Welcome new members!

[mox 298]

Mox do you believe assault rifles are Full Auto? Answering this question will tell me if my first sentence is true or not.

*sigh* Okay, I'll play. Your typical assault rifle can be selectively fired.

Nope, you and I can not buy nor own anything in Full Auto (except in special cases).

Um...my answer was still technically correct. Yes, I know it's extremely difficult to own a full auto weapon. If memory serves, you need some kind of Federal permit. Maybe some states have different allowances, I don't know.

OK, I won't downgrade you. Full Auto weapons are not allowed to be owned by US citizens (except in a few special cases.) You and I can not buy a Full Auto anything. They are all Semi-Auto. You should know this. The big bad assault rifles are only Semi. Again the medial spinning the information trying to make them out to be worse than they are.

Y'know, I've been giving you credit for actually being able to form and think your own thoughts. Not a single time have I accused you of being brainwashed by the NRA or the tin-foil whack-job separatist militias. No, I'm not a weapons expert, but think I've already established my "cred." I've been around guns all my life, and I know the difference between a hollow point and a full metal jacket. I can support the 2nd amendment and still support reasonable gun control without being a media pawn. If you're still convinced that I'm just some cable news drooler or that I can't think my own thoughts, then give Olbermann a call and argue with him. I know what I'm talking about. As I said before, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Sounds like we agree on the technology, just not what restrictions society should place on them.

And re-reading that last paragraph in preview, it sounds like I'm getting pissy. I'm not. It's all good, and I appreciate the conversation. Just wish we could focus on the facts instead of me trying to prove I'm not a media zombie.

[baron555 934]

No problem Mox.

By the way, being an amateur radio operator, I have talked with Tom Christian many times. Is your imaginary lady related?

[mox 298]

No problem Mox.

By the way, being an amateur radio operator, I have talked with Tom Christian many times. Is your imaginary lady related?

Everybody on Pitcairn is related, which is why my imaginary lady has a tail. Makes it convenient for when she's swinging through the trees!

[visaveteran 1]

Mox do you believe assault rifles are Full Auto? Answering this question will tell me if my first sentence is true or not.

*sigh* Okay, I'll play. Your typical assault rifle can be selectively fired.

Nope, you and I can not buy nor own anything in Full Auto (except in special cases).

Um...my answer was still technically correct. Yes, I know it's extremely difficult to own a full auto weapon. If memory serves, you need some kind of Federal permit. Maybe some states have different allowances, I don't know.

OK, I won't downgrade you. Full Auto weapons are not allowed to be owned by US citizens (except in a few special cases.) You and I can not buy a Full Auto anything. They are all Semi-Auto. You should know this. The big bad assault rifles are only Semi. Again the medial spinning the information trying to make them out to be worse than they are.

Y'know, I've been giving you credit for actually being able to form and think your own thoughts. Not a single time have I accused you of being brainwashed by the NRA or the tin-foil whack-job separatist militias. No, I'm not a weapons expert, but think I've already established my "cred." I've been around guns all my life, and I know the difference between a hollow point and a full metal jacket. I can support the 2nd amendment and still support reasonable gun control without being a media pawn. If you're still convinced that I'm just some cable news drooler or that I can't think my own thoughts, then give Olbermann a call and argue with him. I know what I'm talking about. As I said before, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Sounds like we agree on the technology, just not what restrictions society should place on them.

And re-reading that last paragraph in preview, it sounds like I'm getting pissy. I'm not. It's all good, and I appreciate the conversation. Just wish we could focus on the facts instead of me trying to prove I'm not a media zombie.

Mox, I see you wanting to take the middle ground on guns an that's OK with me. You do seem a bit overboard against the NRA as if it is a nefarious evil intended organization akin to the old John Birch Society.

Actually not that long ago it was almost mandatory to belong to the NRA if you ran for public office. I get up close to the NRA people because i use their state of the art range. The people there are very good people in my judgment...taking the firing of guns very seriously and with safety always to the extreme. These are sophisticated men and women and there is never a sense of selling anything or promoting an agenda. But this is the shooting range people.

I judge if what we call "the media" dispensed more accurate and even handed news about guns, the NRA might not need to be so hardcore about keeping our right to own guns. And I find the "Brady Gun Control" people just as crazy and blindly dogmatic as the other side.

