The Second Amendment...

[the dangling wrangler]

Where do you stand?


http://www.gundebate.com/

[illdoit]

everyone should be issued a handgun and a fully automatic rifle at birth!!!:)

[hvaclmnop]

DON"T BE RIDICULOUS!!!!!!







Handgun at birth.....automatic rifle at eight. Think about armspan, man! Think about armspan! :D

[tunnel_rat]

everyone should be issued a handgun and a fully automatic rifle at birth!!!:)


Yea, now we're talkin'. At least give the good guys a fighting chance. An unarmed population is just sitting ducks for the bad guys. Been to D.C. lately???:D

[fixacr]

At least give the good guys a fighting chance. An unarmed population is just sitting ducks for the bad guys. :D

That is exactly why gun control doesn't reduce crime. It only disarms law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about the law, that's why they're criminals. DUH.

[hvacker]

They called the Colt 45 the Peacemaker didn't they. Shoot the bad guys and you'll have peace.

[RoBoTeq]

I own firearms. I enjoy target practice with them and like to be comfortable with them. I pray I never need to use a firearm (again?), but am prepared to if need be.

It would not hurt my feelings if firearms were somehow made to disappear from the face of the Earth, but as long as they exist, I want to have the right to own them.

[NormChris]

I believe students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus. I live in a "shall issue" state. Anyone 18 or over who does not have a felony conviction must be issued a state carry permit upon request. No classes, no photo, no fingerprinting. All members of my household 18 and up have their permits and get them on their 18th birthday!!!

We also carry whenever we are so inclined, including on college campus'!!

[the dangling wrangler]

Well Norm , I wish the other states were the same. But most are not. Hopefully the states that don't allow C C will in the future. I feel that some type of firearms safety should be taught in grade school . Firearms are here to stay . If children are exposed at an early age and know what damage can be done & what to do when they do run into this situation , a lot of problems could be avoided.

[william antley]

I believe students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus. I live in a "shall issue" state. Anyone 18 or over who does not have a felony conviction must be issued a state carry permit upon request. No classes, no photo, no fingerprinting. All members of my household 18 and up have their permits and get them on their 18th birthday!!!

We also carry whenever we are so inclined, including on college campus'!!

I agree mostly with this, I do think that "shall issue" should include at minimum a proficiency demonstration. I live in SC which is "shall issue" but, we do have to go through a background check, a learning session on laws and a proficiency demonstration in order to obtain a CCP.
I do not think that a CCP should be issued to just anyone without some indication that they understand all applicable laws regarding carry and have some skill in the use of their chosen carry weapon.

[trane]

I believe students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus. I live in a "shall issue" state. Anyone 18 or over who does not have a felony conviction must be issued a state carry permit upon request. No classes, no photo, no fingerprinting. All members of my household 18 and up have their permits and get them on their 18th birthday!!!

We also carry whenever we are so inclined, including on college campus'!!


Just wondering if you have buildings that do not allow it. After my state passed the CC ever business and all schools have signs saying no firearms allowed in this building.

[NormChris]

We can't carry in a court house or a bar. When a business posts that firearms are not allowed they have no legal basis to enforce such a sign. Most here who have posted such a sign have lost business and gotten the message from those of us who dislike their policy.

I carry anywhere I please with the two legal exceptions set by the state law.

I do not agree that the right to carry should have a limitation requiring a safety class. That does not square with the way the second amendment reads; "shall not be infringed" Just what part of infringed does our government not understand?

If I could go before the supreme court I would require them to answer one question, a very simple question. Define the word "infringed".

NormChris

[whec720]

If I could go before the supreme court I would require them to answer one question, a very simple question. Define the word "infringed".

If Hillary or Obama get in the White House, you'll get your wish. Their mission; stack the Supreme Court with as many lib judges to tilt the Court left.....WAY LEFT.
Remember, 2/3 of their agendas can not get through the people, ie Congress. That would be political suicide.

[fv_tom]

.

[jmac00]

I can never figure out WHY democrats dislike firearms so much?

The argument that crime will decrease, if all guns are removed from society is utterly stupid.

Look at the crime rates in Washington D.C.? Even the FBI and The Dept Of Justice (DOJ) statistics state that D.C. has had one of the highest crime rates in the nation for more than 25+years?

What part of that is so complicated for these people.:rolleyes::mad:

[bootlen]

I can never figure out WHY democrats dislike firearms so much?

The argument that crime will decrease, if all guns are removed from society is utterly stupid.

Look at the crime rates in Washington D.C.? Even the FBI and The Dept Of Justice (DOJ) statistics state that D.C. has had one of the highest crime rates in the nation for more than 25+years?

What part of that is so complicated for these people.:rolleyes::mad:

It's obvious a lowered crime rate is not what they desire. It is obvious that what they do desire is absolute rule over the populace. ALL liberal and MOST democrat legislation points to that.

[whec720]

It's obvious a lowered crime rate is not what they desire. It is obvious that what they do desire is absolute rule over the populace. ALL liberal and MOST democrat legislation points to that.

I couldn't agree more. By stacking the deck in the courts, Dems can simply say, "Hey, the Supreme Court said that guns are for gov't run militias, not for everyday citizens". "We have to follow what the courts say". "That is the rule of law"!
IMO, you'd be insane to vote for any Democrat for President, in this day and age.:eek:

[jmac00]

I couldn't agree more. By stacking the deck in the courts, Dems can simply say, "Hey, the Supreme Court said that guns are for gov't run militias, not for everyday citizens". "We have to follow what the courts say". "That is the rule of law"!
IMO, you'd be insane to vote for any Democrat for President, in this day and age.:eek:


I'll drink to that.

But if Hitlery or Obam-bam get in office, with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schummer, ted kennedy and Finstein in office, our weapons will be history by 2010.


The problem is going to be these idiots are going to TAX AND REGULATE our sport out of existence, by taxing ammo and banning lead shot similar to the Tobacco tax. they are simply going to make it to expensive to use a firearm

California is leading the way, the Government has banned all lead ammunition in any area that a Condor resides. Even though there is absolutely no proof that the Condor is effected, in any way, by Lead shot.

The other thing they Government is doing is passing "micro-stamping" laws, so that all ammo shot from a gun can be traced back to that gun. It doesn't seem to matter to the politicians that Micro-stamping does not work or it does not help solve any crime:mad:

[k-fridge]

I can never figure out WHY democrats dislike firearms so much?


Because they fear the very thing that the 2nd amendment guarantees; that the citizens of this country will have the means of rising up against an oppressive government if needed.

[jmac00]

Because they fear the very thing that the 2nd amendment guarantees; that the citizens of this country will have the means of rising up against an oppressive government if needed.


if they stop being flaming morons, there would be no need for a up-rising;):p

[k-fridge]

if they stop being flaming morons, there would be no need for a up-rising;):p

Don't hold your breath.....

[scrogdog]

Because they fear the very thing that the 2nd amendment guarantees; that the citizens of this country will have the means of rising up against an oppressive government if needed.

I disagree. I find thier reasoning a bit more genuine. Sometimes bad things happen because of the accessibility of guns.

Where they miss the mark is the belief that the removal of guns entirely is a logical reponse to the above problem. It is not.

Would you believe that I have never even fired a gun? True fact. What a lousy conservative, eh? ;) Nonetheless, I fully support the freedom to own certain weapons.

No private owner needs an assault rifle, in my opinion.

Education, training and technology can overcome most accidents. That SOME will still occur is inevetible, as it is with cars, trains, planes, ships, kitchen knives, fireworks. Hell... we even saw someone kill themself by participating in a WATER DRINKING contest!

But we have a problem here in Boston's inner city where young people have guns. And kill each other with them too frequently. Here; I can sympathize with the liberal stance a bit more, but still not totally agree with it. It's all about money, resources and community committment to solve such a thing.

But that's very difficult and expensive. So, removal of weapons entirely becomes "the easy way out" as it were.

But, if we take guns from the inner city youths of Boston, they will simply move on to the next best way to kill each other. We can kill with a rock, if we really wish to kill. It is that they wish to kill, then, that is the REAL problem.

And that is what libbies don't get.

[k-fridge]

I disagree. I find thier reasoning a bit more genuine. Sometimes bad things happen because of the accessibility of guns.

Where they miss the mark is the belief that the removal of guns entirely is a logical reponse to the above problem. It is not.

Would you believe that I have never even fired a gun? True fact. What a lousy conservative, eh? ;) Nonetheless, I fully support the freedom to own certain weapons.

No private owner needs an assault rifle, in my opinion.

Education, training and technology can overcome most accidents. That SOME will still occur is inevetible, as it is with cars, trains, planes, ships, kitchen knives, fireworks. Hell... we even saw someone kill themself by participating in a WATER DRINKING contest!

But we have a problem here in Boston's inner city where young people have guns. And kill each other with them too frequently. Here; I can sympathize with the liberal stance a bit more, but still not totally agree with it. It's all about money, resources and community committment to solve such a thing.

But that's very difficult and expensive. So, removal of weapons entirely becomes "the easy way out" as it were.

But, if we take guns from the inner city youths of Boston, they will simply move on to the next best way to kill each other. We can kill with a rock, if we really wish to kill. It is that they wish to kill, then, that is the REAL problem.

And that is what libbies don't get.
Occasionally bad things happen because of gun accessibility. But I think more bad things would happen if law abiding citizens didn't have access to guns for self-defense.

Besides, very few crimes are committed with guns that are legally obtained, and no amount of gun control will stop that.

Yes, there are some liberals who genuinely think gun control will reduce crime. But as usual, they are thinking only with their hearts and not with their heads.

[jmac00]

I disagree. I find thier reasoning a bit more genuine. Sometimes bad things happen because of the accessibility of guns.

Where they miss the mark is the belief that the removal of guns entirely is a logical reponse to the above problem. It is not.

Would you believe that I have never even fired a gun? True fact. What a lousy conservative, eh? ;) Nonetheless, I fully support the freedom to own certain weapons.

No private owner needs an assault rifle, in my opinion.

Education, training and technology can overcome most accidents. That SOME will still occur is inevetible, as it is with cars, trains, planes, ships, kitchen knives, fireworks. Hell... we even saw someone kill themself by participating in a WATER DRINKING contest!

But we have a problem here in Boston's inner city where young people have guns. And kill each other with them too frequently. Here; I can sympathize with the liberal stance a bit more, but still not totally agree with it. It's all about money, resources and community committment to solve such a thing.

But that's very difficult and expensive. So, removal of weapons entirely becomes "the easy way out" as it were.

But, if we take guns from the inner city youths of Boston, they will simply move on to the next best way to kill each other. We can kill with a rock, if we really wish to kill. It is that they wish to kill, then, that is the REAL problem.

And that is what libbies don't get.

you do if you shoot competition, The AR-15 is one of the finest carbines ever developed, its light, and accurate. It's good for close range encounters and it's still accurate out past 300 yards. :D;)

Yep, I shoot competition. Handgun, Carbine and shotgun:D

[k-fridge]

And seriously....how many hold-ups are committed by people with assault rifles?

[scrogdog]

you do if you shoot competition, The AR-15 is one of the finest carbines ever developed, its light, and accurate. It's good for close range encounters and it's still accurate out past 300 yards. :D;)

Yep, I shoot competition. Handgun, Carbine and shotgun:D

Sorry, I am not one with competition shooting.

The second amendment only speaks of defending ourselves, right?

Why can't you compete with lessor weapons? Are you not a good shot with a handgun, for example? I don't get it.

[scrogdog]

And seriously....how many hold-ups are committed by people with assault rifles?

How many Columbine massacres have occured WITH them?

One is enough for me... but there is more than one.

We do not need such weapons for personal defense.

[whec720]

How many Columbine massacres have occured WITH them?

One is enough for me... but there is more than one.

We do not need such weapons for personal defense.

We also don't need cars that go over 75 mph, yet they sell them. Why? Because it is legal and they are fun to drive.

[k-fridge]

How many Columbine massacres have occurred WITH them?

One is enough for me... but there is more than one.

We do not need such weapons for personal defense.
Yes, that was one case where an assault rifle was used. Sad event, no doubt.

But as with other types of gun control, this will only stop law abiding citizens from having them. I know people who have fully automatic weapons, weapons that have been illegal for a long time. Their easy to get, they can be bought or a decent gunsmith can easily modify certain weapons to be fully automatic.

Just one more 'feel good' law that accomplishes nothing good.

[glennac]

Sorry, I am not one with competition shooting.

The second amendment only speaks of defending ourselves, right?

Why can't you compete with lessor weapons? Are you not a good shot with a handgun, for example? I don't get it.

I think you are wrong here. A well armed militia can't be well armed with just obsolete fire arms. We all so need assault rifles for the day when the commies do take over and we are in a total police state. At least we would have a chance of defending our liberties and ourselves.

[scrogdog]

We also don't need cars that go over 75 mph, yet they sell. Why? Because it is legal and they are fun to drive.

Yep. That's true. But it is not neccesarily speed that kills in car accidents. It is more often stupidity.

Look, it is simply this. While I admit that I don't have a great knowledge of guns, isn't it true that a gun that has a semi-automatic spraying-fire mode is EXTREMELY dangerous in the hands of an amatuer?

That is what I seek to avoid. Weapons that can do mass damage in the hand of an amatuer. Do you disagree with this basic principle?

If someone wants to own a gun, great! But let's make it a commitment. The owner should know how to maintain the weapon and become skilled in it's employment in terms of both solitary and moving targets.

That way, if the weapon gets in the hands of an unskilled user, damage is at least minimized. To make mass damage weapons available that any boob can use is very foolish in my opinion, and is certainly NOT a requirement of the Second Amendment.

[scrogdog]

I think you are wrong here. A well armed militia can't be well armed with just obsolete fire arms. We all so need assault rifles for the day when the commies do take over and we are in a total police state. At least we would have a chance of defending our liberties and ourselves.

You are welcome to your opinon, but I disgree with it.

Why is a certain handgun "obsolete"? You can buy a modern handgun or rifle that requires skill to use that are not "obsolete". Right?

[scrogdog]

Yes, that was one case where an assault rifle was used. Sad event, no doubt.

But as with other types of gun control, this will only stop law abiding citizens from having them. I know people who have fully automatic weapons, weapons that have been illegal for a long time. Their easy to get, they can be bought or a decent gunsmith can easily modify certain weapons to be fully automatic.

Just one more 'feel good' law that accomplishes nothing good.

So, having guns that amatuers can use to cause mass damage is a good thing? When such weapons are NOT required for personal defense?

Sorry, k-man, I really don't get this at all.

[k-fridge]

So, having guns that amatuers can use to cause mass damage is a good thing? When such weapons are NOT required for person defense?

Sorry, k-man, I really don't get this at all.
My point is that banning assault rifles makes no significant difference in people getting killed. People who want to kill people will either get them illegally or find another way to kill.

And Glenn has a point, there may come a time where we have to rise up against our own government. I hope to God that day never comes, but the best deterrent is to retain the means of overthrowing them if we had to. This is what the authors of the second amendment had in mind, remember that they had recently gone through a revolution.

[glennac]

You are welcome to your opinon, but I disgree with it.

Why is a certain handgun "obsolete"? You can buy a modern handgun or rifle that requires skill to use that are not "obsolete". Right?

I wouldn't want to go to war with a bolt action rifle or a hand gun as my primary weapon. You see I want to protect the 2nd Amendment because it gives me the right to defend myself against criminals and a communist police state if it comes to that. Then a hand gun or bolt action sporting rifle would be "obsolete". This of course is my opinion and that's what I believe. I hope we never come to that stage but we are now moving in the direction of the communist police state.

[scrogdog]

I wouldn't want to go to war with a bolt action rifle or a hand gun as my primary weapon. You see I want to protect the 2nd Amendment because it gives me the right to defend myself against criminals and a communist police state if it comes to that. Then a hand gun or bolt action sporting rifle would be "obsolete". This of course is my opinion and that's what I believe. I hope we never come to that stage but we are now moving in the direction of the communist police state.

Ok, let's talk about a hypothetical situation.

Let's say that "the man" does something that we both disagree with, and we decide it is time to fight them.

Now... I know "rag-tag" groups of resistance have been successful in the past, but only in a clandestine fashion. You can't expect common folk to fight professional armies in the field no matter what their weaponry. And let's face it... to take on even the local national guard in a non-clandestine fashion would require ATGs and air power! So... we should let common citizens own F16s? C'mon.

Our only hope for resistance would not depend on advanced weaponry. Trust me on that. :)

[jmac00]

Sorry, I am not one with competition shooting.

The second amendment only speaks of defending ourselves, right?

Why can't you compete with lessor weapons? Are you not a good shot with a handgun, for example? I don't get it.


Because it's a competition. Some competitions are a "3 gun shoot", Handgun, carbine (semi-automatic, just like the handgun) and a shot gun.

there are different stages of fire requiring a different weapons at different stages, being a "good shot" has nothing to do with the type of weapon used, hell, I'm a good "shot" with a throwing knife? I suppose you want me to register that to :rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

My point is that banning assault rifles makes no significant difference in people getting killed. People who want to kill people will either get them illegally or find another way to kill.

It makes a huge difference! Didn't you read my post about spraying fire?

[scrogdog]

Because it's a competition. Some competitions are a "3 gun shoot", Handgun, carbine (semi-automatic, just like the handgun) and a shot gun.

there are different stages of fire requiring a different weapons at different stages, being a "good shot" has nothing to do with the type of weapon used, hell, I'm a good "shot" with a throwing knife? I suppose you want me to register that to :rolleyes:

Sorry. Sport is not a good enough reason for civilians to own assault weapons. Period.

[jmac00]

So, having guns that amatuers can use to cause mass damage is a good thing? When such weapons are NOT required for personal defense?

