Guns

[Luther073082]

People who own fully automatic weapons, be they machine guns, sub machine guns, or assult rifles, have to go through a very long process. They must receive a Class III license, pay a tax, keep the weapon properly secured, and are open to federal agents checking them when ever they want (the main reason I don't own one.).

Your stand on firearms is rather reasonable, but I would wager that people's right to own fully automatic shouldn't be as heavily registered as it is, under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I think its a good thing to remember though, that the muskets that people used back when the Bill of Rights was formed was the standard weapon for every nation's armies.

People weren't forced to be armed with shotguns, and petty calibre weapons. They were armed with equal power to that of national armies. I have two AR-15 rifles, which is just the civilian version of the M-16/ M-4 variant weapon. The only difference is, mine is only Semi-Auto Only.


You may not think I need an M-4...but I see no reason someone needs a lexus or Audi GT.....a Honda civic can get you to your place of work just as good. But we don't have a Bill of needs, or wants, but a Bill of Rights.

I'm ok with the current restrictions then on automatic weapons. I did not realize that such rules existed.

I will say one thing about the muskets though. That was a different time and those muskets had other uses beyond military. Basically there where really only three options available for a gun. A pistol, which was basically a short musket, mostly used for dueling. A musket which was used for military purposes mainly because it could be easily armed with a bayonet, and the Kentucky Rifle which was longer ranged but could not be armed with a bayonet.

All of those guns had uses outside of military purposes. Hunting and self defense.

Guns today have so much more variation in design and purpose. An assault rifle is not really useful for anything but combat and killing people.

My main problem with automatic rifles is that the offensive capabilities of these kinds are not easily delt with and should be highly controlled. We really don't need another incident where two men w/assault rifles can outgun an entire police force. Offensive capabilities of that need to be very restricted so as its nearly impossible for someone with criminal intent to get ahold of one.

The problem I have is that I don't care how many law abiding citizens own a automatic M4. But the easier they are to get and keep, the easier its going to be for those with criminal intentions to get ahold of that kind of firepower. And when they start doing that, the only choice we then have is to arm up the police to match them.

Either that or declare them to be internal enemies of the state, call in the national guard and destroy them.

I am for the right to self-defense. There are no exceptions to that rule. Nuclear bombs and other WMDs have no defensive purpose, because they cannot be focused to eliminate a threat without endangering innocent third parties. There is no right to own nor use purely offensive weapons. But firearms of any kind which can be focused against aggressors are included in the right to self-defense.

But an M4 is no where near the most useful weapon for self defense. It like other assault rifles are designed with offensive purposes in mind.

Furthermore, the entire reason for the second amendment, as evidenced by the writings of the people who wrote it, was to ensure that the state did not outarm the people. So either the people get to own machine guns, or the military has to give up theirs. Or, the Constitution is not the law of the land.

So we should therefore allow people to own tanks, military aircraft and nuclear weapons. Otherwise the state still vastly out arms us.

The expense of having a modern military prevents the people from out arming the state. Few people could afford modern military aircraft or tanks, even if they did want one and could be had.

 

[Sketcher]

I'd honestly just be scared in a place where just about anyone could bear firearms and I doubt I could really avoid getting paranoid about people being paranoid about me and randomly shooting at me LOL. I also doubt I could ever bear owning a gun, especially for self defense purposes. I think I'd honestly rather die then have to shoot at someone else if I had to choose between those two.

Young blonde Scandinavian women aren't exactly profiled to be dangerous, so I think you of all people would have the least to fear if you were to come over to the US and visit. Besides, it's not as if we're all a bunch of Yosemite Sam types over here randomly firing in random directions for random reasons.

 

[Aino]

Young blonde Scandinavian women aren't exactly profiled to be dangerous, so I think you of all people would have the least to fear if you were to come over to the US and visit. Besides, it's not as if we're all a bunch of Yosemite Sam types over here randomly firing in random directions for random reasons.

So if I were a middle-aged man from, say, Turkey I would need to fear? Or if I happened to move with one?

 

[Sketcher]

We really don't need another incident where two men w/assault rifles can outgun an entire police force.

I find it interesting that you're bringing up the assault rifles they were using rather than the body armor they were wearing. Without the armor, they wouldn't have been able to stand off for very long. Besides, I see that as an argument for better equipping the police rather than disarming the rest of us.