The truth is we have a lot more gun laws and controls today than ever before. It was not that long ago when you could buy full auto weapons as easily as a BB gun. After WWII, there was tons of surplus weapons available to the general public. Other weapons such as the "street sweeper" and very short barreled rifles and shotguns were legal during my father's time.

So, we are not getting more rights, but less. The laws come on slowly over time and each law seems to have some merit, and then you wake up and look back or talk to the old timers and you realize the government is closing in slowly but surely on what guns you can own. How big. How many rounds you can have in a magazine. How long the barrel is. How short the barrel is. On and on it goes.

Like you, I'm OK with VERY limited gun controls and common sense law making. But there are some scary folks out there like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who have their eyes on strict and wide open gun controls including confiscation. They simply believe nobody but soldiers and cops need to carry guns.

Our founding fathers get quoted a lot by anti-gun people...but one thing is very clear about their thinking. They feared government tyranny and many early papers clearly suggest they supported an armed populace for more than state militias and rabbit hunting. Guns deter tyranny. The less guns we, the citizens, have the better for a government to run us like the Soviet Union...or, for that matter, Great Britain.

People will say we don't need warfare style weapons but that plays into the hands of people who want to think for us and run our day to day lives. To turn grown men into scared little boys. I've heard you curse the Patriot Act as allowing government to take our rights away. I agree and i see the same negtive correlation with gun control as well.

I'll make one technical correction. Civilian "assault rifles" are semi auto not select fire. Semi auto is one trigger squeeze, one bullet is fired. Select fire is one trigger squeeze and three bullets come out (military only). Full auto is one long squeeze and you empty the magazine (military only).

People do buy full auto and other normally illegal weapons but you have to buy a ATF permit which costs several hundred dollars and submit to a lot of background checks and paperwork. Most people who own these guns do so as collectors and hobbyists. You need to be wealthy as you can shot up a thousand dollars worth of ammo in a few minutes.

[Brad and Vika 129]

People do buy full auto and other normally illegal weapons but you have to buy a ATF permit which costs several hundred dollars and submit to a lot of background checks and paperwork. Most people who own these guns do so as collectors and hobbyists. You need to be wealthy as you can shot up a thousand dollars worth of ammo in a few minutes.

Absolutely correct. Last time I checked (about 5 years ago) the permit price to own an automatic weapon from the government approved list (I asked about a memory trip M-16) was about $350-$400. It can be done, but you can't (or at least couldn't) buy them in any speed or numbers as an individual. Now a registered militia group can, but that is/was a whole different thing.

[mox 298]

Mox, I see you wanting to take the middle ground on guns an that's OK with me. You do seem a bit overboard against the NRA as if it is a nefarious evil intended organization akin to the old John Birch Society.

Actually not that long ago it was almost mandatory to belong to the NRA if you ran for public office. I get up close to the NRA people because i use their state of the art range. The people there are very good people in my judgment...taking the firing of guns very seriously and with safety always to the extreme. These are sophisticated men and women and there is never a sense of selling anything or promoting an agenda. But this is the shooting range people.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met belong to the NRA. Like many organizations, or countries for that matter, it seems the general membership or the local citizenry are a lot saner than the people they put in charge. The guys in charge though...cripes. They're not gonna stop until every citizen has a tac nuke in their garage.

I judge if what we call "the media" dispensed more accurate and even handed news about guns, the NRA might not need to be so hardcore about keeping our right to own guns. And I find the "Brady Gun Control" people just as crazy and blindly dogmatic as the other side.

You just need to listen to the right media. Anything on cable is absolute shite, and that's not just guns but pretty much everything.

The truth is we have a lot more gun laws and controls today than ever before. It was not that long ago when you could buy full auto weapons as easily as a BB gun. After WWII, there was tons of surplus weapons available to the general public. Other weapons such as the "street sweeper" and very short barreled rifles and shotguns were legal during my father's time.

So, we are not getting more rights, but less. The laws come on slowly over time and each law seems to have some merit, and then you wake up and look back or talk to the old timers and you realize the government is closing in slowly but surely on what guns you can own. How big. How many rounds you can have in a magazine. How long the barrel is. How short the barrel is. On and on it goes.