Sorry, k-man, I really don't get this at all.


your kidding right? have you seen what a 10ga shotgun can do at close range (less than 100 yards :eek:) and with the new ammunition out there some shotguns have a better ballistic characteristics than some rifles.

and yes, "assault" weapons are necessary for self-defense. Why should we discriminate between a 12 ga semi-automatic shotgun or a semi-automatic 30-06 or a AR-15, or a Rugar Mini-14:confused:

[scrogdog]

your kidding right? have you seen what a 10ga shotgun can do at close range (less than 100 yards :eek:) and with the new ammunition out there some shotguns have a better ballistic characteristics than some rifles.

and yes, "assault" weapons are necessary for self-defense. Why should we discriminate between a 12 ga semi-automatic shotgun or a semi-automatic 30-06 or a AR-15, or a Rugar Mini-14:confused:

Depends on what you mean by that. I know that there are assault shotguns as well, and yes I oppose them too.

Again, owning a weapon needs to be a committment. Not something that just any boob can pick up and do mass damage with. That is foolish... no matter how you try to otherwise reconcile it.

[glennac]

Ok, let's talk about a hypothetical situation.

Let's say that "the man" does something that we both disagree with, and we decide it is time to fight them.

Now... I know "rag-tag" groups of resistance have been successful in the past, but only in a clandestine fashion. You can't expect common folk to fight professional armies in the field no matter what their weaponry. And let's face it... to take on even the local national guard in a non-clandestine fashion would require ATGs and air power! So... we should let common citizens own F16s? C'mon.

Our only hope for resistance would not depend on advanced weaponry. Trust me on that. :)

Just assault rifles to give a little fire power on the ground so to speak. The Hungarian uprising in 56 was successful until Soviet tanks came in to crush the rebellion. There were no Hungarian soldiers fighting the people. I don't think the goverment could get the millitary to put down an uprising against an oppressive communist goverment here in America.

[jmac00]

Yep. That's true. But it is not neccesarily speed that kills in car accidents. It is more often stupidity.

same with guns. stupid people die every day, what difference does the means make?


Look, it is simply this. While I admit that I don't have a great knowledge of guns, isn't it true that a gun that has a semi-automatic spraying-fire mode is EXTREMELY dangerous in the hands of an amatuer?

no, the type of gun is inconsequential, the thing that makes ANY WEAPON DANGEROUS is the operator. otherwise it's just a paper weight


That is what I seek to avoid. Weapons that can do mass damage in the hand of an amatuer. Do you disagree with this basic principle?

Yes, i disagree completely? what are you going to do about the wacko with one gallon gas can and a rag........that equal to 27 sticks of dynamite


If someone wants to own a gun, great! But let's make it a commitment. The owner should know how to maintain the weapon and become skilled in it's employment in terms of both solitary and moving targets.

That way, if the weapon gets in the hands of an unskilled user, damage is at least minimized. To make mass damage weapons available that any boob can use is very foolish in my opinion, and is certainly NOT a requirement of the Second Amendment.


an "unskilled" user will probably cause more damage than a skilled user, at least a skilled user should be able to hit it's intended target, and not innocent by-standers

[scrogdog]

The Hungarian uprising in 56 was successful until Soviet tanks came in to crush the rebellion.

This is the key. Tanks are local to all national guard units. So, do you propose that common citizens own anti-tank weaponry?

[jmac00]

Depends on what you mean by that. I know that there are assault shotguns as well, and yes I oppose them too.

Again, owning a weapon needs to be a committment. Not something that just any boob can pick up and do mass damage with. That is foolish... no matter how you try to otherwise reconcile it.


do tell ???????? whats the difference between an "assault shotgun" and a semi-automatic shotgun.

this answer should be quite entertaining:rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

same with guns. stupid people die every day, what difference does the means make?



no, the type of gun is inconsequential, the thing that makes ANY WEAPON DANGEROUS is the operator. otherwise it's just a paper weight



Yes, i disagree completely? what are you going to do about the wacko with one gallon gas can and a rag........that equal to 27 sticks of dynamite




an "unskilled" user will probably cause more damage than a skilled user, at least a skilled user should be able to hit it's intended target, and not innocent by-standers

Wow! I completely disagree! Weapons that have high discharge rates in the hands of incompetents are BAD, and I will fight you on this until the day I die!

Even though I support the second amendment. :)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[scrogdog]

do tell ???????? whats the difference between an "assault shotgun" and a semi-automatic shotgun.

this answer should be quite entertaining:rolleyes:

Well a semi-automatic shotgun is what I define an assault shotgun to be. What did you think I meant? :rolleyes:

[glennac]

This is the key. Tanks are local to all national guard units. So, do you propose that common citizens own anti-tank weaponry?

No the key is that those were Soviet tanks with Soviet troops in the tanks not the Hungarian National Guard with Hungarian troops in the tanks, Check Mate.:)

[scrogdog]

No the key is that those were Soviet troops in the tanks not the Hungarian National Guard with Hungarian troops in the tanks,

Hmmm. Well my personal opinion is that American National Guard tank units could wipe the floor with civilians... I mean after all they have combat experience in Iraq. Isn't that true?

[glennac]

Hmmm. Well my personal opinion is that American National Guard tank units could wipe the floor with civilians... I mean after all they have combat experience in Iraq. Isn't that true?

Can't you see the Hungarian Army did not man the tanks, Russians did. What makes you think American soldiers would man tanks of an oppressive goverment and the Hungarian soldiers wouldn't?

[jmac00]

Well a semi-automatic shotgun is what I define an assault shotgun to be. What did you think I meant? :rolleyes:

How should I know, your the one that said " I don't know that much about guns"

yet you say "I know that there are assault shotguns as well"

so tell us, whats the difference between a "assault shotgun" and a semi-auto shotgun (btw, there IS a difference, I'll give you the night to google the difference)

whats the difference between a AR-15 and a Whetherby 30-06 semi-automatic custom made rifle?


Nevermind, your blowing smoke. You don't have a clue what your talking about, do you

Just say it..................you don't like guns and you think we are all gun nuts, :rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

How should I know, your the one that said " I don't know that much about guns"

yet you say "I know that there are assault shotguns as well"

so tell us, whats the difference between a "assault shotgun" and a semi-auto shotgun (btw, there IS a difference, I'll give you the night to google the difference)

whats the difference between a AR-15 and a Whetherby 30-06 semi-automatic custom made rifle?


Nevermind, your blowing smoke. You don't have a clue what your talking about, do you

Just say it..................you don't like guns and you think we are all gun nuts, :rolleyes:

No, I don't think that. I think that you go beyond the needs of personal defense. That's all. If we disagree on that point; then we do.

But you will never have my vote on such things. And that stance most certainly does NOT violate the second amendment.

[pabull]

In the SeaBees, my son obtained his "expert marksman" with an M-16, and "marksman" with both the 50 cal. and 240 Bravo machine guns. Trust me when I say this. If ordinary citizens could legally own an M-16, there ARE rounds called "tank rounds" available for these. They are armor-piercing and CAN stop a tank quick by the very nature of the round. They pierce the tank skin and ricochet all inside the tank!!

Glen is right. We are getting dangerously close to a police state. If Nobama or Hitlery gets in...we are screwed sideways. And with Botox Nancy and Sen. "bonesmuggler" Reid at the helm of Congress, Govt. disarming of us citizens is a REAL possibility!!:mad:

Long live OUR inalienable RIGHT to own whatever gun we choose to have.

[scrogdog]

In the SeaBees, my son obtained his "expert marksman" with an M-16, and "marksman" with both the 50 cal. and 240 Bravo machine guns. Trust me when I say this. If ordinary citizens could legally own an M-16, there ARE rounds called "tank rounds" available for these. They are armor-piercing and CAN stop a tank quick by the very nature of the round. They pierce the tank skin and ricochet all inside the tank!!

Glen is right. We are getting dangerously close to a police state. If Nobama or Hitlery gets in...we are screwed sideways. And with Botox Nancy and Sen. "bonesmuggler" Reid at the helm of Congress, Govt. disarming of us citizens is a REAL possibility!!:mad:

Long live OUR inalienable RIGHT to own whatever gun we choose to have.

Wow. Just wow.

[NormChris]

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you anti gunners not understand. The amendment was placed there in the bill of rights which are all individual rights and are is there to allow the people to protect themselves against a government gone bad.

That is right, we the people have the ultimate power to overthrow a government gone bad and that right was issued by the government itself thru our founding fathers.

[scrogdog]

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you anti gunners not understand. The amendment was placed there in the bill of rights which are all individual rights and are is there to allow the people to protect themselves against a government gone bad.

That is right, we the people have the ultimate power to overthrow a government gone bad and that right was issued by the government itself thru our founding fathers.

I'm not infringing the right of anyone to own a weapon for personal protection. Else, why not have assault weapons, tank and fighter-bomber aircraft available to the general public?

Reality alert... that's what you need to fight a national guard unit. So, if your position is such, let's all campaign for private ownership of tanks, atgs and fighter-bomber aircraft. Is that your well-considered opinion? :rolleyes:

[the dangling wrangler]

In the SeaBees, my son obtained his "expert marksman" with an M-16, and "marksman" with both the 50 cal. and 240 Bravo machine guns. Trust me when I say this. If ordinary citizens could legally own an M-16, there ARE rounds called "tank rounds" available for these. They are armor-piercing and CAN stop a tank quick by the very nature of the round. They pierce the tank skin and ricochet all inside the tank!!

Glen is right. We are getting dangerously close to a police state. If Nobama or Hitlery gets in...we are screwed sideways. And with Botox Nancy and Sen. "bonesmuggler" Reid at the helm of Congress, Govt. disarming of us citizens is a REAL possibility!!:mad:

Long live OUR inalienable RIGHT to own whatever gun we choose to have.

Ordinary folks can own M16's http://www.class3weapons.com/class_3_faq_class_3_weapons.html

[jmac00]

In the SeaBees, my son obtained his "expert marksman" with an M-16, and "marksman" with both the 50 cal. and 240 Bravo machine guns. Trust me when I say this. If ordinary citizens could legally own an M-16, there ARE rounds called "tank rounds" available for these. They are armor-piercing and CAN stop a tank quick by the very nature of the round. They pierce the tank skin and ricochet all inside the tank!!

Glen is right. We are getting dangerously close to a police state. If Nobama or Hitlery gets in...we are screwed sideways. And with Botox Nancy and Sen. "bonesmuggler" Reid at the helm of Congress, Govt. disarming of us citizens is a REAL possibility!!:mad:

Long live OUR inalienable RIGHT to own whatever gun we choose to have.

armor piercing rounds are illegal. It is a violation of Federal Law for a civilian to even possess any ammunition that will pierce armor.

You can not go to any store and simply purchase armor piecing rounds. It's against federal law to sell it.

[jmac00]

I'm not infringing the right of anyone to own a weapon for personal protection. Else, why not have assault weapons, tank and fighter-bomber aircraft available to the general public?

Reality alert... that's what you need to fight a national guard unit. So, if your position is such, let's all campaign for private ownership of tanks, atgs and fighter-bomber aircraft. Is that your well-considered opinion? :rolleyes:

you can own/possess Fighter aircraft and Tanks, the weapons systems must be disabled, but you can own them.:rolleyes:

[the dangling wrangler]

I posted this a week or two ago in the general section. This is a lawyer from Connecticut , he knew what to collect. There's a link about half way down to view the rest of the collection.

http://juliaauctions.net/press_releases/pr_2008.asp

[jmac00]

I posted this a week or two ago in the general section. This is a lawyer from Connecticut , he knew what to collect. There's a link about half way down to view the rest of the collection.

http://juliaauctions.net/press_releases/pr_2008.asp


holy-moly, that is one beautiful collection, damn good thing I don't have a couple million laying around :eek:

[the dangling wrangler]

holy-moly, that is one beautiful collection, damn good thing I don't have a couple million laying around :eek:

I'm thinking when he acquired most of the full auto stuff, the prices were almost "cheap". Prices really didn't go through the roof until after 1968. What about the shotgun that went for 235,000!!! One holster 24,000!!! This guy had an under ground range . If I can find the pics of the vault ,it's almost unbelievable ,I'll post them.

[Tool-Slinger]

Guns are making our communities nicer than they would be otherwise. One brit observation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

'''''I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.''''''

Media mis-information. Guns are the greatest thing since sliced-bread, everyone should own one and those who do not are ..... not fully realising their american freedom, such as an illiterate or homeless person. Guns are good.

[glennac]

This is the key. Tanks are local to all national guard units. So, do you propose that common citizens own anti-tank weaponry?

Scrog we need our guns especially assault rifles is to protect ourselves not from the Army, National Guard, Air Force etc. in a communist take over but the Federal police; ATF, Fed Marshalls, FBI etc. They would turn their own mother in to get a promotion. They support whoever pays them no questions asked. The millitary is motivated in large part by patriotism and would not go against American citizens. Couldn't say the same for say the ATF. Ruby Ridge is a good example.

[RoBoTeq]

Sorry, I am not one with competition shooting.

The second amendment only speaks of defending ourselves, right?

Why can't you compete with lessor weapons? Are you not a good shot with a handgun, for example? I don't get it.
So, because you "don't get" something, you think it should be banned? And you call yourself conservative? You may want to check to see just what brand of panties you are wearing.

[RoBoTeq]

How many Columbine massacres have occured WITH them?

One is enough for me... but there is more than one.

We do not need such weapons for personal defense.
How many people are killed by automobiles?

Unless you need a vehicle for transporting tools and equipment to do a specific job, you do not need to own a vehicle.

Where does this slippery slope of blaming inanimate objects for the actions of people stop?

[RoBoTeq]

After having read scrogs innability to debate this issue I must say that I now seriously doubt his (her?) claims of being conservative. Being so adamately and unwaveringly against people of faith "and" a citizens right to own weaponry is just not someone who can actully think conservatively.

I do believe scrog has fooled us with his wolf clothing.

One thing is certain; every time these Fascist liberals start ranting about controlling the populace more by removing our rights to own guns, more and more unregestered guns are purchased by otherwise law abiding citizens.

Every time our government comes up with another freedom reducing law that creates more citizens to become criminals, we realize that the need to be well armed is even more important then ever.

The assaults on the average citizenry that has occured in other countries cannot occure in the U.S. without serious repercussions because we, the American citizens, won't stand for it and we are armed and ready for when our government turns on us.

[RoBoTeq]

I definitely need to go on an unregestered weapon buying spree before next year. We all should watch "Red Dawn" at least once a year to remind us of what could happen if we are invaded, from outside or from within.

For those who do not know what I am referring to, the first thing the attackers of the U.S. did was go to the records of regestered gun owners and round those up who had regestered weapons.

[souper phly]

By Scrog
No private owner needs an assault rifle, in my opinion.

Please Define "assault rifle"

But we have a problem here in Boston's inner city where young people have guns. And kill each other with them too frequently. Here; I can sympathize with the liberal stance a bit more, but still not totally agree with it. It's all about money, resources and community committment to solve such a thing.

How many of these weapons are legally owned by the individuals causing trouble with them?

Look, it is simply this. While I admit that I don't have a great knowledge of guns, isn't it true that a gun that has a semi-automatic spraying-fire mode is EXTREMELY dangerous in the hands of an amatuer?

That would be a fully automatic, semi-auto is one round fired for each trigger actuation. Before you decide to limit what type of weapon I can own you should know what the hell your talking about.

I really don't get this at all.

BINGO!!!!

By Pabull
Trust me when I say this. If ordinary citizens could legally own an M-16, there ARE rounds called "tank rounds" available for these. They are armor-piercing and CAN stop a tank quick by the very nature of the round. They pierce the tank skin and ricochet all inside the tank!!

The AR-15 which is an M-16 without the ability to fire full-auto or 3 round bursts is legal to own in most of the country, there is no way in hell a .223 round even made of depleted uranium will ever penatrate tank armor.

[the dangling wrangler]

For those who do not know what I am referring to, the first thing the attackers of the U.S. did was go to the records of regestered gun owners and round those up who had regestered weapons.

If I remember correctly, a man that went by the name of A. Hitler did something like that in the late '30's.

[mrs reb77]

The arguments being made here against gun ownership reflect the same ignorant arguments lawmakers spout--the words 'semi-automatic' and their ignorance of what it means is appalling.

They 'semi-automatically' assume that the word 'automatic' makes a firearm deadlier or 'assault' style.
My rifle (bolt action Ruger 25-06) is not 'semi-automatic' but my 12 gauge Winchester most certainly is. My husband's rifle (AR-15) is 'semi-automatic' but his 16 gauge double barrel most certainly is not. I'll take my Ruger deer hunting any day over his AR.

Dang, now I just wanna go out and shoot something. And where exactly does that good ole 2nd amendment say that I have to want a gun for protection only? If you only have it in the house for 'protection' and never shoot it then it wouldn't be much protection if the time came for it.

[the dangling wrangler]

For the record , as far as I know, no legally owned machine gun(after 1934) has ever been used in any crimes. Key words are legally owned.

[pabull]

armor piercing rounds are illegal. It is a violation of Federal Law for a civilian to even possess any ammunition that will pierce armor.

You can not go to any store and simply purchase armor piecing rounds. It's against federal law to sell it.I fully understand this jmac. I was just speaking in a hypothetical. Just tryin to let certain people know that WE as citizens are not entirely defenseless against a Govt gone bad.
If it EVER got to that point...you can bet your heiney that armor piercing tank rounds WOULD become available real quick. All it would take is someone with the brains to either figure out the composition of such rounds..or simply someone getting ahold of the design.

