meaning that every bullet you’d like to fire requires one trigger pull. Automatic weapons only require the trigger to be pulled and held in position to expend every round in the magazine.
My state...law permits the recreational use of fully automatic weapons. But it’s far more complicated than walking into a gun store with an ID and a credit card. At a minimum, it’s a process that requires a separate legal entity and specific permission from certain law enforcement figures.
Interesting, and I guess that's my point to some extent. You can't purchase a brand new fully auto AR-15 without jumping through some hoops. I guess even jumping through all the hoops and getting the fully automatic version legally however, still leaves you free to do as you please as now that you've passed all the checks you can walk into a public area and wreak havoc.
But even if they full on enforced the ban, and you had no way of legally obtaining a fully automatic weapon, there are work around. I can walk into Walmart and purchase a semi-auto AR-15 where I live, all I need to do is have ID. Then go online and get a slide fire stock (which is 100% legal) , and have the same effect, no hoops jumped through.
My point being that whomever wants to use these weapons as fully automatic can get them, and no amount of bans and regulation can prevent them from doing so... Kind of similar to AAS in a way I suppose.
Where they should be focusing on is the failure of mental health resources in this country. It won't stop every single incident, but it will help lower their occurrences.
While that is true, we have made mass killing far too easy with these weapons.
I agree that they make it easy, but there are several other things that are also easy that we won't outlaw... Vehicles, common household materials, etc.
You will never be able to prevent these kinds of events, and even with an outright ban on everything but handguns, you can still find work around for fully automatic pistols with extended mags.
Do I think the average american needs a fully automatic assault rifle NO, but under the bill of rights we are guaranteed certain rights by our founding fathers and one is the right to bear arms!! Now thinking of the time when this was written there was no such weapons around and probably our founding fathers could have not forseen the future but if we start down that slippery slope of banning them it will never be the same. Guns do not kill people , people poor choices kill people. Just my view
Good point. Although I'm not sure the victims family's would agree. I don't remember seeing all these automatics in the 80s or 90s. I think everybody may have stocked during the Obama years. Just a guess.
They was around long before Obama’s term..
Obama was great for gun stocks.