Like you, I'm OK with VERY limited gun controls and common sense law making. But there are some scary folks out there like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who have their eyes on strict and wide open gun controls including confiscation. They simply believe nobody but soldiers and cops need to carry guns.

It's a complex issue. Honestly, sometimes I'm not even sure where I stand on a particular part of the issue. I think if Americans really wanted to, we could come to some pretty good gun laws that made most people happy. It's sort of like the abortion issue. 90% of the country is fine with first trimester abortions, and 80% is opposed to late term abortions. So most people would support sensible abortion laws that made it 100% legal in the first trimester, and almost impossible in the final trimester. But because it's such a rallying-call issue for both sides, we'll never see sensible legislation. Same for gun control. For every Nancy Pelosi, there's a Charlton Heston (who, as much as I loved as an actor, was fugging batshit crazy.)

Our founding fathers get quoted a lot by anti-gun people...but one thing is very clear about their thinking. They feared government tyranny and many early papers clearly suggest they supported an armed populace for more than state militias and rabbit hunting. Guns deter tyranny. The less guns we, the citizens, have the better for a government to run us like the Soviet Union...or, for that matter, Great Britain.

People will say we don't need warfare style weapons but that plays into the hands of people who want to think for us and run our day to day lives. To turn grown men into scared little boys. I've heard you curse the Patriot Act as allowing government to take our rights away. I agree and i see the same negtive correlation with gun control as well.

There's also a lot of evidence to suggest they meant it as a "well armed militia" for the common defense against foreign invaders. I don't think we'll ever know the true intentions of the founders, which is why I'd love to see a Constitutional convention with the aim to creating sensible gun laws. It could be done if there was the will.

[slim 1,525]

I was out Appleseeding this weekend - instructing Americans to make hits on man-sized targets out to 500 yards with rifles and educating them on the events of April 19th, 1775. I got in late last night and didn't get a chace to take part in this thread, but boy is it a doozy!

My advice get yourself a nice Camo apron and do some barbecueing, and for gosh sakes get a gun and eat some pie.

Thomas is always spot-on with the advice!

I do think our perception of the 2nd amendment is heavily skewed and that it was never meant for how it's being interpreted as today, but as a gun owner myself I certainly am not advocating the banning of guns or the abolition of the 2nd amendment. But this country needs to be a lot smarter and more practical about it, and I think the first place to start would be to stop listening to the NRA. The founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms for the common defense, but I'm pretty sure that rocket launchers and assault rifles with cop killing bullets would have been excluded had they been around in that day and age.

Mox, please clarify your stance on the 2nd Amendment. I'm not arguing either, just trying to see exactly where you're coming from. From what I gather, you're OK with personal defense (against criminals) and hunting, etc., but draw the line short of owning military-type weapons that could be used to fight battles. Guns should be for personal protection and hunting/sporting only?

I'd like to remind you that when the 2nd Amendment was written the Colonials had plenty of "field pieces" (cannons) that were privately owned and employed by community groups, so they did have "rocket launchers and cop killing bullets" in their day and age. (Not trying to sway your opinion just yet, would still like clarification of where you are on 2A and didn't feel like cutting and pasting yet again.)

Point is that there's only ONE reason to have them. Nobody hunts deer or elk with them, and there haven't been wild elephants in North America for about 10,000 years. These bullets are used to penetrate armor of the sort the Police wear. They are literally cop killing bullets. I know the media likes sensational terms like this, but in this case I think they have it exactly right.

"Cop killer" bullets are special, no doubt. But what the media fails to mention is your normal, standard, run of the mill high-powered rifle that you hunt deer or elk with will cut through cop armor like a warm knife through butter.

Assault rifles are built and optimized for the sole purpose of killing other human beings.

And your point is?????

This is why I asked you to clarify your stance on 2A. My stance on 2A is this - As an American I have an inherent duty to own and be proficient with a rifle built and optimized for the sole purpose of killing other human beings. The reason for that is because I believe the 2A was created not to protect my right to go duck hunting but to mutually assure destruction for my government if they ever choose to forcibly take away my rights. You can liken my stance on 2A to our Cold War with Russia. We had nukes not to really use, but to use if needed, and since we had them, we never needed them. Had we not had them......?