[william antley]

People are getting too "hung-up" on the term "assault weapon".
How many people have a pocket knife they carry? How many in our trade have steel pipe, rope, drop cords, screwdrivers, hammers, wrenches, bottles of refrigerant, torches, spray chemicals, etc, etc.
Do you wear steel toe boots, regular boots and do you have a belt around your waist to hold up your trousers?
Any item in existence can be utilized as an "assault" weapon.
Do you have the knowledge and the skill to utilize an ordinary item as an "assault" weapon?
The item itself is never dangerous, it's the individual or group of individuals that make use of these items as "assault" weapons that develops and causes the danger, not the tool they are using.

Who would need anti-tank weaponry to defend against the National Guard? None of us really need what is conventionally known as Anti Tank Weaponry because a creative individual, or group, could develop their own means of defense against tanks, same with warplanes or ground troops. The method depends on the person/people, not the tool!

Destroying the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is the despot's way of assuming power over the masses. Limiting what type of arms can be possessed, by the law abiding citizen, is a simple method of destroying that right.
I personally have no serious desire to own any type of "full auto" firearm but, I will never deny anyone who is a law abiding citizen their ability to possess such a firearm. Same for any type of firearm.

Blaming the tool for the problem is stupid, cut and dried. When has a gun ever harmed someone all on its own or ever caused someone to take the life of another person? WHEN?!?! When has a steel pipe, a screwdriver, a pocket knife or a drop cord done this? WHEN?!?!

I had an episode of discussion with a gun hater some time ago. I went into a Wal-Mart to purchase ammunition to go deer hunting. There was noone in the dept. so, I found someone to go find a manager so I could make my purchase. The manager came to the counter spouting how she hates guns, "I don't like being over here".
I asked why and she replied, "Because guns kill people." I then asked "How many people have these guns in the cabinets killed?" She got quiet, rang up my purchase and all but threw the box of cartridges at me. I just said "Thank You" and left. I do not know if my question had any other effect but, I hope she thought a bit more about our short conversation and the fallacy of her statement.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. Only little people with little minds and little sense of worth do these things. PUNISH THEM and not the law abiding gun owners.
And, I believe, only little people with little minds and little sense of worth want to prevent anyone else from owning, Keeping and Bearing, firearms.

The problem with "gun control" is not the guns, it's the control. Those who preach gun control want the guns and the control, especially the control. Gun control will never benefit the law abiding citizen, it only benefits the despots desiring total rule of the populace, and the criminal who can now run free terrorizing those who once could protect themselves, their families and their property from the criminals.

One appropriate bumper sticker I see shows: When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Guns

Think about that.

[scrogdog]

After having read scrogs innability to debate this issue I must say that I now seriously doubt his (her?) claims of being conservative. Being so adamately and unwaveringly against people of faith "and" a citizens right to own weaponry is just not someone who can actully think conservatively.

I do believe scrog has fooled us with his wolf clothing.

One thing is certain; every time these Fascist liberals start ranting about controlling the populace more by removing our rights to own guns, more and more unregestered guns are purchased by otherwise law abiding citizens.

Every time our government comes up with another freedom reducing law that creates more citizens to become criminals, we realize that the need to be well armed is even more important then ever.

The assaults on the average citizenry that has occured in other countries cannot occure in the U.S. without serious repercussions because we, the American citizens, won't stand for it and we are armed and ready for when our government turns on us.

Oh brother, from the king of panties in a wad.

I am not removing your rights to own guns. There is no need for average citizens to have things like grenades or other personal WMDs.

Can you defend yourself with them? Yes. Can you take on a National Guard unit with them? NO!

So stop with this fighting the government crap, will ya? It's a pipe dream if the military supports them, I don't care what the heck you got.

So I'm no longer a conservative. Fine. If the conservative view is far out fairy tale and fantasy such as this, I guess it's time that I got out.

God and Guns; your ticket to being viewed as conservative. :rolleyes:

Gotta love having Robo on your side too. He'll take on all comers; bible in one hand and M16 in the other! Praise the lord and pass the ammo!

[scrogdog]

People are getting too "hung-up" on the term "assault weapon".
How many people have a pocket knife they carry? How many in our trade have steel pipe, rope, drop cords, screwdrivers, hammers, wrenches, bottles of refrigerant, torches, spray chemicals, etc, etc.
Do you wear steel toe boots, regular boots and do you have a belt around your waist to hold up your trousers?
Any item in existence can be utilized as an "assault" weapon.
Do you have the knowledge and the skill to utilize an ordinary item as an "assault" weapon?
The item itself is never dangerous, it's the individual or group of individuals that make use of these items as "assault" weapons that develops and causes the danger, not the tool they are using.

Who would need anti-tank weaponry to defend against the National Guard? None of us really need what is conventionally known as Anti Tank Weaponry because a creative individual, or group, could develop their own means of defense against tanks, same with warplanes or ground troops. The method depends on the person/people, not the tool!

Destroying the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is the despot's way of assuming power over the masses. Limiting what type of arms can be possessed, by the law abiding citizen, is a simple method of destroying that right.
I personally have no serious desire to own any type of "full auto" firearm but, I will never deny anyone who is a law abiding citizen their ability to possess such a firearm. Same for any type of firearm.

Blaming the tool for the problem is stupid, cut and dried. When has a gun ever harmed someone all on its own or ever caused someone to take the life of another person? WHEN?!?! When has a steel pipe, a screwdriver, a pocket knife or a drop cord done this? WHEN?!?!

I had an episode of discussion with a gun hater some time ago. I went into a Wal-Mart to purchase ammunition to go deer hunting. There was noone in the dept. so, I found someone to go find a manager so I could make my purchase. The manager came to the counter spouting how she hates guns, "I don't like being over here".
I asked why and she replied, "Because guns kill people." I then asked "How many people have these guns in the cabinets killed?" She got quiet, rang up my purchase and all but threw the box of cartridges at me. I just said "Thank You" and left. I do not know if my question had any other effect but, I hope she thought a bit more about our short conversation and the fallacy of her statement.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. Only little people with little minds and little sense of worth do these things. PUNISH THEM and not the law abiding gun owners.
And, I believe, only little people with little minds and little sense of worth want to prevent anyone else from owning, Keeping and Bearing, firearms.

The problem with "gun control" is not the guns, it's the control. Those who preach gun control want the guns and the control, especially the control. Gun control will never benefit the law abiding citizen, it only benefits the despots desiring total rule of the populace, and the criminal who can now run free terrorizing those who once could protect themselves, their families and their property from the criminals.

One appropriate bumper sticker I see shows: When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Guns

Think about that.

Think about how militia forces did against the British before the French came and paid, trained, and supplied US forces. Think of how the French resistance single-handedly won back France... oh wait... that didn't happen.

You people are living a fantasy if you think that such weaponry means the difference against a professional army. I mean, Robo's in such great fighting shape too.

For the last time, I am not for outlawing guns.


Any item in existence can be utilized as an "assault" weapon.

Excellent! Than you'll have no problem replacing the capability. If man's ingenuity can overcome tanks, then what's your issue?

[mrs reb77]

Um, I believe you missed the point. Those of us against gun control aren't looking for assault weapons. Those advocating gun control are mis-characterizing guns as assault weapons. That was the point.

[scrogdog]

Very well, maybe I mean MORE than assault weapons.

Seems to me a single shot weapon can still kill, but it should take a bit more skill than a weapon that can employ spraying fire. Especially against multiple moving targets.

If I'm wrong, then I am. But if I am, the posts here so far have yet to show me a compelling reason as to WHY I'm wrong.

[jmac00]

okay, lets get off the WMD kick? I don't know anyone that wants a Grenade. First, even if you could find a "working model" the thing is simply to dangerous to have. One little screw up, you and your house are going to be history. It's MUCH easier to make a pipe bomb and you can make one that is much more deadly than a Grenade. Anti-Tank weapons are to cumbersome. There is no physical way you (or even an expert) can get a 5.56X45mm projectile to travel at speeds and pressures necessary to penetrate tank armor. If you figure out a way to do that, call the Pentagon, they're going to want to know about this. You'll be a millionaire by Friday

Second: an "assault weapon" is almost NEVER used in crime. Obviously, there are exceptions. However, "assault weapons" are to cumbersome for the average criminal to walk into a 7-11 and demand money. Even drug dealers prefer hand guns. (try to keep from imaging TV programs when thinking about crime)

I NEED an AR-15 type weapon for competition. they are light, fast, accurate and reliable. Shooting sports are about speed and accuracy. But mostly, the shooting sports are about SAFETY. We have extremely high standards and rules for handling firearms at a range. "mistakes" are not tolerated in any form. One AD (accidental discharge) and your banned for the rest of the competition

The ONLY reason some people dislike "assault weapons" is because some of the weapons look like the same type of weapon used by the military. And military personnel kill people. So everyone equates these types of weapons with killing people. When in fact, the weapons simply works. it's accurate, reliable and virtually indestructible.

From a strict Consumer Product stand point, Firearms are probably the most reliable products in the world. The only time I find a firearm malfunction is after the owner "worked" on it, as in customizing the weapon.

[scrogdog]

Yet another post that fails to address what I actually said.

[mrs reb77]

Explain your definition of assault weapon.

Fully automatic weapons are not legal. Fully automatic weapons discharge more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger.

I certainly enjoy the 'semi-automatic' function of my shotgun while dove, duck, goose, rabbit, quail hunting. I sincerely doubt I would be able to bag as many of the tasty critters if I had to reload a single shell into the chamber between each pull of the trigger--seeing as many of these things run/fly around with friends.

I also enjoy skeet shooting, and other sport shooting--rifle and handgun. I certainly wouldn't characterize my (or my husbands) guns as assault weapons seeing as that is not their intended purpose.

[scrogdog]

My position is not about how assault weapon is defined.

It's about weapons that can do massive damage in a short amount of time in the hands of an unskilled user. If that means "assault weapon", ok fine. If it means more than that, then that's fine too.

Why didn't the Columbine guys select pistols as thier weapons of choice? Range? Maybe, but there is always bolt-action rifles.

I think guns should be used for personal protection only. Not with some crazy idea in mind that you are going to have to fight the rogue government. That's just silly - the idea that you could better fight a professional army with a fully automatic rifle, that is. I mean, Robo's still going to waddle in slow motion with either that OR a pistol, right?

[mrs reb77]

It's about weapons that can do massive damage in a short amount of time in the hands of an unskilled user. If that means "assault weapon", ok fine. If it means more than that, then that's fine too.



There are many things in this world that, while not classified as a weapon, would fit that. Large jets running into buildings would be just one example. :(

[scrogdog]

Ah, but the criminals who performed 9/11 were hardly unskilled.

It wasn't like some 15 year old found an aircraft that he didn't know how to fly and crashed it in to a building. Cars certainly can't be used in anywhere close to the same number of situations as a gun. For one thing, they aren't easy to hide under your coat. :)

[the dangling wrangler]

Fully automatic weapons are not legal. Fully automatic weapons discharge more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger.


First off I'm one hundred percent pro gun. That being said , machine guns are legal (maybe not in your state .)Find a gun ( if you can afford it ) get your local PD to sign you off, pay a transfer fee , pay the IRS for the tax ( two hundred bucks , same since 1934) and you're good to go.

[mrs reb77]

I want to make it down to that Kentucky range where you can rent and shoot one. Ah the rush! Can't think of the name of it right now but I hear the waiting list may be longer than the time I have left on this earth!

Is it so wrong to want to wield something like that? I can't tell you that I think it is. I grew up with firearms, I don't see a darn thing wrong with liking them.

ah, found it
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/

[the dangling wrangler]

I didn't read the whole article , or didn't catch the part about the FIFTEEN YEAR WAIT to get a table or to get on the firing line. No , it's not odd to want to mow down something. It's the American way. (If you can afford the ammo.)

[souper phly]

My position is not about how assault weapon is defined.

No, Your position is about your mis definition of assault weapons. You have been told by more than one person that assault rifle does not mean a full-auto weapon but you fail to read and or understand, therefore your right to vote on matters which you refuse to understand bothers me.

It's about weapons that can do massive damage in a short amount of time in the hands of an unskilled user. If that means "assault weapon", ok fine. If it means more than that, then that's fine too.


Why didn't the Columbine guys select pistols as thier weapons of choice? Range? Maybe, but there is always bolt-action rifles.

News flash the kids at Columbine had semi-auto rifles and pistols are also semi-auto as well.

I think guns should be used for personal protection only. Not with some crazy idea in mind that you are going to have to fight the rogue government. That's just silly - the idea that you could better fight a professional army with a fully automatic rifle, that is. I mean, Robo's still going to waddle in slow motion with either that OR a pistol, right?

Did you even read my last post?

[scrogdog]

Did you even read my last post?

Ok, this is good.

First he responds to a post that contains this sentence as the very first thing.

Here... let me bold it for you;

My position is not about how assault weapon is defined.

It's about weapons that can do massive damage in a short amount of time in the hands of an unskilled user.

And this is what he comes back with.


No, Your position is about your mis definition of assault weapons.

How do you debate, exactly, with one such as that?

Let me clarify, I am not seeking a ban on assault weapons. I am seeking a ban on weapons that have a high rate of fire that can be deadly in the hands of the unskilled. I don't care what you call them. Get it yet?

Take a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't you find that a rather messy weapon versus a handgun? You don't even need to aim very well, do you? A friend of mine had one, and it looked pretty scary. It could hold many rounds which are pretty much instantly chambered, right? I never saw it fired, but I imagine it would eject and rechamber pretty quickly.

What is the use of such a weapon? Seems like mass destruction to me.

[mrs reb77]

MY semi-automatic shotgun doesn't look scary and does require skill in it's use. What the devil are you talking about man!? Do you think we should be required to have old single shot shotguns? Geez louise, if you don't know what you're talking about then quit. I'd say while you're ahead but it's hard to characterize it that way at this point.

[mrs reb77]

Take a semi-automatic shotgun. Don't you find that a rather messy weapon versus a handgun? You don't even need to aim very well, do you? A friend of mine had one, and it looked pretty scary. It could hold many rounds which are pretty much instantly chambered, right? I never saw it fired, but I imagine it would eject and rechamber pretty quickly.

What is the use of such a weapon? Seems like mass destruction to me.

I use my 'semi-automatic' shotgun for birds, skeet and small game. :rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

I use my 'semi-automatic' shotgun for birds, skeet and small game. :rolleyes:

Ok, but you could also use other weapons, right?

I need a compelling argument as to why such weapons are *necessary*. Not just that you like them. :)

[mrs reb77]

So what would you have me use? A single shot? My shotgun has gas recoil making it one of the few that women can shoot consistently and easily without 'flinching' and dead shoulder bruising. My 14 year old niece enjoys shooting it as well. Most single shots (at least when I was growing up) kicked like the devil.
I enjoy being able to shoot multiple clay pigeons as well as being able to shoot more than one time at an elusively flying dove or duck. Can't do that with a single shot or side by side etc.

[scrogdog]

MY semi-automatic shotgun doesn't look scary and does require skill in it's use. What the devil are you talking about man!? Do you think we should be required to have old single shot shotguns? Geez louise, if you don't know what you're talking about then quit. I'd say while you're ahead but it's hard to characterize it that way at this point.

It's ok. I understand that you disagree. Maybe I could be talked in to another stance, but so far no one is successfully doing it.

Shotguns seem a nasty weapon to me in the first place. There's a lot of deadly force in that weapon. It doesn't seem like you could just wing someone with one. Wouldn't you want to be flexible, or must every shot be deadly?

Perhaps I am not as informed as you'd like, but if that's the case, you guys had better get some solid PR going for yourselves to correct bad perception. I'm guessing that I'm not the only person that feels this way. I have my vote, you have yours. We'll see how things play out. At least, in the face of no information. I'm not interested in guns, you are. So, the onus seems to be on gun-lovers to correct bad perceptions.

And if your "PR" is more of the "we want to put down the government in case it becomes a rogue state", then I think you are going to lose quite a number of people.

[scrogdog]

So what would you have me use? A single shot? My shotgun has gas recoil making it one of the few that women can shoot consistently and easily without 'flinching' and dead shoulder bruising. My 14 year old niece enjoys shooting it as well. Most single shots (at least when I was growing up) kicked like the devil.
I enjoy being able to shoot multiple clay pigeons as well as being able to shoot more than one time at an elusively flying dove or duck. Can't do that with a single shot or side by side etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider sport shooting or because women like it to be a valid reason. I know that you really won't like hearing that. :)

So, is that the sole weapon that exists that is comfortable for a woman to fire? In defense of her person I mean.

[mrs reb77]

scrog, I have the distinct impression that you don't know a lot about this and would be better off just stating that.

This is pretty much what my big bad scary semi-automatic shot gun looks like

[jmac00]

My position is not about how assault weapon is defined.

It's about weapons that can do massive damage in a short amount of time in the hands of an unskilled user. If that means "assault weapon", ok fine. If it means more than that, then that's fine too.


what about Samurai swords, or other large edged weapons? A ONE gallon gas can, is equal to 27 sticks of Dynamite.

Hell, even an arrow (Broadhead) can kill several people at once, if there lined up just right.

Your argument is moot. No amount of explanation will satisfy you. You want rules and laws, which are based on specific definitions. Yet you refuse to answer the question "DEFINE *ASSAULT WEAPON*" which you are obviously unwilling, or unable to do.......go figure?:confused:

SO BACK TO THE BASIC QUESTION: Define assault weapon?

I hope you don't mind if I don't hold my breath, I have a feeling you can't

[scrogdog]

I'm really not sure why you folks keep harping on the definition of assault weapon. If a semi-auto shotgun in not an assault weapon I DON'T GIVE A CRAP!!! I STILL DON"T LIKE IT!!!

Do you get that yet???

Sheesh.

