It may be now-or-never to buy certain guns

[NickD 203]

The framers of our constitution realized to prevent a police state, that the citizens should have the right to bear arms. It's on that basis alone I prefer to own guns.

Buying guns is getting to be a problem, some idiot purchased on from a mail order place and allegedly shot a president, said allegedly, because still plenty of doubt about this. But because of this, we can't purchased guns via mail order anymore. Then they started gun registration that only the good citizens do, another wasted effort.

My one son and I are frugal, one bullet, a deer 300-500 yards away, clear shot, watch out for orange, and that's all we need. Both of us are not into meat choppers, but if a gun happens, even by a malfunction, fires two shots with one pull of the trigger, you land up in a federal prison, that's crazy. Son and I both prefer bolt action, far more accurate, but when I was using a military weapon, a semi-automatic, this wasn't my choice, they made me do it, could easily fire off 5-6 rounds per second with practice and be far more deadly than any so-called assault rifle. We have idiots running this country, and I mean sick demented idiots with their regulations.

And while these same politicians scream and yell at responsible citizens for gun ownership, they hand them out to complete idiots in times of conflicts, know this for a fact, screw the enemy, watch out for that idiot behind you. Yet another contradiction with common sense.

Parents they leave loaded guns laying around are demented, and also have demented kids that can kill each other, may sound hard and cruel, but that means less idiots running around in this country.

All I know is that I do not want to live in a police state, and that is exactly what my wife's home country is turning out to be when Chavez arms 75,000 of his idiot kids with AK-47's to control the outcome of an election. This is a true fact, was there and saw it. But wasn't about to jeopardize my life for that, at my own home, that would make a big difference. You give me ten bullets, and there will be ten dead soldiers if it ever came to that. Citizens owning guns is a deterrent, no different than our stockpile of nuclear weapons, yet another contradiction.

[Danno 1,228]

No politician will win an election if their declared goal is to eliminate the second amendment

Come on Pike, don't play Dumb, you know the LEFT especially use the "incremental" approach to make the change they want.

One gun and one gun law at a time to reach their goal.

Clearly Obama Health-Control plan shows he likes the same method.

In fact this is a key method and here is how it works.

It's like you are standing at the edge of the water and they (socialist or Statist) will coax you into the water one step at a time.

"Surely getting your toes wet will not mean anything so you inch forward, then they have the next program or comprise which moves you forward, each one getting you a little more wet.

Finally when you are in far enough, they flip the reasoning on you, (as we saw recently) now they say... We must do this program and what does it matter, you are "already wet" (living under socialist principles) and there is not turning back.

Unfortunately at that tipping point they are right.

[almaty 19]

i always had guns..grew up with them..got a 12 gauge for my birthday as did my brother( age 12)...had them locked from my son when he was young..before he was allowed to handle one..sent him to a NRA gun handling and safety class....

i do not hunt...but i have 3 guns and sanita one.....sanita grew up in soviet union and had to be able to dismantle and put together..blindfloded an ak-47 by 12 yrs old..as part of the soviet pioneer program////she has no great fondness for guns and neither do I..

I have them for a FINAL LINE OF DEFENSE OF OUR LIVES.. that is all...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No politician will win an election if their declared goal is to eliminate the second amendment

Come on Pike, don't play Dumb, you know the LEFT especially use the "incremental" approach to make the change they want.

One gun and one gun law at a time to reach their goal.

Clearly Obama Health-Control plan shows he likes the same method.

In fact this is a key method and here is how it works.

It's like you are standing at the edge of the water and they (socialist or Statist) will coax you into the water one step at a time.

"Surely getting your toes wet will not mean anything so you inch forward, then they have the next program or comprise which moves you forward, each one getting you a little more wet.

Finally when you are in far enough, they flip the reasoning on you, (as we saw recently) now they say... We must do this program and what does it matter, you are "already wet" (living under socialist principles) and there is not turning back.

Unfortunately at that tipping point they are right.