I've got no problem with people carrying hand guns, although I think any establishment should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody packing.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Only one question - how do we stop criminals from carrying in these establishments? How do we stop someone from bringing a gun inside and shooting the other customers and/or robbing the place? (I guess that was two questions, but you get my drift!)

I also believe firearms should be excluded from any place that primarily serves alcohol, if for any other reason than if you are liquored up then you are an unsafe shooter, which violates the rules of the gun safety course you signed off on.

It is already illegal for folks to carry a gun if they've been drinking. But, as above, why should it be illegal for me to sit in a sports bar and drink a Coke if there's no guarantee that a criminal won't come in with his gun and rob/rape/kill everyone? Does the alcohol stop the criminals?

I'm not talking about stuff you can buy at WalMart. I'm talking about stuff like this that is being found more and more frequently in cities like L.A.

Most of the stuff on that link was for tanks and aircraft. If you're talking rifle ammo, every single rifle caliber that was listed there will penetrate body armor with or without the "cop killer" or AP, API, or APIT rounds. And, even though I'm not a Kalifornia expert, I'm pretty sure that stuff's not legal in Kali already. If it's already illegal in the state, it's darn sure illegal in LA proper. So, in keeping with my theme here, I have to ask...

If it's already illegal, then why are the criminals still using it? Shouldn't they have stopped when the law was passed? "ah shoot. They got us. Turn in your ammo boys. It's illegal to shoot cops now since this type of ammo is outlawed." Maybe they didn't get the memo.

I would not oppose a ban on ammo designed primarily to penetrate armor, but the bullet vest cops wear wear really designed to stop handgun bullets. Many regular high powered hunting rounds might well penetrate body armor.

The problem with banning any type of ammo is where does it stop? And what if a "bad guy" wearing body armor enters your home and attacks you. You have a weapon but your ammo won't stop him.

I think the power of the 2nd amendment is that if our government turns to tyranny, we are armed and can resist. The 2nd amendment is not just for hunting and target practice and hobbyists. It is to preserve a free union.

You make a great point here and then you counter your own point. "If they're going to ban certain types of ammo, where does it stop?" followed by "The 2nd amendment is to preserve a free union if our government turns to tyranny." (I paraphrased your quotes)

If the government turns to tyranny, wouldn't you want some armor piercing bullets? And if you've already supported a ban on AP rounds, did you stop them short of banning ALL rounds?

[slim 1,525]

I can support the 2nd amendment and still support reasonable gun control

How?

I'm with you on not having Joe Blow have a rocket launcer under his bed. However, I do believe Joe Blow should have an AK-47 under his bed, as should all his friends, family and neighbors and they should meet regularly to practice using the rocket launcher that belongs to their community. Furthermore, they should have to jump through a few hoops to obtain a rocket launcher, but it shouldn't be a problem because every community defense force should have one issued through government surplus programs. (This is slim's wet dream world here, but since this is all theory, we'll roll with it.)

If you look at how the Colonies operated back in the '70s, they had privately owned individual longarms (that were almost exact replicas of the army's) and then community "field pieces" and even stockpiles of arms and powder that were distributed to the male population age 16-60. The Colony "community" was responsible for it's own safety and protection from the Indians, French, or anyone else that came along.

I know what I'm talking about.

"Sorry guys, mox just confirmed his credibility. Threads over."

As I said before, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Sounds like we agree on the technology, just not what restrictions society should place on them.

That sounds a lot like the NRA!

Compromise on what works for everyone. Hmmmm. Is that what the forefathers meant by "shall not be infringed?"

I'll make one technical correction. Civilian "assault rifles" are semi auto not select fire. Semi auto is one trigger squeeze, one bullet is fired. Select fire is one trigger squeeze and three bullets come out (military only). Full auto is one long squeeze and you empty the magazine (military only).

Your technical correction is not technically correct. Select fire is simply being able to "select" between two types of fire. Your above definition of select fire is actually one for "three round burst" and describes the type of fire common on the M-16A2 where the shooter can "select" between either semi-auto or three round burst. Another "select" fire weapon that's very interesting is the H&K MP-5. You can "select" between about five different types of fire on that "sub-machine gun" that's not an "assault rifle" but yet still shoots semi, burst, or full auto.