[mrs reb77]

I'm sorry, but I don't consider sport shooting or because women like it to be a valid reason. I know that you really won't like hearing that. :)

So, is that the sole weapon that exists that is comfortable for a woman to fire? In defense of her person I mean.

Aw quit. You are getting deeper and deeper. I have this gun because it is a good gun, I have a RIGHT in this country to have this gun and I use this gun. I really don't think I need much more justification than that. I did not one time say women like this gun. I said I do.

What do you drive? Do you HAVE to drive that? What about maybe using a bike? no? What do you mean the law lets you drive what you want? When did that happen? :rolleyes: same crap.

[scrogdog]

scrog, I have the distinct impression that you don't know a lot about this and would be better off just stating that.

This is pretty much what my big bad scary semi-automatic shot gun looks like

I have stated that. Many times. But I still have a vote. So, again, if you want all of us uninformed to see things your way, you'd best start a nice PR program because from what I see here, no one is really interested in explaining anything, they just keep reminding me how much I don't know.

Fine then, a stand off. Like I said, I have my vote and you have yours. We'll see what happens, eh?

[mrs reb77]

I'm really not sure why you folks keep harping on the definition of assault weapon. If a semi-auto shotgun in not an assault weapon I DON'T GIVE A CRAP!!! I STILL DON"T LIKE IT!!!

Do you get that yet???

Sheesh.

I don't like motorcycles. Had a friend die on one. I don't have one, don't ride one. I don't push my dislike on other people though.

You're the one that keeps coming back to SEMI-AUTOMATIC

[mrs reb77]

Why do we have to have PR for something that we are already allowed to own?

I'm a member of the NRA, I'll let them do the PR and I'll go on with my business. And that includes a family of hunters and sport shooters. Using all manner of firearms. Some semi-automatic, some not. It's fun. :D

[scrogdog]

Aw quit. You are getting deeper and deeper. I have this gun because it is a good gun, I have a RIGHT in this country to have this gun and I use this gun. I really don't think I need much more justification than that. I did not one time say women like this gun. I said I do.

What do you drive? Do you HAVE to drive that? What about maybe using a bike? no? What do you mean the law lets you drive what you want? When did that happen? :rolleyes: same crap.

Well, you did say this;


My shotgun has gas recoil making it one of the few that women can shoot consistently and easily without 'flinching' and dead shoulder bruising.

Somehow I equated that with "women like it". :)

Actually, I believe we have government mandates forthcoming with some pretty strict fuel efficiencies. Meaning that fuel sucking muscle cars are on the way out. Even if you like them. :)

Yes, you do have a right to own that gun. Guess what? I have the right to question that. Now, if you folks simply want to attack and squirm, be my guest. Doesn't seem like you are going to get very much done with your attitudes, to be honest. No offense intended.

[mrs reb77]

If a semi-auto shotgun in not an assault weapon I DON'T GIVE A CRAP!!! I STILL DON"T LIKE IT!!!


You don't like it so it should be outlawed.

I think cigarettes are weapons of mass destruction. They need to be outlawed. They do no good what-so-ever.

[scrogdog]

You don't like it so it should be outlawed.

I think cigarettes are weapons of mass destruction. They need to be outlawed. They do no good what-so-ever.

Regardless of what I like, or not, if I get the opprotunity to vote on something I will use it.

I don't think it's very likely that your shotgun will be banned, so don't worry. If a vote comes up, yes, I would vote against it, given that your only stated reason to use it is for sport.

Fine. If a vote to outlaw cigarettes ever comes up, we know where you'll stand.

To some, bullets and bibles are the American way. To others, voting is. Not referring to you or anyone specifically, Mrs. Reb. ;)

[mrs reb77]

Well, you did say this;



Somehow I equated that with "women like it". :)

Actually, I believe we have government mandates forthcoming with some pretty strict fuel efficiencies. Meaning that fuel sucking muscle cars are on the way out. Even if you like them. :)

Yes, you do have a right to own that gun. Guess what? I have the right to question that. Now, if you folks simply want to attack and squirm, be my guest. Doesn't seem like you are going to get very much done with your attitudes, to be honest. No offense intended.

Majority of semi-automatic shotguns have gas recoil making their 'kick' considerably lighter. I would assume that many shooters (women included) would like that benefit. I also know many women that 'man up' and shoot guns that make bigger guys flinch!

[scrogdog]

Why do we have to have PR for something that we are already allowed to own?

You don't. That is, unless you don't care about uninformed voters ruining your party. If you don't, then sit back and don't do a thing. :)

[glennac]

Scrog about 20 years ago in a grammar school my kids had gone to a 12 year old unruly Black boy was called into the principle's office along with his mom for a conference on what can be done to get him to behave in class. He never obeyed instructions and talked back to the "White" teachers. The principle started to tell the mom about his son and about removing him to an alternative school and he lunged at the principle across his desk and stabbed him in the heart with a sharp pencil killing him instantly. This was kept quite through what I call reverse censorship it was only a small article in the local paper and no where else. The mom of course said that her son was a good boy and the White principle got him upset. The purpose of this story is that you do not need a "weapon" to kill some one. He did it with a pencil but 12 years later a girl gets suspended in a Marietta school for a zero tolerance violation because she brought a harmless 10 inch tweety bird key chain hanging from her wallet to school because it was a "chain" and therefore a weapon even though it was so light you could easily break the chain with a slight pull.

The point is that if you want to kill someone you do not need a weapon. You have the advantage of surprise. But if you want to defend yourself you need all the fire power you can use within reason. If I had a home invasion and I was upstairs I would grab my assault rifle to take on several of them before I would a hand gun. The other point was that the PC school system is beyond hope on not only teaching our kids but by keeping them safe and only wants to destroy innocent kids for perceived "violations" of zero brains zero tolerance policies which they foolishly enforce. Also you will not hear in the news where a principle gets killed by a kid with a pencil if he used a gun it would be all over the national news.

[scrogdog]

I know what you are saying, but it is a hard thing to imagine a mass killing spree with a pencil, right?

Yes, one can kill with a rock and we can't outlaw all rocks.

I am talking about killing efficiency. How fast and how many?

With a pencil? One. :)

Again, I'm not for outlawing ALL guns. Just the ones we don't really need.

[hvactech13]

I know what you are saying, but it is a hard thing to imagine a mass killing spree with a pencil, right?

Yes, one can kill with a rock and we can't outlaw all rocks.

I am talking about killing efficiency. How fast and how many?

With a pencil? One. :)

Again, I'm not for outlawing ALL guns. Just the ones we don't really need.

The ability to kill multiple targets efficiently seems to be the main concern on banning "assault weapons", but many things are legal that have the same ability. One disgruntled person in an SUV could wipe out a large group of people by simply driving into an area filled with people (playground, school yard, parade, etc.) regardless of how skilled they are at driving. I have an oxy/acetylene tank on my van that could be used to kill multiple people simply by placing them near an ignition source, opening the valves and running away. Gasoline or diesel can be used to inflict a large number of casualties also, simply by pouring several gallons on a wood structure and throwing a match, or a very crazy fuel tanker driver could simply drive into a tall building and wreak havoc.

Does everyone "need" access or ownership of those items? No. Can they own them? Yes.

It is not the "weapon" that kills, it is the desire of an individual that ultimately kills. I personally feel the need to have the ability to stop someone from killing me without endangering my life to do so. If I am facing someone in a moving vehicle bent on killing me or my family I do not want to be limited to a single shot rifle or a bolt action rifle, I wand a full mag in a gun that will launch lead as fast as I can pull the trigger so I can stop them.

[scrogdog]

The ability to kill multiple targets efficiently seems to be the main concern on banning "assault weapons", but many things are legal that have the same ability. One disgruntled person in an SUV could wipe out a large group of people by simply driving into an area filled with people (playground, school yard, parade, etc.) regardless of how skilled they are at driving. I have an oxy/acetylene tank on my van that could be used to kill multiple people simply by placing them near an ignition source, opening the valves and running away. Gasoline or diesel can be used to inflict a large number of casualties also, simply by pouring several gallons on a wood structure and throwing a match, or a very crazy fuel tanker driver could simply drive into a tall building and wreak havoc.

Does everyone "need" access or ownership of those items? No. Can they own them? Yes.

It is not the "weapon" that kills, it is the desire of an individual that ultimately kills. I personally feel the need to have the ability to stop someone from killing me without endangering my life to do so. If I am facing someone in a moving vehicle bent on killing me or my family I do not want to be limited to a single shot rifle or a bolt action rifle, I wand a full mag in a gun that will launch lead as fast as I can pull the trigger so I can stop them.

Well, observation tells me that, except for SWAT teams and such, everyday patrol cops carry a sidearm. That's it. Patrol cars offer an additional shotgun. Semi-auto if I'm not mistaken Mrs Reb. :)

Are you saying that you need more than a cop does to stop people?

[hvactech13]

Well, observation tells me that, except for SWAT teams and such, everyday patrol cops carry a sidearm. That's it. Patrol cars offer an additional shotgun. Semi-auto if I'm not mistaken Mrs Reb. :)

Are you saying that you need more than a cop does to stop people?

How did you reach the conclusion that I want to be carrying an arsenal beyond what the police carry with me?

Every Police cruiser here carries the following: 1 AR-15 (semi auto .223 calibur rifle), 1 shotgun (12 gauge riot), and every officer has a his personal side arm and a taser.

I do not want to watch people die while I wait for the police to show up. That is stupid. I am not going to wait for help to arrive from across the county to protect my friends or family. If you want to that is your choice, and when you bury them remember that only the police or military should have the ability to stop someone who is intent on killing people with whatever means they have at their disposal.

[the dangling wrangler]

scrog, I have the distinct impression that you don't know a lot about this and would be better off just stating that.

This is pretty much what my big bad scary semi-automatic shot gun looks like

That looks like a Remington 1187. I've got that same one. It came with two barrels. I've also got two 1100's , all fine weapons. Almost all of my rifles are "assault "style, folding / retractable stocks , bayonet lugs, and let's not forget the 100 round C mag . Most were banned from import in the '85 or '86 ban. I really can't remember now which year it was. Do I need them ? Want them ? Yes. Don't forget scrogdog lives in Mass , some of the strictest gun laws in the US. At one time I had a Mass. CCW. Crazy laws there. In the city, you're not supposed to have any magazines holding more than ten rounds. Outside the city , over ten is OK. I quit renewing when the price went up to $100.00 a year. I used to live in New England, not a lot of pro gun people up there. So I almost know why Mr. Scrogdog is not a gun lover.

[william antley]

Scrog, my "issue" is with little people with little minds and little sense of worth who are trying to eliminate my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, for whatever reason I decide I wish to keep and bear arms.
My main reasons for keeping and bearing arms are for hunting, recreational shooting and DEFENSE of my family, my person and my property.

My primary arm for all of these are my shotguns which you have decided you don't like because they can cause so much damage with minimal effort. I'm also lead to believe you think that these type firearms should not be allowed for private ownership.

My shotguns are the TOOLS that I use to accomplish the purpose at hand. I hunt birds and many birds are quite adept at avoiding the shot cloud that is intended to kill them so that I may eat them. Ever been to a dove shoot? Those birds are well known for duckin' and dodgin' shot in the air. Most dove hunters use a great deal more shells than they harvest birds and have to take multiple shots to harvest even one bird. This reason right here is justification for a semi-automatic shotgun, one shot just isn't enough in order to harvest your legal number of birds.

When I'm hunting deer, sometimes I need the ability to have a quick second shot for either having missed with the first shot and the deer hasn't run off yet or, I need the second shot to finish the kill if I manage to make the unfortunate mistake of wounding with the first shot rather than having a one shot kill. Perfect reason for semi-automatic rifles.

I shoot various types of sporting clays with my shotgun. When I'm at a station that has fast crossing clay pigeons I never have adequate time to hit both of the clays using a single shot shotgun or a pump shotgun, semi-auto shotguns remove that problem from the activity and I'm able to dust the fast crossers quickly and keep my scores high.
I shoot skeet with a good friend of mine and we both do our best to cause the other to miss by throwing some wild clays. In order to hit many of these wild clays we throw, a semi-auto shotgun is a necessity, you can't so it with a single shot. By shooting skeet as we do, we improve our skill with the shotgun and that translates into safer handling and a great proficiency with that firearm.

I shoot targets with handguns, both revolver and semi-automatic. Many times I'm shooting at moving targets at the range, single shots don't work for this. Being that a revolver is a type of semi-automatic firearm, I can fire a quick second, third or other shot without having to clear the chamber, reload, arm, aim and fire the handgun. Any other type handgun is inappropriate for this shooting activity. This shooting also promotes greater handling skill and proficiency in use of this type firearm.

If I am unfortunate enough to get into an altercation with a group of individuals who are intent on doing harm to me, my family members or my friends, a semi-automatic firearm is the exact type of firearm to be used for defense in this situation. Single shots, or a rock for that matter, isn't going to do a bit of good.

Have I explained enough about the need for semi-automatic firearms? Any, and all firearms have their use, they are a tool to complete a task. The type tool is determined by the use of said tool.

I'll move over into our trade to refine my explanation.

Do you use power saws to make cuts on any material with which you are working? Why, when a handsaw is so much safer and less costly to use when cutting materials. Since handsaws are available, you DON'T NEED a power saw.
What about hammers to drive nails? Should air nailers be restricted from ownership because they can be made to fire numerous, rapid projectiles in a spray by either a skilled user or a novice just as easily? What about air staplers, air roof tackers? If you try hard enough, you can make them fire their fasteners in a FULL AUTO mode. Should they be outlawed like you seem to want done with firearms you "don't like"?

Regardless of your feelings regarding any type of firearm, they are tools that have uses. The design of the firearm is an inconsequential point to make, it is a tool.
If you don't like firearms, don't associate with them. If you don't like firearms, don't work to stop me from associating with them.

[scrogdog]

How did you reach the conclusion that I want to be carrying an arsenal beyond what the police carry with me?

Every Police cruiser here carries the following: 1 AR-15 (semi auto .223 calibur rifle), 1 shotgun (12 gauge riot), and every officer has a his personal side arm and a taser.

I do not want to watch people die while I wait for the police to show up. That is stupid. I am not going to wait for help to arrive from across the county to protect my friends or family. If you want to that is your choice, and when you bury them remember that only the police or military should have the ability to stop someone who is intent on killing people with whatever means they have at their disposal.

I didn't exactly reach a conclusion, that's why I asked the question. But you were comparing the weapon you wanted to carry with rifles. So, I thought you were saying that you wanted to carry a rifle around with you. :)

You don't think a powerful handgun could stop a car coming at you? It's semi-auto - you can still "unload" so to speak right through the windshield can't you?

Of course, technology can perhaps solve everything from my standpoint since I'm not truly anti-gun. Things would be better if we could limit the unauthorized use of certain weapons even if they were legal to own. I'm not sure how far away that technology might be. In other words, stolen weapons become useless unless you can undo the safety feature. Kids can't grab dads gun... stuff like that.

[hvactech13]

I didn't exactly reach a conclusion, that's why I asked the question. But you were comparing the weapon you wanted to carry with rifles. So, I thought you were saying that you wanted to carry a rifle around with you. :)

You don't think a powerful handgun could stop a car coming at you? It's semi-auto - you can still "unload" so to speak right through the windshield can't you?

Of course, technology can perhaps solve everything from my standpoint since I'm not truly anti-gun. Things would be better if we could limit the unauthorized use of certain weapons even if they were legal to own. I'm not sure how far away that technology might be. In other words, stolen weapons become useless unless you can undo the safety feature. Kids can't grab dads gun... stuff like that.

A pistol is a "personal side arm" because it has a limited effective range for accuracy and stopping power. That is why you don't see members of the military carrying a pistol as their only weapon. A rifle gives the range and stopping power to allow you to stay out of the "danger zone" when confronting a hostile threat. You are able to stay safe and neutralize the threat before it gets into the range of a pistol.

A type of "bio lock" would be the ultimate solution to mesh gun owners with their guns so nobody else could use the weapon. The one problem with that would be if the gun owner was killed or severely injured and there were still people in danger. If only the owner could use the weapon then the unarmed individuals would be at the mercy of the attacker.

No real solution to the problems that arise The idea of taking weapons out of the hands of people who legally purchase them in hopes of preventing crimes from being committed is just stupid though. Prohibition and illegal drugs come to mind when that is suggested. Only those willing to break the law have and use what is illegal, leaving those who obey the law without. If guns, any type of guns, are illegal only those breaking the law will have them which will leave everyone else vulnerable.

[scooters45]

The problem as I see it is

Who gave someone the right to decide what I need???????????????????

THe founding fathers argued for some time about our constitution. It was passed with the understanding that an Bill Of Rights would be added to protect the citizens FROM THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!

THis document and it's amendments have served us very well for more than 200 years.

When it was amended to prohibit alcohol it was wrong!! We had more booze then than before!! And crime to go with it. Can't we learn from mistakes?

If you or anyone else wants too surrender your rights or part of your rights let me ask you who will decide what rights and how much?

We all talk about our rights and this is a GOOD thing.

We don't talk nearly enough about our responsibilities.

The Founding Fathers spelled out our rights they didn't spell out our responsibilities because they thought they where obvious and they didn't need too.

If you choose to own a firearm or any other thing that can be deadly then the right that come with it carries a grave responsibility.

Most of us accept this the crooks don't because they don't care and never will.

What's really unfortunate is that a select group in our country has a problem reading. They read only the 1st Amendment and stop. Or they read only what they choose and decide that they have the right to force there views on the country.

This is America we are all supposed to have the same rights. Remember the Civil War the 60's and the Civil Rights Movement?

No we're not perfect but ask yourself this: in the history of the US has denying a right to someone or a group of people ever been right?

Are we condemned to make more of the same mistakes? Is that progress?