Offensive capabilities of that need to be very restricted so as its nearly impossible for someone with criminal intent to get ahold of one.

The problem I have is that I don't care how many law abiding citizens own a automatic M4. But the easier they are to get and keep, the easier its going to be for those with criminal intentions to get ahold of that kind of firepower.

But criminals already get illegal weapons.

But an M4 is no where near the most useful weapon for self defense. It like other assault rifles are designed with offensive purposes in mind.

It's defensive in nature, even when on full auto. Any soldier will tell you that they won't use full auto unless it really hits the fan, and I believe the version that the military is currently using isn't even full auto, but three round burst.

So we should therefore allow people to own tanks, military aircraft and nuclear weapons. Otherwise the state still vastly out arms us.

The expense of having a modern military prevents the people from out arming the state. Few people could afford modern military aircraft or tanks, even if they did want one and could be had.

I agree with you about nuclear weapons, but why shouldn't someone who can afford it buy a fighter jet and train to use it? Moreover, I believe the people should definitely have access to SAM and anti-armor weapons. It may be hard to build and maintain a sizable armored or air militia, but it would be much easier to put the kinds of weapons that can neutralize armored and air threats into the people's hands. Bottom line, the government should have a healthy fear of the people it's working for.

 

[Sketcher]

So if I were a middle-aged man from, say, Turkey I would need to fear? Or if I happened to move with one?

No, not really.

See, people don't shoot out their windows at certain types of people here. We tend to mind our own business. Now, there are those who will try to mug other people, but that can happen with a knife just as easily as it can happen with a gun. And that is best avoided by avoiding the wrong parts of town, which is undoubtedly a similar concept in your country.

 

[Aino]

No, not really.

See, people don't shoot out their windows at certain types of people here. We tend to mind our own business. Now, there are those who will try to mug other people, but that can happen with a knife just as easily as it can happen with a gun. And that is best avoided by avoiding the wrong parts of town, which is undoubtedly a similar concept in your country.

Then why did you even bring up the subject of my looks? And why should people need to carry guns for self defense when everyone minds their own business anyways?

 

[lost-sheep]

Guns today have so much more variation in design and purpose. An assault rifle is not really useful for anything but combat and killing people.

First off AR-15's are a common platform for hunting with all their multiply caliber configurations.

Second without having a Class III license one can not own a assault rifle. "An assault rifle is defined as a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine" per Wikipedia. Selective fire means you can choose between semi-auto and three round burst or full auto.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle unless it has the pieces to make it shoot more then one bullet per trigger pull.

An AR-15 is no different from a Ruger 10-22, Remington 700 series rifle, or any other rifle that has a magazine.

 

[Sketcher]

Then why did you even bring up the subject of my looks? And why should people need to carry guns for self defense when everyone minds their own business anyways?

Because the thought of someone being afraid of a young blonde woman enough to irrationally shoot her is so incredibly ridiculous. There are some other kinds of people who actually are profiled to be dangerous, such as a young man with baggy pants and gold chains and/or lots of tattoos. But people don't shoot at them out their windows either. They just avoid them. That's what I meant by people minding their own business.

Concealed carry isn't about picking off people who you think look like trouble. It's about reacting to someone who has shown themselves to be a threat, who is either actively threatening you or threatening another person. In places where gun ownership is commonplace, it's a healthy deterrent. Again, an intelligent person won't hold up a gun store.

 

[broken_one]

Don't tell me that drunk people don't shoot people accidentally. I still don't know how they haven't banned concealed weapons in bars yet.

Guns definitely are dangerous, and there should be a bit of fear surrounding them IMO.

 

[Sketcher]

Don't tell me that drunk people don't shoot people accidentally. I still don't know how they haven't banned concealed weapons in bars yet.

Guns definitely are dangerous, and there should be a bit of fear surrounding them IMO.

Well yeah, guns combined with alcohol are a bad idea, same as cars and alcohol. People do need to be responsible, and I agree there should be a healthy fear of weapons. Fear that motivates responsible use of weapons, not banning them. I have that fear whenever I'm holding a gun, knowing what it can do if I don't use it properly, therefore I use it properly.

 

[Flashlight]

To be fair, "Castle Doctrine" is mainly in the South, and the South...well, that's why there needs to be proper education classes. What is done isn't necessarily what is prudent and/or right.