Most people who own these guns do so as collectors and hobbyists. You need to be wealthy as you can shot up a thousand dollars worth of ammo in a few minutes.

Well, at least, most people who own them legally. See, those who follow the law have to jump through hoops and pay large amounts of money in order to comply with laws and regulations. Those who don't follow the law do not.

Criminals seem to disregard laws and regulations on a regular basis. This is why it baffles me that certain members of Congress believe more gun laws = less crime. Hello! Criminals don't follow laws! Murder, rape, robbery, drug trafficking - they're all already illegal. Using a gun in the commision of one of those offenses is also ALREADY illegal. What I can't understand is how they're trying to make the case that yet another law is going to physically stop criminals from commiting crimes with firearms. The only effective defense against violent crime is to make the criminals disappear.

Honestly guys, American gun owners need to unite under one banner. Whether that be the NRA or the local chapter of whatever shooting you do, it doesn't matter. Gun owners of any type need to stand up and proclaim "I own a gun and it's my right as an American. I will not let you take that away. How dare you even try." With the way society is going, anti-gun laws won't even be necessary in a few generations because there won't be enough gun owners to out-vote the antis. I'm not political. I don't care which side people are on and actually, I think the very process of us having disagreements (peacefully) is what makes us free. But, if we don't stand up and be political, if we're not "accounted for" in the next couple of years, all this will be for naught. Stand and be recognized. Check out the Appleseed Project and then take part in the Million Gun Owner March next year. Let your reps know you're not going to support the erosion of your gun rights. You won't support the erosion of any of your rights.

Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry. Slim is climbing down from the soapbox. Goodnight.

[baron555 934]

Criminals seem to disregard laws and regulations on a regular basis. This is why it baffles me that certain members of Congress believe more gun laws = less crime. Hello! Criminals don't follow laws! Murder, rape, robbery, drug trafficking - they're all already illegal. Using a gun in the commision of one of those offenses is also ALREADY illegal. What I can't understand is how they're trying to make the case that yet another law is going to physically stop criminals from commiting crimes with firearms. The only effective defense against violent crime is to make the criminals disappear.

Slim is right on with this comment. Why more laws Mox? All those do is restrict what law abiding citizens can do. Criminals do not care about laws = that's why they are called criminals.

Sri folks that I deflected this thread a while back; I'll try not to do that.

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

Criminals seem to disregard laws and regulations on a regular basis. This is why it baffles me that certain members of Congress believe more gun laws = less crime. Hello! Criminals don't follow laws! Murder, rape, robbery, drug trafficking - they're all already illegal. Using a gun in the commision of one of those offenses is also ALREADY illegal. What I can't understand is how they're trying to make the case that yet another law is going to physically stop criminals from commiting crimes with firearms. The only effective defense against violent crime is to make the criminals disappear.

Slim is right on with this comment. Why more laws Mox? All those do is restrict what law abiding citizens can do. Criminals do not care about laws = that's why they are called criminals.

Sri folks that I deflected this thread a while back; I'll try not to do that.

I was going to throw a reply to slims posts but I will try and cover things here as his posts were lengthy but well worth the read.

First to Baron - Never apologize for sending a Russian thread on a tangent that is the god given right of everyone on this subforum(which should just be a forum because the stuff we talk about is important) to send a thread spinning off into whatever direction it takes us. It is the free exchange of ideas that prompted the constutional convention to put free speech as the first right.

Now onto slim and the post of posts. I believe you are correct for the most part and I firmly believe that more laws dont make sense- because if all we needed to do was making something illegal to stop people from doing it, lets see prohibition would never have been repealed, the harris stamp act would have been the greatest piece of legislation in the 20th century, and there would be no crime. Then we would need no congress or government anymore because there would no longer be issues. Since criminals dont pay attention to laws we need to protect ourselves in our homes and while we are out and about. My biggest issue with gun control is that when someone uses a gun to protect themselves many times there was other options, to flee, to disarm, to call authorities and seek shelter.