JMHO Scooter

[jmac00]

You don't think a powerful handgun could stop a car coming at you? It's semi-auto - you can still "unload" so to speak right through the windshield can't you?

No you can't, sometimes you can, it depends, most small caliber ammo will not penetrate a windshield ie 22cal,25cal, 32cal, 380cal, and some 9mm (some 9mm will penetrate but those would be *plus-P* ammo)will not penetrate a windshield. 40cal and 10mm may penetrate a windshield,depending on who loaded the cartage. 41cal(41 mag) and up will penetrate a windshield


Of course, technology can perhaps solve everything from my standpoint since I'm not truly anti-gun. Things would be better if we could limit the unauthorized use of certain weapons even if they were legal to own. I'm not sure how far away that technology might be. In other words, stolen weapons become useless unless you can undo the safety feature. Kids can't grab dads gun... stuff like that.

This would be the ideal situation, however the technology isn't there yet. Maybe in the next 3 to 5 years. The problem is going to be the 200 million firearms all ready on the market

[the dangling wrangler]

xxx

[mrs reb77]

Oh, well that clears it up! :D

[jmac00]

okay, my frontal lobe must be backed up? How does a loop on a shoe string get a semi-automatic weapon to go full auto?

I am sooooo confused :confused::rolleyes:

[the dangling wrangler]

It's one of those special "assault shoelaces", makes any rifle you attach it to become full auto. Or three round burst.

[jmac00]

damn, now i got register my shoe strings:rolleyes::confused::D

[william antley]

Great, I wonder how long before you have to go through the NICS to buy a pair of boots.:rolleyes:
Next thing you know, Washington DC will be regulated such that everyone is required to wear thongs.:eek:





Not those, the ones also known as "flip flops".:cool:

[obxdist]

:QUOTE=the dangling wrangler;1840725]Where do you stand?


http://www.gundebate.com/[/QUOTE]

I feel the law abiding citizen has the right to own and bear arms,....... :cool:

[the dangling wrangler]

:QUOTE=the dangling wrangler;1840725]Where do you stand?


http://www.gundebate.com/

I feel the law abiding citizen has the right to own and bear arms,....... :cool:[/QUOTE]

I'd have to say most of us feel the same way. I want to say the city of Boston, either has ,or tried to outlaw knives a few years ago. Scrogdog, am I right?

[the dangling wrangler]

The site is acting kinda funny tonight , isn't it ?

[jmac00]

Great, I wonder how long before you have to go through the NICS to buy a pair of boots.:rolleyes:
Next thing you know, Washington DC will be regulated such that everyone is required to wear thongs.:eek:





Not those, the ones also known as "flip flops".:cool:

I can't tell you how happy I am that you cleared that up :confused::p:D

[glennac]

Well gentlemen I turned in a full auto Lewis machine gun shortly after Clinton went into office. One of the first thing he did was up the ante for the possession of a mg without the permit. Back in 68 you had 6 months to get any and all machine guns registered with the ATF. I was in Korea and then went straight to Nam from there without a rotation back to the states and I couldn't get it registered then. I mistakenly thought that I could register it after I got home. No suck luck. There was no grandfather clause if you were in the service and overseas. I didn't want to turn it in because it was a gift from my uncle who brought it home from WWII captured from the Japs. It was a Japanese manufactured Lewis mg just like the British version except for the Japanese writhing on it.

Clinton upped the charge from $10,000 to $100,000 if caught with one. The class III dealers in my area told me they couldn't take it because they would have no way of registering it and that as long as you turned it in there would be no questions asked so I did. If my house caught fire and that was left in the ashes I would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do and probably from behind bars. I still have a couple of assault rifles a modified SKS and a mini 14 with plenty of ammo and I might add a regular hunting rifle also. I have the assault rifles for home defense and to defend my liberties if the commies ever took over and with Obama on the scene maybe sooner than you expect. We never have to worry about the millitary but the ATF, FBI, Federal Marshalls and other federal police work for the Feds and will turn there own mother in if asked,

We had a guy in our Nat. Guard unit in Tenn who secretly joined the ATF back in 71 after graduating with a general liberal arts degree at Tn Wesleyan. There were several guys in my unit (including myself) in Cleveland, TN who had MGs. I kept my mouth shut but a couple of guys talked about them and he started getting buddy buddy with them and wanting to go out with them and shoot at a old abandoned rock quarry and he would buy all the ammo. The 1st shirt found about about it and passed the word around and then he told the 1st shirt he wanted out since he no longer had a millitary obligation since he now was in the ATF. He left town and went to NC to try and try some other innocent good old boys who like to be ready. Those boys were also Nam vets like me and liked the NG as I did. They will spend millions to try to entrap or frame a good old boy so they can ruin them. They are nothing but blood suckers of the worse kind.

[the dangling wrangler]

My condolences on the passing of your Lewis. And, I know
you're not BSing on the $100,000.00 fine. A friend of a friend got that fine, plus 10 years at Club Fed. I guess the bright side would be, he gets to go work. But, the downside would be he had to be back in his cell by 1730.

[glennac]

My condolences on the passing of your Lewis. And, I know
you're not BSing on the $100,000.00 fine. A friend of a friend got that fine, plus 10 years at Club Fed. I guess the bright side would be, he gets to go work. But, the downside would be he had to be back in his cell by 1730.

It has always been 10yr but in the past before Clinton they would throw the $10,000 fine and then give you no more than 3 or maybe less years unless you also happened to be a member of some "patriotic" right wing vigilante type group. Did he have any extenuating circumstances or they threw the book at him for simple possession? I am curious.

[the dangling wrangler]

It was a few years ago. If I recall , he "made" one for somebody. Evidently , the wrong somebody.

[scrogdog]

I've got some other replies to get to, but I only have a minute and wanted to address this point.


Who gave someone the right to decide what I need???????????????????

Um... you did. By agreeing to obey the law of the land.

Case in point; take a tripod mounted heavy machine gun. Is it a gun? Yes. Can you own it? No.

At least, I think you can't. :) If you can, then the problem is worse than I thought!

The lines are ALREADY drawn and you may not own ANY gun that you want AS IT STANDS NOW, despite what the amendment says.

Situations evolve. America evolves. That's why there are amendments in the first place. And for those who wish to be armed like a military combatant, I think you will encounter significant resistence to that, with my full support.

[jmac00]

Case in point; take a tripod mounted heavy machine gun. Is it a gun? Yes. Can you own it? No.

Yes, you can own a 50 cal heavy machine gun on a tripod. It requires expensive permits and federal approval


At least, I think you can't. :) If you can, then the problem is worse than I thought!

Once again, YOU DON'T THINK! you obviously don't want to learn. Your still hung up on the object. Objects never, EVER hurt anyone. Until a PERSON picked it up and hit another person with the object.

why is that concept so hard for you liberals to figure out.:confused::(


The problem is worse than you thought??????????? WHAA....:confused:

How you figure? I'll give you 24 hours to Google ANY EXAMPLE of the last time a civilian was arrested for setting up and using a ANY heavy machine gun in a crime.


Now I see on the news, some nut case broke into a courthouse and threatened a Judge with a couple of KNIVES? Ya, he's dead? I better get my knives together, I'm going to have to register them to:rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

I think the bad news for you is that I am a conservative. Guess that the ramparts aren't so strong as you would like, eh? ;)

Got other bad news for you. I'm not the only one.

[scrogdog]

And as for this;


Once again, YOU DON'T THINK! you obviously don't want to learn. Your still hung up on the object. Objects never, EVER hurt anyone. Until a PERSON picked it up and hit another person with the object.

Oh yes, please, show us your superior line of brilliant reasoning by putting forth the single most stupid argument in the entire topic.

So, you feel as comfortable having your 5-year-old handle a rock as you would a hand grenade? I mean, after all, they are only objects.

Thanks for the objective brilliance, Einstien. :rolleyes:

[jmac00]

I think the bad news for you is that I am a conservative. Guess that the ramparts aren't so strong as you would like, eh? ;)

Got other bad news for you. I'm not the only one.


:D:D:D thats funny, you liberals have one chance! in November. If your hero Hitlery gets in office, then yes, you MAY have a chance at getting our firearms.

But you Liberals/anti-gun types have ONE major road block~~~~the Supreme Court still has to rule on the Washington DC gun ban. Which experts, Violence Policy Center/Brady Group, fear. The Supreme Court has already showed to lean toward a PRO Second Amendment tendency.

It could go either way. But if the Supreme Court rules that owning a firearm is an individual right.............you liberals are the ones that will be screwed no matter who gets in office.

And before go and say your all for an individual right to own a fire arm, just not certain ones. You can't have a partial rule, your either for ALL firearms or your against ALL firearms.

Thats like saying your all FOR everyone owning a car, you just can't own a Ferrari :rolleyes:

[the dangling wrangler]

Scrog, youll love this stuff. and it's all legal too:

http://www.tannerite.com/

[scrogdog]

If I am unfortunate enough to get into an altercation with a group of individuals who are intent on doing harm to me, my family members or my friends, a semi-automatic firearm is the exact type of firearm to be used for defense in this situation. Single shots, or a rock for that matter, isn't going to do a bit of good.

Have I explained enough about the need for semi-automatic firearms?

Yes and no. I don't think it's necessary to be armed to the teeth to protect yourself from unlikely situations. I highly doubt that all semi-automatic weapons will be banned in any case. In 50 years I have never found myself in such a situation and have never felt the need to own a gun.

You maybe have and that's fine. Again, I'm not for banning all guns. Still, crazies like Robo who announce that they want to build up stock of unregistered weapons so "the man" can't take them can only be seen as highly paranoid; perhaps insane.

People like that raise the hackles on my neck. And they don't do this discussion any favor from your point of view.

[scrogdog]

Thats like saying your all FOR everyone owning a car, you just can't own a Ferrari :rolleyes:

It's already coming with efficiency mandates. You can own any AC unit that you want, but soon units with old effiency ratings will be off the market for good.

Same with efficiency mandates on cars. I have nothing against Ferraris, but sooner or later it too will become a dinosaur unless it meet certain standards.

Don't think your position is so rock solid.

Obviously you don't pay much attention to my politics on this board except for here where it suits you. No matter, think what you like. No skin off of my back. I figured I'd inform you that your conservative base may not be what you think it is. Ignore that at your own peril.

[the dangling wrangler]

Case in point; take a tripod mounted heavy machine gun. Is it a gun? Yes. Can you own it? No.

At least, I think you can't. :) If you can, then the problem is worse than I thought!



I'll post this again :

http://www.class3weapons.com/class_3_faq_class_3_weapons.html

[scrogdog]

The problem IS worse than I thought.

Well, I thought that I was voting McCain. And I thought that guns weren't the most important issue on my plate. Now I am thinking about that stance after reading this topic.

[the dangling wrangler]

McCain didn't write these laws , so you can still vote for him. Most of the people that can afford full automatic guns are doctors , lawyers , bankers . kinda affluent people. They have to have spotless criminal histories , like most people that carry concealed weapons. It's really not the wild west. Far from it.

[scrogdog]

... and the practical application for a tripod mounted HMG would be?

I probably will still vote for McCain. I'm considering things. At the very least I believe it is time to officially distance myself from both bullets and bibles. Especially since it is clear that many want me out of the club anyway since I don't share their views on those issues.

By the time I vote, I'll officially be independant.

[jmac00]

And as for this;



Oh yes, please, show us your superior line of brilliant reasoning by putting forth the single most stupid argument in the entire topic.

So, you feel as comfortable having your 5-year-old handle a rock as you would a hand grenade? I mean, after all, they are only objects.

Thanks for the objective brilliance, Einstien. :rolleyes:

congratulations, you've reached rock bottom as far literacy and comprehension. TYPICAL, liberal reply:mad:

Your ignorant reply is as typical as one can get for the ultra-liberal. I doubt anyone here actually believes your a "conservative"

As R. Lee Ermey would say "what, you wake up this morning and have big bowl of stupid for breakfast"

[scrogdog]

congratulations, you've reached rock bottom as far literacy and comprehension. TYPICAL, liberal reply:mad:

Your ignorant reply is as typical as one can get for the ultra-liberal. I doubt anyone here actually believes your a "conservative"

As R. Lee Ermey would say "what, you wake up this morning and have big bowl of stupid for breakfast"

Yes, thanks for that highly intellectual reply. :rolleyes:

No matter, I'm leaving you absurd people to *your* party.

[jmac00]

It's already coming with efficiency mandates. You can own any AC unit that you want, but soon units with old effiency ratings will be off the market for good.

Same with efficiency mandates on cars. I have nothing against Ferraris, but sooner or later it too will become a dinosaur unless it meet certain standards.

Don't think your position is so rock solid.

Obviously you don't pay much attention to my politics on this board except for here where it suits you. No matter, think what you like. No skin off of my back. I figured I'd inform you that your conservative base may not be what you think it is. Ignore that at your own peril.


wow? your leap from owning weapons to "efficiency mandates" is a typical liberal response? when the argument doesn't suit you, go off on a tangent no one can follow?

Arguing with you is like arguing with a 3 year old. No matter how logical anyone is, you just keep changing the subject till no one can figure out what the hell your talking about:confused:

[scrogdog]

What's the matter, got nothing in the chamber but insults? Sorry you have trouble following along but this ain't kindergarten. Grow up.

[k-fridge]

Let's keep it civil please folks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion here, disagreement is what fosters good discussion.

[the dangling wrangler]

For some reason this makes me proud to be an American!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s221qF8jIs

[glennac]

The problem IS worse than I thought.

Well, I thought that I was voting McCain. And I thought that guns weren't the most important issue on my plate. Now I am thinking about that stance after reading this topic.

Scrog, please stop calling yourself a conservative. Conservative want to preserve the Constitution and not erode any more rights from citizens. Restricting fire arms to bolt action rifles is. Also you are so empathic on this issue it begs the point as to what sort of nanny state you want this country to become. Go ahead and vote for Hillary, Obama or what ever and join the liberals I know you want to. I am disappointed that you feel this way. By the way I doupt that you will to be able to convince anybody who already supports the 2nd Amendment to outlaw semi auto rifles or shotguns.

I can tell you a true story of where a full automatic legally registered machine gun in the hands of a private individual actually stopped a crime spree by 4 thugs. Around 15 years or so ago in the metro Atlanta area someone was ramming a van into the display window or front door of gun shops and grabbing all the guns they could while the alarms were going off and then take off. They had hit three or four over about a 3 month period. One gun store owner in Decatur, GA moved into his store and slept there at night. He had a class III license to own and sell machine guns. Well early one morning he heard the crash in the front of his store and he ran out the back door and around to the front with a uzi sub machine gun. A one sided shoot out entailed and the store owner wasn't hit or charged. Two thugs were killed and two wounded and that was the end of their crime spree. He probably wouldn't have survived that without the uzi. Thus mark one up to a machine gun. That of course was never in the national news, only local news. Just like when the kid killed his principle with the pencil stabbed into his heart never made national news but if he did it with a gun everyone would be hearing it on national news. Your perception on the gun issue is clouded by the censorship of the national news and you don't even know it.

[scrogdog]

Scrog, please stop calling yourself a conservative. Conservative want to preserve the Constitution and not erode any more rights from citizens. Restricting fire arms to bolt action rifles is. Also you are so empathic on this issue it begs the point as to what sort of nanny state you want this country to become. Go ahead and vote for Hillary, Obama or what ever and join the liberals I know you want to. I am disappointed that you feel this way. By the way I doupt that you will to be able to convince anybody who already supports the 2nd Amendment to outlaw semi auto rifles or shotguns.

I can tell you a true story of where a full automatic legally registered machine gun in the hands of a private individual actually stopped a crime spree by 4 thugs. Around 15 years or so ago in the metro Atlanta area someone was ramming a van into the display window or front door of gun shops and grabbing all the guns they could while the alarms were going off and then take off. They had hit three or four over about a 3 month period. One gun store owner in Decatur, GA moved into his store and slept there at night. He had a class III license to own and sell machine guns. Well early one morning he heard the crash in the front of his store and he ran out the back door and around to the front with a uzi sub machine gun. A one sided shoot out entailed and the store owner wasn't hit or charged. Two thugs were killed and two wounded and that was the end of their crime spree. He probably wouldn't have survived that without the uzi. Thus mark one up to a machine gun. That of course was never in the national news, only local news. Just like when the kid killed his principle with the pencil stabbed into his heart never made national news but if he did it with a gun everyone would be hearing it on national news. Your perception on the gun issue is clouded by the censorship of the national news and you don't even know it.

Glenn, I trust your eyes are ok? I have officially RESIGNED from the party of conservatives. That means that I no longer consider myself one, ok?

You know what? Before reading this topic I thought I was fairly nuetral on this issue. Have fun driving the party I was once proud of in to the ground as folks like you have been doing for some time now.

It's all yours bro. Have a blast.

[glennac]

Glenn, I trust your eyes are ok? I have officially RESIGNED from the party of conservatives. That means that I no longer consider myself one, ok?

You know what? Before reading this topic I thought I was fairly nuetral on this issue. Have fun driving the party I was once proud of in to the ground as folks like you have been doing for some time now.

It's all yours bro. Have a blast.

Your a little hot there bro. Take a cold shower and drink a glass of warm milk with your meds. I hope you can make it through the rest of the day.:)

[scrogdog]

Yep. :)

... and here we were thinking that all of our ARP discussions are useless and never cause anyone to change thier minds.

[scrogdog]

Conservative want to preserve the Constitution and not erode any more rights from citizens.

You wish to preserve the Constitution, eh? Then scrap the second amendment as it was not part of the original document. Oh wait, you meant the bill of rights.

The Constitution will evolve. Always. Get used to it.

[glennac]

You wish to preserve the Constitution, eh? Then scrap the second amendment as it was not part of the original document.

