45 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
He should run down immediately
and turn in all such guns he may currently have.
He at least implied that he didn't have any other weapons,
which you might have known had you either understood my post indicating he owns an M9 pistol, and by stating he owns one gun, indicates that he doesn't own others. Then again if you'd looked at the link you might have caught that too.
Since I understand it contradicts you blinders on tunnel-focus on putting machine guns on our streets I wasn't in the least surprised that you didn't do either of those things.
"There's no sense arguing with a closed mind" source unknown.
You have indicated now that you don't like either of the two high profile retired generals commenting on current events, which probably meand you don't like Col. Lawrence Wilkierson either so I won't bother.
I'd think that, if our country's policy is that civilians
should not have military grade weapons, we need to never arm or assist in arming resistance movements abroad regardless of how oppressive we think their governments are. Of course we don't need to worry because we know that our own government has always been about granting personal freedoms while never taking any of them away.
A VERY GOOD POINT!
Fast and Furious comes to mind.
Most reasonable people agree
I saw a recent poll that said something like 80% of Americans believe there should be limits. They may not agree on what those limits are, but outside of the hardcore NRA crowd, very few people believe that everyone should be able to own as many of whatever kind of guns they want.
what about collectors?
Some just like a variety of different guns. I'd be happy with shotgun, small caliber rifle, large caliber rifle, and a couple handguns (small & large caliber). That should pretty much cover any need. Unlike some, I'm not fascinated by automatic weapons, I see them as wasting expensive ammo and discouraging any real shooting skills. I can see having gun clubs owning them for rental at their ranges for those who consider it fun to shoot them. Everyone wants to blame the NRA but they are really a reaction to decades of anti-gun nuts in past years, so they understand that "foot in the door" approach that's been used in the past to try and deprive Americans of their right to be armed, especially for purpose of self defense when away from the inside of their home. Realistically citizens don't spend 90-100% of their time at home, so that means a large amount of time when they aren't actually in the home, they are restricted unduly on self defense. Hiding out in your house with a gun all the time is not freedom, not liberty, and certainly not acceptable. NRA can see how Liberal gun haters are still doing all they can to stonewall and stop the right of citizens to bear adequate means of self defense when they are in public areas, or anywhere outside their house or hunting areas. The NRA may seem intransigent at times, but it's because they've had to fight for decades against those who have done everything they can to interfere with possession of guns and trying to make the legal fences against those who own them smaller and smaller.
Yup,I hear that....
I'm like you,automatic weapons do nothing for me,I had enough of that crap 47yrs ago.
I 'm out of work until the middle of March(broken r/s clavicle),I was sitting home bored and figured I'd take a ride up to Ramsey Outdoor and peruse the gun racks
I left with a Henry .22 LR lever gun that spoke to me...lol.They mounted a 3x9 scope for free after I bought the scope for $70 and threw in a brick of ammo(500rounds) for free! The only pita was waiting an hr for the nics check to go through.
It now resides in the gun rack between my Mossberg 12ga(ole painless) and my Henry .357 rifle...lol.
No easy answer
Many yrs. ago, when I was old enough I brought my 1st rifle at the local hardware store. It was Browning BLR, lever action .308 more than enough for deer hunting in the brush. However, being in Ohio I couldn't use it until either I went to Mi(upper) or Penn. that allows use of such. I really liked it but found rather impractical as I barely used it. I eventually sold it. I know if I kept it it would be a collector's rifle as I'm sure not many were sold.