And I think guns are quite similar to owning a car....you need to register it, you need to spend actually somewhat extensive time learning about it (aka driving school/driver's ed), and to get a licence you can't be a felon or be illegally living here or something.

I love my Glock. I don't have to register my gun. Not required in my state. I believe that a kindergartener has the right to bring a loaded machine gun to school. I have never had to use my gun and hopefully I never will. My only adverse experience with guns is having four police officers pointing their guns at me when I was legally carrying.

 

[Blackguard_]

. I still don't know how they haven't banned concealed weapons in bars yet.

I don't know why it;s still illegal in some places. up until last september carry in bars was illegal here, and we've had no problems with it being legal for people with CCW permits. Also neither have any of the other places that legalized it.

Just like every other expansion of the recognition of carry rights, the blood in the streets the antis always predict will happen never started flowing.

Also, If you carry into a bar you can't legally drink, at least not here in AZ.

I agree there should be a healthy fear of weapons.

Respect, not fear. I think someone afraid of the gun would be less safe with it actually.

Guns can be used for self defence, but they should not be a right. Again, cultural difference I guess.

I have kind of the opposite view of you and your countrymen, and some people over here too actually. I see guns as primarily about self defense, and would rather they ban sporting doubles and turnbolt hunting/target rifles than handguns.

I agree with Macfall, it's absurd to say we have a right to self defense but not a right to the best means of self defense.

But I guess there are probably are a lot of cultural factors in what we mean by "self defense", such as how much force you are justified using against an attacker and in what circumstances.

If you have a weak enough concept of it, guns might have a hard time finding a place in it. I mean, isn't even mace illegal over there (the real hot peppery kind, not just dye goop)?

I just know I do not like how people equate guns with self defence, like it's the only way to defend oneself.

It's not, but guns are the best way to defend oneself.

I don't like how people equate guns in civilian hands just with sporting implements, useful for self defense in a pinch the way a baseball bat or golf club might be.

Yeah, you can use other things in self defense, but why should we be limited to inferior means? Armed protection is not just the role and right of the State and it's agents.

I wouldn't say it's completely unfounded. Fear creates fear.

You're making a huge assumption those people would be paranoid about you.

It's the anti-gun people that are paranoid of their neighbors, not the pro-gun people.

 

[Lover_Of_Shoes]

My contribution to the thread went ignored. BUt that's ok. lol...I thought it was pretty good insight, but whatever...lol

 

[ceh85]

I agree with Mr Dave(whose name I very much like, by the way )

without the freedom to defend yourself from a tyrannical government do you really think a vote matters at all?

Well I would imagine a tyrannical government would have their own supply of guns as well as people skilled in using them, so I'm not sure me owning one would make much of a difference.

 

[mjmcmillan]

My contribution to the thread went ignored. BUt that's ok. lol...I thought it was pretty good insight, but whatever...lol

My contributions got left in the dust too. That's because this debate tends to go to extremes. We either arm every man, woman and child with military-style weapons in case the government oversteps its proper authority, or we take every last gun and melt them to slag. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground in these discussions.

Question: I live in an apartment complex. Where do I park a fully loaded F-22 fighter? Further, while I would agree that 16 inch naval guns are a convincing argument against street thugs, using them is kinda rough on the neighborhood in general. Now that the silliness is out, how's about sensible gun talk?

 

[Blackguard_]

My contribution to the thread went ignored. BUt that's ok. lol...I thought it was pretty good insight, but whatever...lol

Problem is the anti-gunners have a hard time seeing guns as a personal choice the way a pro-gunner can.

It doesn't affect my rights if someone chooses not to own a gun, but an anti-gunner might have a harder time seeing it that way about someone choosing to own one.

If you think guns cause cause, are just tools of criminals and psychos etc,. then you will have much harder time seeing gun ownership as a personal choice. Anti-gunners have a tendency to view gun owners as a threat to them whether they are actually being threatening or not. Merely having a gun means you must be some sort of death beast to many of them. Take a look at Aino's post for example. People who carry guns are paranoid to the point of shooting people for no good reason. Many anti-gun arguments are based on fear of your neighbors, whether that they're evil or unsafe idiots, and such a view does not lend itself to seeing gun ownership as a matter of choice.

 

[TheTrash]

Blind post.

I do not believe - unless one hunts or works on a farm - that anyone should or need to have a gun in their home or on their person. A gun can easily be turned against you should an intruder break in; I would not feel any safer with a gun in my house than without.