The Constitution includes all the amendments like them or not. I would like to repeal a few but none of the original Bill of Rights.

[scrogdog]

Exactly. The word amendment means "changes". When we change what it says, it's called an amendment.

So, first you say that you want to preserve the constitution, then you go on to support an *amendment* to said document.

So, you support the change.

Changes and amendments will continue as they always have. As I said, get used to it. It's the way we do things around here.

[the dangling wrangler]

When I applied for my Mass. non resident permit, the state wouldn't honor my training from this instructor. The only training they would accept was a course from the NRA. What a joke that was. As a responsible firearms owner I try to get as much training as possible. Not with the NRA.
Scrog, if you ever hit the Houston area,I'll take you to the range, on my dime. I'll even supply the firearms & ammo.

http://www.hoffners.com/info.htm

[scrogdog]

When I applied for my Mass. non resident permit, the state wouldn't honor my training from this instructor. The only training they would accept was a course from the NRA. What a joke that was. As a responsible firearms owner I try to get as much training as possible. Not with the NRA.
Scrog, if you ever hit the Houston area,I'll take you to the range, on my dime. I'll even supply the firearms & ammo.

http://www.hoffners.com/info.htm

I'm not really surpised. Mass takes liberalism to draconian levels at times. On many issues. As others have pointed out, Mass is one of the more strict gun law states.

What's wrong with NRA training?

Who knows? Maybe I'll take you up on that someday. :)

[glennac]

Exactly. The word amendment means "changes". When we change what it says, it's called an amendment.

So, first you say that you want to preserve the constitution, then you go on to support an *amendment* to said document.

So, you support the change.

Changes and amendments will continue as they always have. As I said, get used to it. It's the way we do things around here.

Granted but changes should be made through amendments and not a unconstitutional laws pass by a Democratic controlled Congress or by edicts from commie judges like Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court rewriting it to her commie viewpoint. I can accept changes through the amendment process but not through legislative or judicial tyranny.

[scrogdog]

Granted but changes should be made through amendments and not a unconstitutional laws pass by a Democratic controlled Congress or by edicts from commie judges like Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court rewriting it to her commie viewpoint. I can accept changes through the amendment process but not through legislative or judicial tyranny.

Now THAT I agree with. No one should be trying to sneak things through. Either you have a true mandate from the people or you don't.

[the dangling wrangler]

As others have pointed out, Mass is one of the more strict gun law states.

What's wrong with NRA training?


If Mass. isn't the strictest, then they're in the top five. NYC,NJ, DC are right up there too. The NRA training leaves a LOT to be desired. But I guess it's better than none.

[model m-man]

The Constitution doesn't just give the people the right to stand up and overthrow a government that is no longer functioning for the people as laid out by our founding father's. It demands it of every American. History had proven that government breeds corruption so this safeguard was put in place.

The second amendment changed nothing. It merely guaranteed that the people would have the means to protect themselves from all enemy's including the government. There is nothing in the second amendment that says only single shot hunting weapon's will be allowed. The writers had just came through a war & I'll guarantee you they would have loved to have had semi auto's or better yet a rock and roll switch.

Politician's aren't after so called assault weapon's. They are after ALL weapon's that our founding fathers wanted us to have in order to protect ourselves and our nation. It's already happened in other countries and we are not immune.

Divide and conquer. It's the oldest game in the book and politicians use it everyday for everything from taxes to guns. Target one group and the majority won't say a word. My pistol is a single shot so that law won't bother me. Then when they are gone, my shotgun is a single shot so that won't affect me. Then there are none. Police are not obligated to put themselves in harms way to protect anyone. Remember that!

I fully support the second amendment.

Here's an idea. If opponent's of the so called assault weapon's want to get rid of them how about calling for an amendment or a constitutional convention and put it on the table the right way? You know - of the people - by the people - for the people. You will never see that happen because they know divide and conquer is the only way they can win.

[scrogdog]

The Constitution doesn't just give the people the right to stand up and overthrow a government that is no longer functioning for the people as laid out by our founding father's. It demands it of every American. History had proven that government breeds corruption so this safeguard was put in place.

The second amendment changed nothing. It merely guaranteed that the people would have the means to protect themselves from all enemy's including the government. There is nothing in the second amendment that says only single shot hunting weapon's will be allowed. The writers had just came through a war & I'll guarantee you they would have loved to have had semi auto's or better yet a rock and roll switch.

Politician's aren't after so called assault weapon's. They are after ALL weapon's that our founding fathers wanted us to have in order to protect ourselves and our nation. It's already happened in other countries and we are not immune.

Divide and conquer. It's the oldest game in the book and politicians use it everyday for everything from taxes to guns. Target one group and the majority won't say a word. My pistol is a single shot so that law won't bother me. Then when they are gone, my shotgun is a single shot so that won't affect me. Then there are none. Police are not obligated to put themselves in harms way to protect anyone. Remember that!

I fully support the second amendment.

Here's an idea. If opponent's of the so called assault weapon's want to get rid of them how about calling for an amendment or a constitutional convention and put it on the table the right way? You know - of the people - by the people - for the people. You will never see that happen because they know divide and conquer is the only way they can win.

So then, your contention is that you and your friends, armed with assault weapons and/or fully automatic ones is going to give you the ability to take on the professional army of the USA should they mostly choose to back the feds.

It is to laugh. I thought conservatives had a bit more respect for our fine fighting forces.

You ain't got a shot in hell pal, and that is resoundingly backed by historical precedence. The more people bring up this point, the sillier the whole thing looks in my opinion. Talk about grasping for straws. :rolleyes:

[mrs reb77]

Hmm, I think he has a better chance than....you! :D

Go drink a spritzer or something and leave us to play with our guns....:cool:

[scrogdog]

Hmm, I think he has a better chance than....you! :D

Go drink a spritzer or something and leave us to play with our guns....:cool:

Running out of real commentary, are we? :)

Delicious.

[mrs reb77]

Naw but even a woman gets tired of talking and no one listening eventually. I have much better things to do at present.

(surely there's a bible around somewhere I can thump while I caress my guns...:eek:)

I gotta go rent a copy of Red Dawn so I can take notes on which people NOT to protect if the time comes.

[scrogdog]

I was just teasing you. To the best of my recollection this is the first time that you and I have gone beyond the mild disagreement level. :)

[k-fridge]

We'll be fine, we have Chuck Norris to look out for us. :p

[glennac]

So then, your contention is that you and your friends, armed with assault weapons and/or fully automatic ones is going to give you the ability to take on the professional army of the USA should they mostly choose to back the feds.

It is to laugh. I thought conservatives had a bit more respect for our fine fighting forces.

You ain't got a shot in hell pal, and that is resoundingly backed by historical precedence. The more people bring up this point, the sillier the whole thing looks in my opinion. Talk about grasping for straws. :rolleyes:

You have a thick head scrog. Whatever makes you think that anyone will have to come up against our millitary. They are for the most part true patriots and will never support a commie goverment against US citizens. It will be between the people and the highly paid ATF, Federal Marshalls, etc. The millitary won't sell their soul to the devil just like in the Hungarian Revolution the Hungarian Army stood down. It was only foreign troops (Russians) who crushed it.

[scrogdog]

You have a thick head scrog. Whatever makes you think that anyone will have to come up against our millitary. They are for the most part true patriots and will never support a commie goverment against US citizens. It will be between the people and the highly paid ATF, Federal Marshalls, etc. The millitary won't sell their soul to the devil just like in the Hungarian Revolution the Hungarian Army stood down. It was only foreign troops (Russians) who crushed it.

I think the same of you Mr. Thick Head.

That you don't undertand that whatever action that the military would decide to take would be highly situational more or less makes my point. In other words, you have no idea what situation might arise, or how the military might respond to it. They might even break up and join both sides. You have no clue. And niether do I for that matter.

[glennac]

I think the same of you Mr. Thick Head.

That you don't undertand that whatever action that the military would decide to take would be highly situational more or less makes my point. In other words, you have no idea what situation might arise, or how the military might respond to it. They might even break up and join both sides. You have no clue. And niether do I for that matter.

Well thank you, at least that is a departure from all your previous posts where you automatically assumed the millitary would be lock step with the goverment if the commies took over and we would be fighting the National Guard and regular Army. In my "opinion" it would be similar the the situation in Hungary where the army stood down and the the communist police were overthrown and it took the Russian Army to quell the rebellion. The reason why I referred to you as thick headed because you never backed off your assumption that American Military including the Guard would side with the commies if they took over and then turn there guns on US citizens until now. Thank you

[the dangling wrangler]

I just stole this from coolwhip. Fits right in here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=468_1209448358

[scrogdog]

Well thank you, at least that is a departure from all your previous posts where you automatically assumed the millitary would be lock step with the goverment if the commies took over and we would be fighting the National Guard and regular Army. In my "opinion" it would be similar the the situation in Hungary where the army stood down and the the communist police were overthrown and it took the Russian Army to quell the rebellion. The reason why I referred to you as thick headed because you never backed off your assumption that American Military including the Guard would side with the commies if they took over and then turn there guns on US citizens until now. Thank you

Well, I believe I said IF they backed the feds. Try not to see only what you wish to in people.

What "commies" do you envision as a direct threat at this time?

[scrogdog]

I just stole this from coolwhip. Fits right in here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=468_1209448358

Hehehe. Ted's cool with me; but I thought we were talking about private ownership, not pros. :)

As far as I am concerned, Ted is exactly right.

[william antley]

Yes and no. I don't think it's necessary to be armed to the teeth to protect yourself from unlikely situations. I highly doubt that all semi-automatic weapons will be banned in any case. In 50 years I have never found myself in such a situation and have never felt the need to own a gun.

You maybe have and that's fine. Again, I'm not for banning all guns. Still, crazies like Robo who announce that they want to build up stock of unregistered weapons so "the man" can't take them can only be seen as highly paranoid; perhaps insane.

People like that raise the hackles on my neck. And they don't do this discussion any favor from your point of view.

Well, I did answer your concern about when the use of semi-automatic firearms is justified. With four examples I might add.
I did not say one needed to be armed to the teeth, doing so would be a terrible handicap, one semi-auto handgun for defense against a group of miscreants is in no way "armed to the teeth" and carrying numerous weapons with ammunition and what-else gets kinda heavy and cumbersome.

When confronted by a group of miscreants intent on doing harm to you, a family member, an innocent bystander/bystanders perhaps or your property, which will you do; run the opposite direction to "save your skin", call for the law with your cell phone, hoping they get there and take refuge so that you will not be discovered, stand up to that group of miscreants bare-handed even though they may be "armed to the teeth" themselves or, if you're carrying, pull out your trusty semi-auto handgun and change the odds of survival to more in your favor? Or will you cower at their feet and beg for mercy, which said mercy will most likely be an exceptionally remote happenstance?

A semi-automatic firearm is a tool that has its use determined by form and function. Deciding that noone should have or use one simply because you don't like them is folly at best, and a poor excuse for your reasoning skills.

And, as has been mentioned, full-auto firearms are completely legal to own by private citizens provided they meet the regulations and requirements for owning such a firearm. Personally, I would love to have a full-auto firearm just so I can take it to the range and go rock and roll for the fun of it.

You asked "The practical application for a tripod mounted HMG would be?" I answer, whatever the owner desires to apply it to. Taking a junk automobile and turning it into a pile of shredded steel is a great exercise, and it provides for good training in the handling and control of a full auto HMG.

I have seen advertisements by companies that produce and sell full auto HMGs for use by individuals who require them for their protection; dignitaries, leaders in governments, financial leaders, business leaders. These HMGs are mounted on a tripod or other mount in the vehicles they ride in or in support vehicles. Perfect application for a tripod mounted HMG.

Picking and choosing which guns should be banned is what the Democratic Party has been trying to do for quite some number of years now. Problem with their picking and choosing is that they seem to want to pick and choose every single firearm in existence to ban from private ownership.

You seem, currently, to be somewhat selective about which firearms should be banned but, I wonder if you will continue to pick and choose until every single type of firearm is what you decide you want banned because you don't like it or don't think anyone has a practical use for it.

[scrogdog]

one semi-auto handgun for defense against a group of miscreants is in no way "armed to the teeth" and carrying numerous weapons with ammunition and what-else gets kinda heavy and cumbersome.

Your replies are good. I'd like to focus on this quote for the moment.

I think perhaps I have made my case badly.

I have not said that ALL semi-auto weapons should be banned. A pistol is one thing. A high powered rifle or shot gun another.

Dirty Harry did it, why can't you? :)

Let me be more clear... don't you have to be fairly skilled with a pistol to commit mass destruction? Yes, I know range is key, but generally speaking... a man with a pistol is not quite like one with an AR-15. Right? But, he can still protect himself in his home since... as so many accurately point out, breaking and entering robberies are rarely conducted with rifles.

[Carnak]

Just assault rifles to give a little fire power on the ground so to speak. The Hungarian uprising in 56 was successful until Soviet tanks came in to crush the rebellion. There were no Hungarian soldiers fighting the people. I don't think the goverment could get the millitary to put down an uprising against an oppressive communist goverment here in America.
Need the right to bear tanks for that scenario

[glennac]

Need the right to bear tanks for that scenario

The Hungarians over through their oppressive communist goverment without tanks, just guts and guns captured from arsnals. The Soviets since in 17 divisions to crush the revolution. 2500 Hungarians were killed, 350 executed after the uprising, several thousands were sent to Seberia to join other Hungarians and Germans left there from WWII. No tanks were needed.

[william antley]

Your replies are good. I'd like to focus on this quote for the moment.

I think perhaps I have made my case badly.

I have not said that ALL semi-auto weapons should be banned. A pistol is one thing. A high powered rifle or shot gun another.

Dirty Harry did it, why can't you? :)

Let me be more clear... don't you have to be fairly skilled with a pistol to commit mass destruction? Yes, I know range is key, but generally speaking... a man with a pistol is not quite like one with an AR-15. Right? But, he can still protect himself in his home since... as so many accurately point out, breaking and entering robberies are rarely conducted with rifles.


A semi-auto rifle or shotgun is a tool, just like that semi-auto pistol, that has its place and justification for use as I have pointed out in previous posts. They are all different from each other except in action, they all ignite a powder charge that propels a projectile, type dependent on firearm, from the firearm to the target at high(relative) velocity and does this each time the activation device(trigger) is pressed.

Dirty Harry has done a lot of things I have never done and can't do. I've never shot a .44 Auto-Mag pistol and may never be able to since I don't own one, may not ever be able to own one and do not know anyone who owns one and would allow me to operate their .44 Auto-Mag. I've never shot a criminal or asked one "Do you feel lucky punk?" and may never do so.

The only way I see a man with a pistol versus a man with an AR-15 being not quite like the other is, one is armed with a pistol and one is armed with a rifle. What they intend to do with their firearms does not seem to be a part of this particular point you have made. Concerning breaking and entering robberies, the ones I hear about the perpetrator were sometimes armed with pistols, sometimes with knives, sometimes with some other not remembered hand held weapon. I do not recall if there has ever been a breaking and entering robbery where the perpetrator had a rifle in his possession at the time but, it's possible I'd say.

If a perpetrator decides to break and enter my home with the intent of robbing my person or family, I intend to have, at least, one of several different weapons at the ready to confront this invader and hold him for the law to take from my home. If it becomes necessary, I will meet force with force and will use the most useful tool I have at the time. Can you figure out which one that will be, we've discussed it at length. If that particular tool is unavailable, or not best suited, I'll utilize a different one. The needs dictate the choice. If my semi-auto rifle is what is best suited, I'll use it. If my semi-auto shotgun is best suited I'll use it. If my semi-auto pistol is best suited, you get the picture I presume. Each has its use.

I must make that choice, not someone else who is not even present for the activities and has no idea what is actually happening when it happens.

Skill is necessary with any firearm, someone who is unskilled may end up shooting themselves rather than their target because they have no skill.
As far as mass destruction is concerned, how is that germaine to the discussion of semi-auto firearms? Range does not seem to be germaine to the discussion as well, it is a feature of the firearms function but, what difference does it make in this discussion? Are you perhaps fishing for an answer?

Now, justification for semi-auto rifles has been done sufficiently, as well as justification for semi-auto shotguns and semi-auto pistols. They are tools that have their uses and their place. Banning them simply because they are semi-automatic and someone doesn't like them is a poor reason since the firearms have their justification, purpose, use and function. And having some unusual concern over an object gives pause to consider. What about this object causes so much concern to this individual or group of individuals? generally, objects are just that, objects. Nothing more nothing less. Objects do not act of their own volition, have no cognizance and do not perform any activity, either beneficial or detrimental.

A point if I may, you seem to enjoy picking and choosing for whatever reason, and perhaps justification, as I have seen you addressing portions of posts you have picked and chosen rather than addressing the entire post as every one else seems to have done to respond to your "picking and choosing".
What, pray tell, is your reasoning for only addressing picked and chosen portions of posts rather than addressing the entire posts provided by myself and others? Are you unable to address everything written for your benefit or do you just "not like" certain portions of the posts akin to your "not liking" certain types of firearms?
I am most curious as to your response. Will you continue to "pick and choose" or will you address this post, and any other post, in its entirety?

[william antley]

I'm sorry, I forgot to address your statement that you have not said that ALL semi-auto weapons should be banned. I'm thinking you are rather close to that statement being false.

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=2

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=3

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=4

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=6

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=7

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=8

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=9

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=11

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=12

And the current page.

I believe that the vast majority of your arguments endorse a destruction of The 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United Sates of America which would result in the complete ban on private ownership of firearms.
Now, riddle me this, you said on page 4 that you support the 2nd Amendment but, on page 12 you call to scrap the 2nd Amendment, which is it? There is no halfway, this is most assuredly an all or nothing affair.