About 1 year ago a former drug addict who was somewhat mentally disabled was working at the gas station 3 blocks from my house. This guy was pretty harmless and he was paid $50 a week to empty trash cans and keep the parking lot clean, I only talked to him a couple of times but you could see he was an ok guy who was just trying to be useful. He got a ride to the mall one day from a woman that he liked and about 2 weeks later her boyfriend confronted this guy at the gas station. Some heated words were exchanged and the two were seperated. 1 month later(the day of the shooting) The first guy was busy doing his thing when the second person came to fill his car. While the second guy was pumping gas he started talking some ####### to the first guy, things got heated and the first guy was picked up a plastic trash can lid and made a motion like he was going to throw it at the second guy. The second guy reaches into his truck and pulls out the handgun that was sitting on the front seat. Points it, the first guy drops the can lid and backs up, falls to the ground, the second guy takes two steps forward and fires 2 times one in the chest and one in the head. The shooter then calls his brother in law(grand rapids police department officer) who is the first to arrive at the scene. After all is said and done and the news has edited the ####### out of the video( yes there were two videos of the whole thing which a guy I know that works at the station showed me both) to make it look like the first guy was about to kill the second. News is all over the thing and the shooter gets off only losing his CPL and his gun.

I saw the video and any reasonable person would be hard pressed to say that the shooter was in danger of losing his life(grave bodily threat). I had a few problems with the whole thing: Why was the gun on his front seat and loaded?(did he intend to threaten the guy if he saw him) Why didnt he make an attempt to flee or seek safety before or after he pulled the gun? Its murder if you go on the offense, the shooter was not protecting his homestead and with the first guy on the ground there was no longer a threat.

Any thoughts folks?

[mox 298]

Mox, please clarify your stance on the 2nd Amendment. I'm not arguing either, just trying to see exactly where you're coming from. From what I gather, you're OK with personal defense (against criminals) and hunting, etc., but draw the line short of owning military-type weapons that could be used to fight battles. Guns should be for personal protection and hunting/sporting only?

I don't know how many posts I've repeated this in: no, I don't think guns are for hunting/sporting only. Yes, in general, I don't think assault weapons are our "god given right." That doesn't mean I think they should be banned, but I think you should really really want one and be prepared to go through a lot of ####### to own one legally. It has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with safety. Sorry but I don't trust your average person to operate a gumball machine, let alone something that can fire 700 rounds a minute.

I'd like to remind you that when the 2nd Amendment was written the Colonials had plenty of "field pieces" (cannons) that were privately owned and employed by community groups, so they did have "rocket launchers and cop killing bullets" in their day and age. (Not trying to sway your opinion just yet, would still like clarification of where you are on 2A and didn't feel like cutting and pasting yet again.)

Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, it only pertained to white male landowners too. Times change.

Assault rifles are built and optimized for the sole purpose of killing other human beings.

And your point is?????

I was asked to defend my claim that assault weapons are optimized for killing humans, so I did.

This is why I asked you to clarify your stance on 2A. My stance on 2A is this - As an American I have an inherent duty to own and be proficient with a rifle built and optimized for the sole purpose of killing other human beings. The reason for that is because I believe the 2A was created not to protect my right to go duck hunting but to mutually assure destruction for my government if they ever choose to forcibly take away my rights. You can liken my stance on 2A to our Cold War with Russia. We had nukes not to really use, but to use if needed, and since we had them, we never needed them. Had we not had them......?

As I said earlier, times change. There's just as much evidence (maybe more) to support the notion that the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment was to defend the country from foreign invaders. Switzerland, for example, requires all households to have a rifle and state-issued ammunition for this very reason. (I know it's not exactly the same, work with me here.) If that were the case, your right to bear arms would only really allow you to defend the homeland, and possibly hunt. Having said that, I *do* think that a well-armed citizenry would keep our government a helluva lot more honest, and I've said so in previous posts. But in my mind, all it would really take is for every household to own a shotgun or even a handgun. Because if it ever came down to it, I can pretty much guarantee the military would fragment. After all, if you were still in the Army would you fight your own people? Would you round up your friends and relatives into camps or kill them because they've finally had enough and are going to re-assert their rights under the Constitution? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. And I know the vast majority of the military would either lay down their arms or turn their weapons on the maniacs in charge before it ever came down to citizens fighting our government in the street.