There is no need to sleep with a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson revolver under your pillow. And dare I say it, any parent who has a gun in the house with their children (even locked up) is being an irresponsible parent.

I would be disgusted by any man I met who enjoyed killing 'game' (if you wouldn't shoot a cat and mount it's paw on your wall, you shouldn't be doing it to a deer's head) or believed Marxmanship was a 'real' sport.

flame suit on and at the ready.

 

[Blackguard_]

that anyone should or need to have a gun in their home or on their person.

There are no places in this world safe from criminals.

A gun can easily be turned against you should an intruder break in; I would not feel any safer with a gun in my house than without.

Fantasy. You're far more likely to turn the intruder's gun on him if anything.

It is vile lie that you're likely to have your own gun turned on you.

Maybe if you're counting on the gun scaring the badguy away and aren't willing to actually shoot it is, and I would say you shouldn't have a gun if you plan to use it as a magic charm.

There is no need to sleep with a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson revolver under your pillow.

Believe it or not, people have needed to use those pillow guns. I'd keep the gun somewhere else, but nothing wrong with having a gun handy while you sleep.

And dare I say it, any parent who has a gun in the house with their children (even locked up) is being an irresponsible parent.

More accurate to say anyone who doesn't have a gun is an irresponsible parent.

 

[TheTrash]

There are no places in this world safe from criminals.

Really, you think?

It still doesn't convince me one needs a gun. Technology is a wonderful thing - a home security system can scare an intruder away, as well as get the cops to your door in a swift manner.

Maybe if you're counting on the gun scaring the badguy away and aren't willing to actually shoot it is, and I would say you shouldn't have a gun if you plan to use it as a magic charm.

Yeah; I don't understand how anyone can get any joy at shooting at another human being - even if that person is an intruder.

Believe it or not, people have needed to use those pillow guns. I'd keep the gun somewhere else, but nothing wrong with having a gun handy while you sleep.

And who's to say you're going to actually wake up quickly enough, register your surroundings quickly enough, and get your hand under your pillow quickly enough to shoot at the intruder before they attack you?

More accurate to say anyone who doesn't have a gun is an irresponsible parent.

Disagree. I guess my parents did a crappy job of raising me by your litmus test of being a good parent, then.

Anywho, I've said my piece. Being told I'm at risk of being attacked is not going to convince me to get a gun, and it sure as heck won't convince me to marry a Skilled Marksman. Like darts, shooting at a target requires very little physical exertion - ergo, it is not a sport; merely a past-time, and by extension, the argument that one needs a gun for sport is null and void IMO.

There's much better things one can do with their time than shoot at a target or hunt game*. If life is so sacred that we need to protect our own and that of our minor children, why is it okay to shoot and kill innocent animals? They did nothing to hurt you; therefore, they should not be shot at for fun or for decor. If you are decorating your house with antlers, I suggest you drop the Gaston look and hire Nate Brekus - for you are not just practising animal cruelty, but also guilty of bad taste.



*hunting for meat, or farming livestock is a different situation to hunting game 'for fun.' It would be nice if the entire world was vegan or vegetarian, but it isn't realistic.

 

[Singermom]

My husband is former law enforcement and currently in security. He is licensed to carry. He carries because he put a lot of very, very bad people away who eventually WILL be out. He also carries because it's part of his job. In the line of duty he has - once - had to take a life. It was not only a "kill or be killed" situation, but he also saved another officer who was downed (ended up paralyzed) and the bad guy was going to take him out permanently.

In my eyes, and the eyes of the officer whose life he saved, that makes him a hero. In his eyes, it makes him someone who took a life. He is not proud of what he did, but he has reconciled to it, with the assistance of our wonderful former pastor.

I have gone target shooting with him, and it turns out that I am a natural, to the point where I actually put a shot through a hole he had already made. He and I DO enjoy target shooting, as long as it's paper targets or my cast-iron Ram target.

Our firearms are locked, ammo in separate locked container. Our girls know about them and, when they're a little older, they will be taught proper firearm etiquette, with the most important rule being that you NEVER point it anywhere unless you intend to shoot what you are pointing at. Also, as the oh-so-true cliche goes, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. They will NOT have toy guns because (how can I word this?) toy guns usually cause lax of respect for firearms.