[model m-man]

Your replies are good. I'd like to focus on this quote for the moment.

I think perhaps I have made my case badly.

I have not said that ALL semi-auto weapons should be banned. A pistol is one thing. A high powered rifle or shot gun another.

Dirty Harry did it, why can't you? :)

Let me be more clear... don't you have to be fairly skilled with a pistol to commit mass destruction? Yes, I know range is key, but generally speaking... a man with a pistol is not quite like one with an AR-15. Right? But, he can still protect himself in his home since... as so many accurately point out, breaking and entering robberies are rarely conducted with rifles.


Divide and conquer. See how well it work's?

If you think our founding fathers idea's are so ludicrious for our time, why not start a drive for a constitutional convention so we can change it? I think you'll find that most American's would be in favor of that. I would! That would give us a chance to undo ALL the damage the lawyers and politician's have done to our freedom's and our law's. Reckon how many politicians you'll find to go along with that idea?

Opinion's are like behind's - everyone has one and is entitled to it, but our Constitution and the Bill of Right's aren't affected by opinion's. They were written in plain English so that anyone (even uneducated citizens of the time) could understand them. No if's, and's, or butt's about it. It's plain English! If you don't like it, then by all means get your idea on the ballot so the rest of us can vote on it. That's how it's supposed to work. Not the back door divide and conquer schemes.

The Second Amendment stands as the one right that safeguards all other's. If it is ever lost our Nation will be also. That's what our founders knew and that's why it is so important even in this day and age. I happen to think they were right.

[scrogdog]

I'm sorry, I forgot to address your statement that you have not said that ALL semi-auto weapons should be banned. I'm thinking you are rather close to that statement being false.

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=2

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=3

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=4

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=6

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=7

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=8

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=9

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=11

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=169216&page=12

And the current page.

I believe that the vast majority of your arguments endorse a destruction of The 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United Sates of America which would result in the complete ban on private ownership of firearms.
Now, riddle me this, you said on page 4 that you support the 2nd Amendment but, on page 12 you call to scrap the 2nd Amendment, which is it? There is no halfway, this is most assuredly an all or nothing affair.

Unfortunately, assault RIFLES are not "all semi-automatic weapons". Therefore, I did not get past your third link. Haven't I been advocating the use of pistols? Aren't modern pistols semi-auto?

I think your rather close to being disingenuous. :)

The reason I sometimes do not reply to your whole reply is it is not always the case that I have the time to pen a novel when I come here (looks at the size of Bill's post).

But, very well. I will do my best to reply to your whole post when I have time.

Uh, the second amendment says you can own guns. *I* say you can own guns. If my notion that you can't take on professional armies "craps all over" your ideas about militias and the amendment, well I'm sorry for that. But that idea is silly on a juvenile level; and is far from jiving with historical precedent. In my opinion.

I did NOT call for scrapping the amendment on page 12. Please read that reply once more in context. It was a reply to Glenn's claim that he wishes to "preserve" the constitution. My reply was SARCASM, as in, if you want a "pure" constitution then trash all the amendments to it. Capiche?

[scrogdog]

Divide and conquer. See how well it work's?

If you think our founding fathers idea's are so ludicrious for our time, why not start a drive for a constitutional convention so we can change it? I think you'll find that most American's would be in favor of that. I would! That would give us a chance to undo ALL the damage the lawyers and politician's have done to our freedom's and our law's. Reckon how many politicians you'll find to go along with that idea?

Opinion's are like behind's - everyone has one and is entitled to it, but our Constitution and the Bill of Right's aren't affected by opinion's. They were written in plain English so that anyone (even uneducated citizens of the time) could understand them. No if's, and's, or butt's about it. It's plain English! If you don't like it, then by all means get your idea on the ballot so the rest of us can vote on it. That's how it's supposed to work. Not the back door divide and conquer schemes.

The Second Amendment stands as the one right that safeguards all other's. If it is ever lost our Nation will be also. That's what our founders knew and that's why it is so important even in this day and age. I happen to think they were right.

Great! So then, historical precedent means nothing?

In most every case, a "revolution" requires a sponser.

If the language of the second amendment blinds one to common sense, then wow. In your over arching need to feel powerful with your big bad gun, you ignore the examples in history.

Again, how did our militia force do against the British before French intervention? How did France do in taking back thier homeland without D-Day? How did Afghanistan do against the Soviets before US support? The examples are many.

Well, you may not like my opinion, but when a vote on such matters comes up, I will use that right as I see fit. As will many others. We'll see what happens I guess, won't we?

I think you might be a bit surprised at what might happen at a constitutional convention. I'm not sure of that but it would be interesting for sure.

[scrogdog]

Ok, now for my novella;


A semi-auto rifle or shotgun is a tool, just like that semi-auto pistol, that has its place and justification for use as I have pointed out in previous posts. They are all different from each other except in action, they all ignite a powder charge that propels a projectile, type dependent on firearm, from the firearm to the target at high(relative) velocity and does this each time the activation device(trigger) is pressed.

That's kinda my point. All of them can kill. Yes, you explained why semi-auto is useful but not why a semi-auto shotgun is necessary while semi-auto pistols are available. I'm talking about defending your home against intruders. Not sport or repelling an invasion by professional forces.


Dirty Harry has done a lot of things I have never done and can't do. I've never shot a .44 Auto-Mag pistol and may never be able to since I don't own one, may not ever be able to own one and do not know anyone who owns one and would allow me to operate their .44 Auto-Mag. I've never shot a criminal or asked one "Do you feel lucky punk?" and may never do so.

Why wouldn't you be able to own one?


The only way I see a man with a pistol versus a man with an AR-15 being not quite like the other is, one is armed with a pistol and one is armed with a rifle.

What I see is one person with a long range weapon, and one with a much shorter range. Therefore, if I intend to create havoc, I'd choose the rifle, particularly because I'm an amatuer. Heck, those poor people may not even know where the shots are coming from for a time! With a pistol, it's easier to spot and get away from. Will people still die? Maybe. I'm probably not that good of a shot. But then, if instead of either of those weapons, I pull a semi-auto shotgun from the trunk of my car in the middle of main street on a nice sunny saturday, then I really don't need to be a good shot. Or in the case of the rifle, it is likely I'll have more time for trial and error shooting.

Now, a skilled person with a pistol could probably come a lot closer to mass murder. That's what it's about, limiting weapons that can cause mass damage in the hands of unskilled people.


What they intend to do with their firearms does not seem to be a part of this particular point you have made. Concerning breaking and entering robberies, the ones I hear about the perpetrator were sometimes armed with pistols, sometimes with knives, sometimes with some other not remembered hand held weapon. I do not recall if there has ever been a breaking and entering robbery where the perpetrator had a rifle in his possession at the time but, it's possible I'd say.

Even our fine military doesn't prepare for all possibilities, they prepare for what is likely.


If a perpetrator decides to break and enter my home with the intent of robbing my person or family, I intend to have, at least, one of several different weapons at the ready to confront this invader and hold him for the law to take from my home. If it becomes necessary, I will meet force with force and will use the most useful tool I have at the time. Can you figure out which one that will be, we've discussed it at length. If that particular tool is unavailable, or not best suited, I'll utilize a different one. The needs dictate the choice. If my semi-auto rifle is what is best suited, I'll use it. If my semi-auto shotgun is best suited I'll use it. If my semi-auto pistol is best suited, you get the picture I presume. Each has its use.

Sorry, I just don't see it. As in, you still have not presented a compelling argument for, say, a shotgun over a pistol. Each weapon has the ability to deliver a killing shot. And in the case of a B&E when you are actually present, you have the advantage in that he/she very likely believes that you are not even there.


Skill is necessary with any firearm, someone who is unskilled may end up shooting themselves rather than their target because they have no skill.
As far as mass destruction is concerned, how is that germaine to the discussion of semi-auto firearms? Range does not seem to be germaine to the discussion as well, it is a feature of the firearms function but, what difference does it make in this discussion? Are you perhaps fishing for an answer?

For the last time, it is not about semi-auto weapons or assualt rifles or how they are defined. How is it germain? Well to me, only a blind man could not see the difference between someone at the mall with a pistol, and someone with a shotgun.


Now, justification for semi-auto rifles has been done sufficiently, as well as justification for semi-auto shotguns and semi-auto pistols.

Whoa there pardner. Where did I say that I agreed with your justification?


They are tools that have their uses and their place.

Granted. I just don't think that your place is to plan on defending your home against multiple well armed attackers. If that should happen, you'll probably find that the attackers are the police. Can't say that I actually know anyone who has EVER been in that situation. Have you been in that situation?


Banning them simply because they are semi-automatic and someone doesn't like them is a poor reason since the firearms have their justification, purpose, use and function.

According to you. Defending against an army is not a task for civilians. And if we should find ourselves in a revolution, then our sponsers will provide what we need. Hopefully we'll have one. Sport is also not a good reason.


And having some unusual concern over an object gives pause to consider. What about this object causes so much concern to this individual or group of individuals? generally, objects are just that, objects. Nothing more nothing less. Objects do not act of their own volition, have no cognizance and do not perform any activity, either beneficial or detrimental.

Again, some objects are more inherently dangerous than others. You'd hand a child a rock but not a hand grenade. But why? A grenade is just an object unable to act of its own volition, right?


A point if I may, you seem to enjoy picking and choosing for whatever reason, and perhaps justification, as I have seen you addressing portions of posts you have picked and chosen rather than addressing the entire post as every one else seems to have done to respond to your "picking and choosing".
What, pray tell, is your reasoning for only addressing picked and chosen portions of posts rather than addressing the entire posts provided by myself and others? Are you unable to address everything written for your benefit or do you just "not like" certain portions of the posts akin to your "not liking" certain types of firearms?

How about making shorter posts? :) It's simply time issues.

[the dangling wrangler]

Surprised noone has brought this up yet. The government doesn't have to control firearms. They can tax the ammunition out of reach. As any gun owner knows, a gun is only a paperweight without ammunition. Mrs. D.

[scrogdog]

Surprised noone has brought this up yet. The government doesn't have to control firearms. They can tax the ammunition out of reach. As any gun owner knows, a gun is only a paperweight without ammunition. Mrs. D.

I'd be against that. I'm no fan of such shenanigans.

If you have a clear voice from the people saying something, that's one thing. Regardless of what my opinion is, unless it is shared by a majority of voters (not politicians) then too bad for me.

[the dangling wrangler]

Something to kill a little time. If you've got dial up , forget it .

http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/

[coordinatesales]

I found a neat BBC article about the US and our guns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

One excerpt:



It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.
Peace and serenity
What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime.
Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.

[scrogdog]

I would agree that no guns is likely part of the problem. But Britain has a lot more going on than no guns. A couple of weeks ago I was reading an article about why they have so many violent kids and street gangs. According to the author's opinion, a lot of it had to do with the way the entire society viewed the raising of children.

Still, interestingly, I have more data that supports what CS is trying to contend.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

After becoming involved in this topic, and being repeatedly reminded that Mass is among the strictist of gun control states, if not THE strictest, I decided to see what, if anything, it is doing for our state.

The table I link to above is very interesting. It measures how many deaths occur by firearms per 100,000 deaths. As you can see, the place that has no guns (District of Columbia) leads the nation at 30.1 deaths due to firearms per 100,000. The state of Mass, however, is second only to Hawaii - coming in at a mere 3.1 deaths by firearms per 100,000.

And we have guns.

Interesting data to keep in mind.

[the dangling wrangler]

I haven't done a spread sheet but,looking at the other statistics, MA seems to be right up there.

[the dangling wrangler]

I just found this today. Don't know what I think about this yet.

http://www.petitiononline.com/texasoc/petition.html

[mrs reb77]

Well, as it says, many states are already open carry

Open Carry

Missouri does allow open carry of firearms for those age 21 or older. However, city, county, and municipalities are allowed to pass local laws and ordinances restricting this. It is advisable to check local laws and ordinances before openly carrying a firearm within Missouri.

Concealed Carry

Missouri Statute 571.070 (8/28/2007) says that unlawful possession of a concealable firearm is a class C felony.

Missouri Statute 571.121 (8/28/2007) says (a) you have to carry permit with you when you carry the concealed weapon and if you don't have it with you, it's not a crime, but you can be fined up to $35, and (b) director of revenue issues a driver's license that reflects that you have a concealed carry permit (and they cannot be held responsible for what you do.)

Missouri Statute 585.021 (11/13/2007) says any person with proper identity/background checks, and is in possession of a legal concealed carry permit may carry an assault pistol (automatic pistol), as long as it is a 9mm weapon or smaller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

[mrs reb77]

Gosh, I may need to move...

Nebraska

Nebraska is a free state in regards to gun ownership. All guns can be owned in the state including registered machine guns, destructive devices and silencers. In Nebraska if you can own a handgun and you do the simple federal paperwork, you can own any weapon you want.

[the dangling wrangler]

I called the Connecticut DPS and they assured me that if I was to openly carry that I WOULD be arrested . No firearms arrest , but a breach of peace. I'm sure it's the same for MA. & RI. So , you can't take everything you read on the 'net for truth. As far as open carry for TX. , I just don't know. Just yesterday , HPD shot and killed a CIA operative. I'm waiting for more information on this one. It's a crazy world these days . I'm interested in the outcome of this. I'll post what I find. I'll look in today's paper and see what there is .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24393823/

[scrogdog]

I've never seen open carry in MA, either. Ever.

[the dangling wrangler]

I've never seen open carry in MA, either. Ever.

It's not illegal in MA. But they frown on it . I talked to a friend at the CT. DPS and got the official word. YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. End of story. I'm sure it's the same in MA. & RI. I had licenses in all the states mentioned, and never read anything about open carry. It's common sense. Not astro physics.

[glennac]

With respect to gun laws Alaska and Vermont are the freest states. No permit is required to carry a gun concealed or in the open. Only Federal laws apply. That's the way it should be in all states. The only gun laws on the books are ones preventing other juristrictions from passing any laws on the use and carrying of firearms. I am sure the crime rate is very low in those states. Live free and not a slave to big brother.

[the dangling wrangler]

This is the latest I can find about the shooting. Something is a little askew with this story.


http://www.click2houston.com/news/16103193/detail.html

[scrogdog]

That's the way it should be in all states.

No way. We are a Federalist nation for a reason. If I don't like the politics in Mass (and I often don't, btw ;)) I am free to move to Texas. A place where just about everything is different from here.

Why do you wish to homongenize America? It's not what we are about and I like things as they are.

Mr & Mrs. Reb are free to move to Nebraska.

... as long as we are notified of the completion date so we can erect a barrier around the entire state so none of them critters can escape. :D Ah but then, we'd have to target Alaska and Vermont as well. Crap. Too expensive. ;)

[scooters45]

The Constitution states that it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!!

That it has equal force in the entire country and that the states and judges are bound to it.

There fore if a state passed a law that is a direct volition of the Constitution is is automatically un Constitutional.

THe reason for the Constitution WAS TO MAKE US ONE COUNTRY. Read our history.

Better yet read the CONSTITUTION!!!

[scrogdog]

Er, right. The place where I live has guns and I support guns.

I guess you didn't exactly read the whole topic before chiming in, huh?

So... you deny we are Federalist? Please explain.

[scrogdog]

I mean AFTER you look up Federalist or Google it.

[mrs reb77]

I read several stories on the HPD shooting involving the "CIA" agent. Very...interesting story. It's interesting that they talked to his wife and then his friends that said even his girlfriends didn't know the truth of his life and then the other guy that says he had everything to live for since he was recently engaged. Yeah. I certainly believe his story.
Amazing too why a "CIA" operative would run from the police on a simple speeding stop. Wouldn't put up his hands when finally stopped, reached for something in the car....yada yada yada. Something askew is being...incredibly polite ;)

[scooters45]

No I have been reading the post.
Have you read the Constitution?
This document was designed with the purpose of making us a More Perfect Union.

If the laws of our country are not the same everywhere then what good are they?

Read more than the First Amendment and maybe you will understand a little better.

We fought a Civil War to change the wrongs of slavery and preserve the Union.

Guns. voting, freedom of speech, ect are in the Constitution so that the Federal, State, or Local governments can not take these rights from us.

Thats what America is all about that everyone should get the same chance.

I mean what part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand?

I bet you would have a complete different take if we where talking about the 1st Amendment and how your freedom of speech should be limited.

[mrs reb77]

Good point.

[scrogdog]

No I have been reading the post.
Have you read the Constitution?
This document was designed with the purpose of making us a More Perfect Union.

If the laws of our country are not the same everywhere then what good are they?

Read more than the First Amendment and maybe you will understand a little better.

We fought a Civil War to change the wrongs of slavery and preserve the Union.

Guns. voting, freedom of speech, ect are in the Constitution so that the Federal, State, or Local governments can not take these rights from us.

Thats what America is all about that everyone should get the same chance.

I mean what part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand?

I bet you would have a complete different take if we where talking about the 1st Amendment and how your freedom of speech should be limited.

Man... of course I've read the Constitution. I've also read the reasoning behind that work... an 85 essay document known as... you ready for this?

The FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Again, I am infringing nothing... if you've read the topic... and see no cause for your raving lunacy.

In fact, I think you are likely a pinhead who is as close to a constitutional scholar as I am an astronaut. But you are welcome to your opinion. Whatever madness guides it.

[glennac]

Man... of course I've read the Constitution. I've also read the reasoning behind that work... an 85 essay document known as... you ready for this?

The FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Again, I am infringing nothing... if you've read the topic... and see no cause for your raving lunacy.

In fact, I think you are likely a pinhead who is as close to a constitutional scholar as I am an astronaut. But you are welcome to your opinion. Whatever madness guides it.