Yeah you've trotted out that incremental BS before - it just isn't borne out by reality. Clinton tried it back in the 90's and his reforms didn't exactly effect a lasting, permanent change on people's practice of the second amendment.

Similarly Roe Vs. Wade appears to be the watershed on the issue of abortion, there hasn't been a fundamental legislative or constitutional advance on that in years.

Incrementalism, my #######.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[nowhereman 1]

I don't see a problem with honest citizens owning a gun & as others have pointed out this is a constitutional right. At the same time reasonable measures should be taken to keep guns away from individuals who shouldn't have them... like violent criminals or the mentally ill. I have mixed feelings about assault rifles... personally I'd like to see an objective study on crimes committed with assault rifles, to see what % of licensed owners committed the crime.

As for all the rhetoric back & forth in this thread as I said before Obama has bigger fish to fry & I doubt gun control is on his agenda. Has he even made any statements concerning what he might do or are all of you just speaking out of your backside?

Edited August 18, 2009 by nowhereman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see a problem with honest citizens owning a gun & as others have pointed out this is a constitutional right. At the same time reasonable measures should be taken to keep guns away from individuals who shouldn't have them... like violent criminals or the mentally ill. I have mixed feelings about assault rifles... personally I'd like to see an objective study on crimes committed with assault rifles, to see what % of licensed owners committed the crime.

As for all the rhetoric back & forth in this thread as I said before Obama has bigger fish to fry & I doubt gun control is on his agenda. Has he even made any statements concerning what he might do or are all of you just speaking out of your backside?

I believe he is in favour of reinstating the Clinton Assault Weapons ban, permanently.

Also something else about repealing another piece of legislation that (I think) currently prevents the police from accessing ownership history for the purposes of investigating crimes.

[Peikko 1,575]

The framers of our constitution realized to prevent a police state, that the citizens should have the right to bear arms. It's on that basis alone I prefer to own guns.

Buying guns is getting to be a problem, some idiot purchased on from a mail order place and allegedly shot a president, said allegedly, because still plenty of doubt about this. But because of this, we can't purchased guns via mail order anymore. Then they started gun registration that only the good citizens do, another wasted effort.

My one son and I are frugal, one bullet, a deer 300-500 yards away, clear shot, watch out for orange, and that's all we need. Both of us are not into meat choppers, but if a gun happens, even by a malfunction, fires two shots with one pull of the trigger, you land up in a federal prison, that's crazy. Son and I both prefer bolt action, far more accurate, but when I was using a military weapon, a semi-automatic, this wasn't my choice, they made me do it, could easily fire off 5-6 rounds per second with practice and be far more deadly than any so-called assault rifle. We have idiots running this country, and I mean sick demented idiots with their regulations.

And while these same politicians scream and yell at responsible citizens for gun ownership, they hand them out to complete idiots in times of conflicts, know this for a fact, screw the enemy, watch out for that idiot behind you. Yet another contradiction with common sense.

Parents they leave loaded guns laying around are demented, and also have demented kids that can kill each other, may sound hard and cruel, but that means less idiots running around in this country.

All I know is that I do not want to live in a police state, and that is exactly what my wife's home country is turning out to be when Chavez arms 75,000 of his idiot kids with AK-47's to control the outcome of an election. This is a true fact, was there and saw it. But wasn't about to jeopardize my life for that, at my own home, that would make a big difference. You give me ten bullets, and there will be ten dead soldiers if it ever came to that. Citizens owning guns is a deterrent, no different than our stockpile of nuclear weapons, yet another contradiction.

That may be what they thought at the time, but the reality is that there are far greater dangers to freedom than not having the right to bear arms - I would rate political apathy right up at the top.

The USA is very different now in so many ways than it was then - unless you give citizens all the advantages of the modern army the best that armed citizens could hope to achieve in the event of the US turning 'police state' is pockets of insurgency somewhat like Afghanistan. To believe anything else is to buy into the Rambo fantasies of Hollywood, not very clever.