I can't say much of anyone having any automatic weapons is good or bad thing, but if as I know many don't stop at 1 or 2, many go all out to get whatever. There are a lot of responsible people out there, its the nuts that get was all in a bind. This is what happens when you release and reduce "so-called mental care" patients back to be free and become whatever they feel like. Families have to fend for themselves any mental health issues and where it becomes too much have no where to turn. This is a life-long illness that any cure has to be shoe-horned to the person involved. I just don't read or hear of great success stories on mental health. If guns become involved the outcome rarely is good. It seems at times, the persons that did all the harm gets better care after the fact provided they lived. So, there is no easy answer unless you want to make it so hard to own any firearm, then gun owners can say, you're infringing on my rights. That is what govts. seem to want to do besides catching the obvious. NYC, one of the hardest places to own a firearm, yet they grinch of all those that come in, people still want a legal firearm. It's the illegal ones that seem to grab the headlines or the mental case. Pretty soon, we'll all be wielding box-cutters. -----Willy
It really is more a mental health issue
but that's not easy to fix or legislate. I'm noticing that these mass killers lately all seem to be young people so it would be difficult to show a history or pattern of mental health problems with them. We hear later that they were weird and moody kids. Well...a lot of kids are weird and moody until their hormones stabilize and life seems promising. You can't round up those people. I don't see anything in the president's message of today that can do much kids from occasionally going berserk, getting their hands on a weapon and going on a rampage. So maybe they kill fewer people before they kill themselves or are killed by police? I'm not sure that's progress but the talk is that, if one life is save, it's worth it. Maybe we could also ban the construction of buildings over 3 stories high because, if it prevents one person from successfully committing suicide, it's worth it.
.....it will make it just a bit harder for them to get their hands on that weapon. The guy in Aurora shot 70 people in less than two minutes. His arsenal included a semi with a 100-round magazine. No civilian should have that kind of hardware.
I hate to say this because I generally favor reasonable gun
restriction, or arm restrictions anyway.
But if the entire argument is second amendment rights, the intent there seemed to be to allow the citizens to overthrow a government that got out of hand. Wasn't there a British edict just before the Declaration of Independence restricting firearms in the colonies?
If you're arguing that citizens must be armed to prevent a government from becoming an unreasonable dictatorship then good citizens must be armed equal to the soldier.
Now I don't really want individuals owning RPG type weapons, or fully automatic. First thing I would agree to is a set delay and background check, including requiring permits to buy for private sales individual to individual as well as dealer to individual.
In one sense, I don't care what an individual has in his home, even a convicted felony, if it stays in his home. Of course if its available it may be carried out and used.
Don't bother with the state militia restriction argument, the national guard is too integrated into the regular military now. So there is no organized state controlled militia. Originally the states were more powerful than the federal government anyway, and the writers intend to help it state that way. It's no longer true, states are basically political divisions of the federal just like counties are of the state. There are difference from state to state, but fed always trumps state now.
The Coercive Acts, 1774.
"Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, ...Britain passed the Coercive Acts [the Patriot's term, not their real name]... the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment."
Each of these was a British Act of parliament, not an edict by the King who was governed by Parliament and as I understand it didn't go nutty until after the Revolution had started, and in part may have been the cause of his lunacy, along with Porphyria, a congenital disease among the House of Hanover. Queen Victoria didn't have it or even pass along the gene to her descendants, because her father wasn't really her father. He is believed to have been her mother's physician.
Lord North who was Prime Minister from 1770-1782 was the ham handed idiot who created the problem. He couldn't safely carry a tea cup at a garden party. Maladroit is too kind a word for him.
However this wasn't the only reason for the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers mistrusted their own army, and didn't wish it to be in a position to overthrow their new Government without considerable resistance.
King or parliment doesn't matter
The point was that British government tried to control and restrict the ability of their subjects to overthrow the government by limiting armament.
Now every government tries to limit or eliminate the ability of subcultures within itself to overthrow it.
But given that was true, it's not surprising the US still has the attitude that the citizen must be armed to prevent government they consider corrupt from becoming unresponsive to it's constituents.
try listening to their music
It's not music. It's noise. Noise and shouting and screaming. Screams of rage, screams of being denied what they feel is deserved (not necessarily earned). Anti-authority lyrics, murder lyrics, basic other garbage into the brain. One becomes what they consume.
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Can't listen to it...hurts my ears
I don't even like the crap that comes through the speakers in grocery and department stores. It's not the same as today's "rock" but the singing style and beat is annoying to this older guy. Oh well.