The other reason I think it's ridiculous to assume you'll need an automatic weapon to keep the government honest is because you will NEVER win a cold-war style arms race with the government. You won't even come close. You might even get lucky and get yourself an RPG or hell even a Stinger, and they can still tac nuke your аss. As for home defense, an automatic weapon is just as likely to kill your loved ones as it is to kill bad guys. Your home is close quarters fighting. You need accuracy, not spray.

Here's my stance on 2A: I'd like to see a Constitutional Convention sort it all out once and for all. Take a year, or hell, take two. Take however long it takes for good, sensible Federal legislation. Not the hodge-podge of ####### we have now.

By the way, I have a quibble with your definition of inherent duty, since the 2nd Ammendment is a right, not a duty. Paying taxes is a duty. Registering for Selective Service is a duty. Voting and the 2nd Amendment are rights, and you can lose both of them. You may feel compelled, but the duty is only in your head.

I've got no problem with people carrying hand guns, although I think any establishment should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody packing.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Only one question - how do we stop criminals from carrying in these establishments? How do we stop someone from bringing a gun inside and shooting the other customers and/or robbing the place? (I guess that was two questions, but you get my drift!)

Implementation is left as an exercise to the establishment. If they want to have metal detectors or frisk their customers, well hey, we live in a free society and if they think people will tolerate that then more power to them. More likely I think it's just going to be a sign on the door that says "no weapons," and if they catch you packing they throw you out. If you draw the weapon, they sue your аss.

[More in the next post, apparently I ran over the max number of quoted items. Huh.]

[mox 298]

I also believe firearms should be excluded from any place that primarily serves alcohol, if for any other reason than if you are liquored up then you are an unsafe shooter, which violates the rules of the gun safety course you signed off on.

It is already illegal for folks to carry a gun if they've been drinking. But, as above, why should it be illegal for me to sit in a sports bar and drink a Coke if there's no guarantee that a criminal won't come in with his gun and rob/rape/kill everyone? Does the alcohol stop the criminals?

I've known plenty of hot-headed аssholes who were just sipping a coke. Alcohol increases emotions, and you don't have to be drinking it to be affected by it. You just have to have some dumbass in your face for it to get reeeeal easy for you to sit down your sody-pop and pull out your piece. That's about the time that all the drunks start pulling out theirs. Once again I say, your initial training (or at least mine) made it very clear that alcohol and guns don't mix. Has nothing to do with me wanting to take away your guns, and everything to do with proper gun safety. Don't worry, the odds of the government needing overthrown while you're at the bar drinking a Mr. Pibb are pretty astronomical.

If it's already illegal, then why are the criminals still using it? Shouldn't they have stopped when the law was passed? "ah shoot. They got us. Turn in your ammo boys. It's illegal to shoot cops now since this type of ammo is outlawed." Maybe they didn't get the memo.

You might remember from previous posts that I'm 100% on your side about this. I know that laws don't stop lawbreakers. But if you want to take this argument to the nth degree, then you might as well just legalize nuclear weapons because only outlaws are going to misuse them anyway. This is what I'm talking about with sensible legislation. You don't have to ban guns to have sensible legislation.

The problem with banning any type of ammo is where does it stop? And what if a "bad guy" wearing body armor enters your home and attacks you. You have a weapon but your ammo won't stop him.

When that starts to become a problem, let me know and maybe I'll think differently. The vast majority of people who break into your house are breaking into your house because they can't afford their coke habit, let alone body armor.

I think the power of the 2nd amendment is that if our government turns to tyranny, we are armed and can resist. The 2nd amendment is not just for hunting and target practice and hobbyists. It is to preserve a free union.

You make a great point here and then you counter your own point. "If they're going to ban certain types of ammo, where does it stop?" followed by "The 2nd amendment is to preserve a free union if our government turns to tyranny." (I paraphrased your quotes)

If the government turns to tyranny, wouldn't you want some armor piercing bullets? And if you've already supported a ban on AP rounds, did you stop them short of banning ALL rounds?

Hopefully I made my position clear, above. I don't expect you to agree with it, but it should be at least clear.

"Sorry guys, mox just confirmed his credibility. Threads over."