What don't you understand scrog? A state can no more restrict the rights of the 2nd Amendment that they can the 1st (Freedom of Speech) or anyother articles in the Constitution. Scooter explained they loud and clear and everyone except you can understand it apparently and you are calling him a "pinhead" give us a break. Geez

[scrogdog]

What don't you understand scrog? A state can no more restrict the rights of the 2nd Amendment that they can the 1st (Freedom of Speech) or anyother articles in the Constitution. Scooter explained they loud and clear and everyone except you can understand it apparently and you are calling him a "pinhead" give us a break. Geez

Please quote for me where I said that the 2nd does not apply to all.

I merely said that Scooter, and apparently you, don't understand what Federalism is or that we are just that.

EDIT: Though I do agree that "pinhead" was a poor choice. Sorry about that Scooter.

[scooters45]

Lunacy? Pinhead?

I'm haven't personally attacked you. Which shows you have lost the discussion.

The reason we have the 2nd Amendment is because the Constitution forbids a standing army except in time of war. Thats why I asked if you have read the Constitution. Since you failed to mention that I assume you didn't know.

I don't like flag burning but I don't have the right to stop someone.

No I'm not a scholar but, I can read Black and White.

So if you want to surrender your right(s) thats fine with me. However I choose to defend mine (and yours).

I want to be free to think as I choose, to pray ,to vote, to pay my taxes, and sadly if need to defend myself.

America is a melting pot. Someone said that a long time ago I think.

So yes you can have your opinion but; we have the rule of law in this country to protect the people from having anyone's opinion forced upon us.

As proof of that the Second Amendment defenders have taken much ground we lost in the past. Anit democracy grand!

The best thing about this whole thread is that we're having it at all.
Thats why I think we should use (defend) our rights or loose them.

[scrogdog]

Fair enough.

But yes you did. By arrogantly assuming that I had not read the Constitution, you sparked my anger, yes I admit it. :)

Let me ask you... if the Army and National Guard should support the Feds in an uprising, does the 2nd give you the tools to fight or correct that?

[mrs reb77]

as close to a constitutional scholar as I am an astronaut.

As far as I'm aware, no one in this country has to be a constitutional scholar to understand the rights as set forth in the 'Bill of Rights'. Do you have to be a doctor to understand you have a cold? A dentist to understand tooth decay? A chef to eat food?

[scrogdog]

Conversely, just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion, that doesn't mean that they have not read and understood the constitution, now does it?

I found the claim to be empty and insulting. Sorry if you disagree.

[scrogdog]

Let's also not forget that things were different when the amendment came to pass.

Madison, for example, wrote;


Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops

Things are not exactly as he envisioned now, are they?

[glennac]

Let's also not forget that things were different when the amendment came to pass.

Madison, for example, wrote;



Things are not exactly as he envisioned now, are they? Given that, and the apparent focus on the wishes of the founders, doesn't that alone seem to indicate that the amendment might need some looking at?

So instead of making the citizens stronger you want to make us weaker. Anyhow the American military will never take up arms against a popular revolt of the citizens against an oppressive regime. Only your highly paid "Federal officers" will stand loyal to the hand that feeds them.

[scrogdog]

So instead of making the citizens stronger you want to make us weaker. Anyhow the American military will never take up arms against a popular revolt of the citizens against an oppressive regime. Only your highly paid "Federal officers" will stand loyal to the hand that feeds them.

As I've already pointed out, that's an idea pulled from thin air with no apparent basis in logic. Anything can happen. Some think we have an oppressive regime now. The definition of that will be different for all people.

Glenn, it would take an awful lot to prepare average citizens to fight a professional army. Weapons alone aren't even close to the totality of what we'd need to have a chance. This isn't the age of flint locks.

[glennac]

As I've already pointed out, that's an idea pulled from thin air with no apparent basis in logic. Anything can happen. Some think we have an oppressive regime now. The definition of that will be different for all people.

Glenn, it would take an awful lot to prepare average citizens to fight a professional army. Weapons alone aren't even close to the totality of what we'd need to have a chance. This isn't the age of flint locks.

Scrog we can argue over who we will be fighting forever in the event of a communist take over of the goverment you think the millitary and I think Federal Police anyhow I would like to point out that of the millions of assault rifles and thousands of MGs legally in the hands of citizens in this country very few assault riles and no machine guns have been involved in criminal activity. When I had my legal machine gun (until 68 gun law) I never planned or did anything illegal with it. I had it for in the event the commies did take over I would have an option. Back in the 60's believe it or not it looked a lot worse because everyday the commie Democrats were coming up with one new socialist idea after another and there was not much opposition in Congress. This was before Regan, LBJ was shoving everything imaginable down our throats. Even a Republican Nixon introduced wage and price controls for about a year and went to Red China and recognized them and turned our backs on Nationalist China. A lot of us thought it was just a matter of time back then.

Liberals don't like citizens having the right to overthrow an oppressive communist type goverment. They use all kind of BS to make excuse to take away in whole or part out right to bear arms and soon we cannot own a "flintlock" and anyone can tell you what to do because the citizens will not even have the choice to resist a almighty communist goverment.

[scrogdog]

Well, if I know you, if either Clinton or Obama win in November, that alone could constitute "a commie takeover". :)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. In order for us to win, we'd need a significant number of the military on the rebel side and we'd need a sponser. I don't care what machine guns you have. If on the other hand, we have a large number of the military side with the feds, it will probably be over quickly unless a very big shoes coalition intervened.

They would have complete air supremacy. Game over.

And in any case, let's not forget that the feds would control the nukes regardless of other events. So, what now, you want a silo in your back yard?

Afer all, it's only an object. :rolleyes:

[the dangling wrangler]

I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the general section

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

[RoBoTeq]

I'm going to be setting up a new burn barrel this afternoon. I have picked up about a thousand rounds of ammo in .357, .22 long rifle and 9mm to aeriate it. Life is good.

[k-fridge]

I'm going to be setting up a new burn barrel this afternoon. I have picked up about a thousand rounds of ammo in .357, .22 long rifle and 9mm to aeriate it. Life is good.
LOL. I thought I was the only one that does this.

[the dangling wrangler]

I'm going to be setting up a new burn barrel this afternoon. I have picked up about a thousand rounds of ammo in .357, .22 long rifle and 9mm to aeriate it. Life is good.

I've watched the price of ammo almost double in the last year or so. Send some my way before you burn it .

[Tool-Slinger]

LOL. I thought I was the only one that does this.
nope , me too guys.

[glennac]

Well, if I know you, if either Clinton or Obama win in November, that alone could constitute "a commie takeover". :)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. In order for us to win, we'd need a significant number of the military on the rebel side and we'd need a sponser. I don't care what machine guns you have. If on the other hand, we have a large number of the military side with the feds, it will probably be over quickly unless a very big shoes coalition intervened.

They would have complete air supremacy. Game over.

And in any case, let's not forget that the feds would control the nukes regardless of other events. So, what now, you want a silo in your back yard?

Afer all, it's only an object. :rolleyes:

Very funny scrog, I will say that if either Obama or Hillary become President then we are a lot closer. I hope you saw that video on the post by wrangler. With that going on with the ATF yes we are getting close to a commie takeover in my opinion.

[RoBoTeq]

I've watched the price of ammo almost double in the last year or so. Send some my way before you burn it .
Even the .22 won't make it that far!

Well, the barrel is now properly ventilated and my wife says she has a headache;)

[the dangling wrangler]

Sounds like a job for tannerite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKdQ_GruBZY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zFWAR3Ovw

[RoBoTeq]

Well, if I know you, if either Clinton or Obama win in November, that alone could constitute "a commie takeover". :)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. In order for us to win, we'd need a significant number of the military on the rebel side and we'd need a sponser. I don't care what machine guns you have. If on the other hand, we have a large number of the military side with the feds, it will probably be over quickly unless a very big shoes coalition intervened.

They would have complete air supremacy. Game over.

And in any case, let's not forget that the feds would control the nukes regardless of other events. So, what now, you want a silo in your back yard?

Afer all, it's only an object. :rolleyes:
Speaking of the Commies; I suppose you like the way China keeps their citizens (as well as all others) under protective custody;



Tue May 6, 12:29 PM ET


BEIJING, May 6 (Xinhua) -- Chinese citizens must register their identities when they buy potentially deadly knives, Xinhua quoted the Ministry of Public Security on Tuesday as saying.

The new regulations come as China steps up security ahead of the Beijing Olympics.
The targeted daggers include those with blood grooves, lock-knives, and knives with blades measuring over 22 centimeters, the ministry said in a circular posted on its website, www.mps.gov.cn (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/nm/od_nm/storytext/knives_dc/27364555/SIG=10n3g1jv2/*http://www.mps.gov.cn).
Police departments at all levels should check knife manufacturers for illegal production of deadly weapons, it said.
Regulations concerning knife tools used by China's ethnic groups are to be set by local autonomous governments, the report said.
All parcels addressed to Olympic athletes, dormitories and sporting venues will be subject to X-ray checks, media reported on Tuesday.
China, whose Communist rulers value stability above all else, has come down hard on anyone they fear could upset the Games, from people protesting against the demolition of their houses for venues to the country's sometimes restless ethnic minorities.
(Reporting by Kirby Chien; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

[scrogdog]

First off, Glenn, I did see the video. I'm no fan of the use of SWAT teams against non-violent offenders, and in this case, the goverment position on that particular case seems to border on lunacy.

Secondly, to Robo, I favor the registration of dangerous weapons, yes. To say that is "protective custody" is quite a stretch. Of course, to someone who has publicly stated that he wants to build an illegal weapons cache, I can understand your opposition. :rolleyes:

I see where you guys are going. Out to rubber stamp the odd person who doesn't agree with your extremist views "a commie".

Outstanding ad hominem job, gentlemen. I mean, when you've got nothing in the chamber, why not let 'er rip with whatever you have? Nothing like removing all doubt as they say.

[glennac]

First off, Glenn, I did see the video. I'm no fan of the use of SWAT teams against non-violent offenders, and in this case, the goverment position on that particular case seems to border on lunacy.

Secondly, to Robo, I favor the registration of dangerous weapons, yes. To say that is "protective custody" is quite a stretch. Of course, to someone who has publicly stated that he wants to build an illegal weapons cache, I can understand your opposition. :rolleyes:

I see where you guys are going. Out to rubber stamp the odd person who doesn't agree with your extremist views "a commie".

Outstanding ad hominem job, gentlemen. I mean, when you've got nothing in the chamber, why not let 'er rip with whatever you have? Nothing like removing all doubt as they say.

Ah hell scrog, we'll give you a head start if the **** hits the fan so to speak.:D:D:D:)

Imagine what a safe place the country would be if all law bidding Americans were allowed to pack with out a permit open or concealed. There would be a drastic drop in personal attacks, carjackings, rape you name it. No more mass killings in schools, businesses or restaurants. For what its worth I don't consider you a commie which is more than I can say for others on this forum. Just a misguided person and maybe a liberal but I hope not.

[scrogdog]

What would you say if I told you that I favor open carry?

I do.

Not without permit though, sorry. :)

I still consider myself mostly conservative. Just because I don't fit your definition doesn't mean anything.

[RoBoTeq]

First off, Glenn, I did see the video. I'm no fan of the use of SWAT teams against non-violent offenders, and in this case, the goverment position on that particular case seems to border on lunacy.

Secondly, to Robo, I favor the registration of dangerous weapons, yes. To say that is "protective custody" is quite a stretch. Of course, to someone who has publicly stated that he wants to build an illegal weapons cache, I can understand your opposition. :rolleyes:

I see where you guys are going. Out to rubber stamp the odd person who doesn't agree with your extremist views "a commie".

Outstanding ad hominem job, gentlemen. I mean, when you've got nothing in the chamber, why not let 'er rip with whatever you have? Nothing like removing all doubt as they say.
Speaking of an ad hominem argument scrog, just where do you get that I want to build an illegal weapons cache? I stated that many citizens are legally buying weapons that have no registration and simply are not registering them in order to not become a victim of our government if in the future our government turns on us.

Just because I have weapons that are not registered, does not make them illegal. I will only become a criminal if our government changes the rules and causes me to become a criminal. In this particular instance; I favor becoming a criminal over becoming a Chinese citizen.

[scrogdog]

I definitely need to go on an unregestered weapon buying spree before next year. We all should watch "Red Dawn" at least once a year to remind us of what could happen if we are invaded, from outside or from within.

For those who do not know what I am referring to, the first thing the attackers of the U.S. did was go to the records of regestered gun owners and round those up who had regestered weapons.

Reply #68 by Robo.

Buying weapons legally and failing to register them is not illegal? Then why have the requirement in the first place?

[glennac]

Reply #68 by Robo.

Buying weapons legally and failing to register them is not illegal? Then why have the requirement in the first place?

Registering gun sells is required from federally licenced gun dealers and not by private gun owners who may sell their guns to other indiviuals without notifying big brother. I hope this answers your question.

[scrogdog]

Registering gun sells is required from federally licenced gun dealers and not by private gun owners who may sell their guns to other indiviuals without notifying big brother. I hope this answers your question.

Yeah I guess that's a Federal guideline. For the rest I guess it would depend on what state you are in. In MA you must register. VT, you don't (I think).

[scrogdog]

What about House Bill 760, Robo? I found that but not whether or not it was ratified.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0760&pn=0881

[glennac]

Yeah I guess that's a Federal guideline. For the rest I guess it would depend on what state you are in. In MA you must register. VT, you don't (I think).

You also don't in Tenn, GA, Miss., Ky, AL, NC, SC and FL the states I am familar with.

[william antley]

What about House Bill 760, Robo? I found that but not whether or not it was ratified.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0760&pn=0881

Couldn't say whether it has been ratified or not since I'm not a Pennsylvania citizen but, if it has become ratified, I certainly won't live there, or even visit if I wish to have in my possession one of my firearms.

This type of registration will be considered by many to be a precursor to confiscation by the Pennsylvania government, and it can rightly be considered such since registration provides all sorts of information to the governing body as to who has what. The governing body could then use this information to remove the firearms from private possession simply because someone "doesn't like" a sort of firearm or, for any other supposedly justified reasoning.

This issue with Pennsylvania smacks of a very misguided attempt to reduce crime, much like Washington, DC's ridiculous ban on personal firearm possession. Banning possession of firearms for the law abiding citizenry is never a good idea and will do nothing to reduce crime rates.
It just makes it ever more difficult for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves, their families and their property from criminal activity and to enjoy many of the shooting sports.
Banning firearm possession for the law abiding citizenry is a bad idea, period!

[the dangling wrangler]

Why am I not surprized??

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/orl-concealed3008apr30,0,4583107.story

[mrs reb77]

Buddy Bevis, director of licensing for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.


Ah, well then. Perhaps Butthead will soon come to the rescue! :D

[scrogdog]

Couldn't say whether it has been ratified or not since I'm not a Pennsylvania citizen but, if it has become ratified, I certainly won't live there, or even visit if I wish to have in my possession one of my firearms.

This type of registration will be considered by many to be a precursor to confiscation by the Pennsylvania government, and it can rightly be considered such since registration provides all sorts of information to the governing body as to who has what. The governing body could then use this information to remove the firearms from private possession simply because someone "doesn't like" a sort of firearm or, for any other supposedly justified reasoning.

This issue with Pennsylvania smacks of a very misguided attempt to reduce crime, much like Washington, DC's ridiculous ban on personal firearm possession. Banning possession of firearms for the law abiding citizenry is never a good idea and will do nothing to reduce crime rates.
It just makes it ever more difficult for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves, their families and their property from criminal activity and to enjoy many of the shooting sports.
Banning firearm possession for the law abiding citizenry is a bad idea, period!

Yes, I agree that the bill is much too extreme. My only point is posting was to see if Robo is intending to break the law still, if the bill had passed. Perhaps it passed and he didn't know, although I think that would be rather strange for someone so pro-gun. Maybe he fought it and his side won and he has no intent to break the law. I don't know.

Still, I am a huge backer of Federalism. While I might have certain opinions that others don't agree with, I also don't believe in too many federal mandates. Let the states decide, and if you don't like it, move. The more edicts passed by the Feds, the more "vanilla" each state becomes.

[chas]

Bang!

[the dangling wrangler]

Yes, I agree that the bill is much too extreme. My only point is posting was to see if Robo is intending to break the law still, if the bill had passed.

I think he already broke some kind of law, looking at his AR15. Just kidding Robin.

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/Colt_AR.M16_Rifles/AR15_HelloKittyRight.jpg

[RoBoTeq]

I think he already broke some kind of law, looking at his AR15. Just kidding Robin.

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/Colt_AR.M16_Rifles/AR15_HelloKittyRight.jpg
You cannot blame me for that one. I bought it that way:p

[trane]

Ah hell scrog, we'll give you a head start if the **** hits the fan so to speak.:D:D:D:)

Imagine what a safe place the country would be if all law bidding Americans were allowed to pack with out a permit open or concealed. There would be a drastic drop in personal attacks, carjackings, rape you name it. No more mass killings in schools, businesses or restaurants. For what its worth I don't consider you a commie which is more than I can say for others on this forum. Just a misguided person and maybe a liberal but I hope not.


Isn't that kind of how it used to be on Gunsmoke :)

This country is going backwards to the point its going to take a major change to head it in the right direction. The old west ways someday may come back around to save us all. Hang them in a day or 2 for stealing a car (horse) and see if it helps with that problem.

We just had a guy here that beat another young man to death with a baseball bat and got a life sentence. I don't know what you think of when you hear life sentence but I was surprised.

Sentencing guidelines for the second-degree murder charge range from 10 years to 30 years in prison, which is considered a life sentence.

He traded his right to a jury trial for exclusion of the death penalty. Good move on his part and stupid on ours.