If you believe that the armed forces would not turn on its citizens, then there is no need for the citizens to be armed. I personally think that in such a scenario, the US being on the verge of a police state, the army would turn on citizens, they would be persuaded that these citizens were the terrorists, the danger and that would be that.

That being said, maintaining an active, effective and stable political landscape is the safest, surest way to prevent such an eventuality. To achieve that, this focus on angry political rhetoric needs to change. People need to understand the political process, they need to understand that the government is the people, not some bureaucratic ogre trying to fleece the unsuspecting citizen. Accountability is so much more than calling Obama a dirty socialist and accusing the media of being all 'librul' and ####### sucks. Seriously, opposition requires alternate policies, not simply shouting down the Democrats. The political system needs to be supported not torn down.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

I don't see a problem with honest citizens owning a gun & as others have pointed out this is a constitutional right. At the same time reasonable measures should be taken to keep guns away from individuals who shouldn't have them... like violent criminals or the mentally ill. I have mixed feelings about assault rifles... personally I'd like to see an objective study on crimes committed with assault rifles, to see what % of licensed owners committed the crime.

As for all the rhetoric back & forth in this thread as I said before Obama has bigger fish to fry & I doubt gun control is on his agenda. Has he even made any statements concerning what he might do or are all of you just speaking out of your backside?

what do you consider to be an assault rifle?

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh boy. More of this. If we were oh so interested in the details of the health care debate, there likely wouldn't be one.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please watch it with the personal attacks and insults. They add nothing to the discussion.

[nowhereman 1]

I don't see a problem with honest citizens owning a gun & as others have pointed out this is a constitutional right. At the same time reasonable measures should be taken to keep guns away from individuals who shouldn't have them... like violent criminals or the mentally ill. I have mixed feelings about assault rifles... personally I'd like to see an objective study on crimes committed with assault rifles, to see what % of licensed owners committed the crime.

As for all the rhetoric back & forth in this thread as I said before Obama has bigger fish to fry & I doubt gun control is on his agenda. Has he even made any statements concerning what he might do or are all of you just speaking out of your backside?

what do you consider to be an assault rifle?

Good question... I am not an avid gun owner so I only know about assault rifles due to my military background. From what I understand an assault rifle is capable of semi-automatic & fully-automatic fire and has a larger magazine (not sure if "larger" is a 20 or 30 round clip).

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

I don't see a problem with honest citizens owning a gun & as others have pointed out this is a constitutional right. At the same time reasonable measures should be taken to keep guns away from individuals who shouldn't have them... like violent criminals or the mentally ill. I have mixed feelings about assault rifles... personally I'd like to see an objective study on crimes committed with assault rifles, to see what % of licensed owners committed the crime.

As for all the rhetoric back & forth in this thread as I said before Obama has bigger fish to fry & I doubt gun control is on his agenda. Has he even made any statements concerning what he might do or are all of you just speaking out of your backside?

what do you consider to be an assault rifle?

Good question... I am not an avid gun owner so I only know about assault rifles due to my military background. From what I understand an assault rifle is capable of semi-automatic & fully-automatic fire and has a larger magazine (not sure if "larger" is a 20 or 30 round clip).

pretty close

wiki:

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);

* It must be capable of selective fire;

* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;

* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles is regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before May 1986.

link

justashooter has answered how many legally owned "assault rifles" have been used in the commission of a crime in the past.

personally, i don't care for an automatic rifle or even a semi auto in any caliber other than .22

[Peikko 1,575]

Please watch it with the personal attacks and insults. They add nothing to the discussion.

Actually, they do. They add personality and colour, particularly as in the case in this thread there is no real mud slinging going on.

I wonder which gun toting rambo type complained anyway?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Last time I checked since Obama came to office, I can still buy guns. Ridiculous rhetoric.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Yes a few more gun laws, and more bans would have stopped columbine.

As if the boys didn't break any laws going in there and shooting people. Please grow some logic.

People who are for the assault weapons ban don't even know what assault weapons are.