Right, James. Kids these days are diabolical ;-P
I agree about nuts. No guns the nuts will have to use teeth
Now those are weapons I can envy and understand. rob
They're fine, assuming their collection is stored safely
with the ammo in a separate locked box. That's how my Dad stored his. He had the .22 pistol loaded and ready to go in his fishing bag in the closet. I've got no problem with any of that. I just don't think functional semi-auto (easily converted to full auto) Assault weapons with more than 10 shots in the Mag are sensible in a non-military setting. Nor does just about anybody. Nobody I know wants to take away anything except the expanded definition of permissible weapons. I dont' know when the legislation changed, but in the 50's and 60's which is when I knew the Gun Laws in America, you couldn't have more than 3 shells in a Semi-Auto shotgun for hunting, let alone an Assault Rifle designed exclusively to shoot people. Nobody goes hunting with them unless they're an immature a** hole.
you couldn't have it for hunting
but you could in the house.
Most shotguns, in the 60's and 70's anyway, that I recall had a removable plug. You had the plug installed for bird, squirrell, rabbit, small game hunting. If you acutally used the shotgun for deer with buckshot or slugs loaded you could remove the plug and load 5 shells.
The AR10 and AR15, which most supporting more gun control would call an assault weapon, are used for hunting believe it or not. I saw a report on the AR10 recently on CBS where the commentator was discussing why people like it. He gave it a good report for accuracy, sighting system, handling, etc. CBS and it's commentators are not radical right wing nuts.
I asked guys at work who hunted. None of the guys I talked to acutally owned one, but a couple had fired one and again the gun performed well and handled well.
You could change the appearance probably without changing any of the functions. Let's be honest, most people who hear assault weapon the main things they see in their mind are the carrying grip, the cooling jacket design, the general outline of the military weapon. It's normally not any functional attribute that the general public thinks of regarding assault weapon, other than the often wrong subconcious association with full automatic fire. You an thank the Rambo style movies for that.
Actually the violent movie and shooter games almost always feature a military appearing weapon. Once someone decides they're going badass and shoot up somewhere, that imagery probably influences their preference of weapon as much as the functionality.
The very term assault weapon is prejudicial and inflammatory for the same imagery. Any gun control should be defined by technical specs of functionality, not for appearance or fear of a word.
IMO, the first step in gun control is better background checks, even if that means a defined minimum waiting period. The opposite side is the determination of someone's ineligibillity for gun purchase or conceal weapon carry permits must be fair. I don't know of it happening but in NC if the local head sheriff (county office) decides you shouldn't have a conceal carry permit you have to appeal, and it's his decision, he doesn't have to justify it. If you don't have a felony, even if you're known to be a hothead and he does like you, he can give you the permit. If you ran campaigned for his opponent the last election, he might decide you're unreliable. If you gave him a lot of support he may decide to give you one inspite of some questionable incidents in your past.
Now I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I don't like the possibility of such abuse of power.
re: Most reasonable people agree
>"80% of Americans believe there should be limits"
Be careful how you interpret that statistic. While I, and many others, believe there there should be limits, we also believe that the current limits are too restrictive.
Most in law enforcement disagree with you, Mark
You think the law should be more lenient? Does that mean you think I should be able to keep RPGs and launchers in my apartment? Remember, "arms" does not specifically or exclusively mean "guns."
OK, most police chiefs then
You don't trust their experience and judgment?
maybe it's a matter of
police chiefs not trusting the people they work for.
maybe it's a matter of
they have to worry about getting shot at everytime they answer a call.
that's because they are narrowly focused on crime, not the entire picture. That gives them a myopic opinion on the matter.
Remember the most dangerous call for an officier
a domestic disturbance report use to be. The officier more likely to be assaulted than in an armed robbery response.
And why would that be?
Possibly because of the added situation of marital rights, property rights, improper respect toward parents in front of their children, shooting the family dog, violation of one's inner sanctum. That's a lot on the line and why someone might be more willing to submit in a public place than at home. Yeah, all sorts of situations may involve strong police action there, but the smarter police are those who show up conciliatory and trying to defuse a situation.
Still, police aren't called out because someone was just so good that day that people felt the police should stop by and meet such an outstanding person. Police are called for problems, so that's what they see all the time. Some of them may then enter that rut of looking at life that way.
You're excusing the assault, blaming the cop