I just want to have a serious discussion (like this one) without being accused of buying into the media stupidity. I think I've been around this forum long enough that most people here should know that I'm not just a media parrot.

Slim is right on with this comment. Why more laws Mox? All those do is restrict what law abiding citizens can do. Criminals do not care about laws = that's why they are called criminals.

I never said more laws. I said sensible legislation. The hodge-podge of laws we have right now serve nobody.

[visaveteran 1]

The supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an "individual right" already and the case was argued with the big guns (pardon the pun) on both sides of the issue..so why do we need to continue to argue or debate that point? The "militia argument" is dead now. We don't need to read Thomas Jefferson or James Madison anymore for clues. The court also ruled the government has certain limited powers to control guns which should appease the control people.

I do agree that in order to own a gun you should be required to go through some real training with it. In the old days fathers would teach their sons and maybe even daughters how to shoot and shoot safely. And the guns were used more often in day to day life so people gained experience and skill with guns. In addition, we used to have the military draft where men would be trained in the use of all kinds of weapons.

Now days we have few ways for people to learn how to shoot beyond their own willingness to get instruction and go to the range often and gain skill. Getting a concealed carry license usually requires a one or two day course including passing a live fire class. So, CCL people are more trained in handgun use than the guy who just buys a gun and throws it in his night stand. So maybe the CCL critics should think about that side of it.

My last comment on owning guns is that I seriously question how long the society will hold together. I don't think it's unrealistic to see a panic in the streets or a mob mentality over food shortages and high costs for basic things like bread and drinking water in the not so distant future. The global warming gloom and doomers tell us we have maybe 20 or 30 years left even if we try to reverse things. I can see neighbor fighting neighbor for food scraps or money or just things that have sales value. I can see the society going primitive very quickly.

I once went 3 days without food and almost no water (about 6 ozs) and I can see how people might kill for a simple drink of water. Trying to fend off one intruder out to steal or kill you is one scenario...having 10 or 20 people trying to do the same thing is a whole different one.

[slim 1,525]

For brevity's sake, I'm going to eliminate all quotes and just roll with it.

Baron - Just like owning a rifle is something you have to do if you're an American, changing the topic is something you have to do here. You just have to. Own it. Be proud of it! And, anytime it's about guns or pie, it's more than OK, it's encouraged!

Thomas - The scenario you presented sounds like it had very little to do with guns and/or gun control and a whole bunch to do with a criminal and a corrupt cop. If you in fact witnessed the tapes with "what really happened" I encourage you to report it to a higher authority than the local fuzz. Incidents like this are usually covered up by the local cops, but every so often you'll find a DA or state Attorney General or someone like that who would just love to reopen the case. I know it's a big can of worms, but if the local PD is willing to cover up a murder, what else are they willing to do? And if good men stand by and do nothing......

Mox - The Constitution has been amended to allow/disallow several things, and among them are what you mentioned - land-owning white males and voting rights. However, "arms" has never been infringed upon in the Constitution. U.S. Codes have been passed but the Constituion itself has not been trifled with in regards to "arms." Why is that?

And just quickly on the concealed carry sign laws (affectionately dubbed "gun busters" here in Ohio) and no-carry zones in establishments that serve alcohol that you mentioned, that's almost exactly what the Ohio law says. We can't carry where alcohol is served or inside when a gun buster is displayed. How do you guys post the signs out there in Kali that make the guns fall out of the criminals' hands whenever they walk into those places? So far here, the signs are pretty ineffective at stopping crime. Actually, they do a lot to ensure the criminals have a "safe" place to conduct their business and we like to call them "criminal protection zones."

Where we have many problems is because gun-control lops all guns into a single category - evil - and takes the "good" parts of one aspect and spins them into the "bad" parts of another. For instance, AK-47s are great at eradicating your neighborhood of non-stationary cadavers, but not so good for duck hunting. A Glock is great for thwarting car-jackers but doesn't ensure your vote is counted. Until there can be a "reasonable standard" established as to what right the founding fathers meant, I don't think we'll be seeing anyone messing with the generic listing of "arms."

[BluesTraveler 0]

And if good men stand by and do nothing......

One of my fav quotes. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke