All Firearms sold as such. The people have the duty and responsibility to defend their country against all threats foreign and domestic, shouldn't we then be able to match their weaponry? I realize in this day in age this is impossible as rpg's, attack helicopters and the like won't be available at Sams Club..............another part of the 2nd amendment already eroded away.
Do You Think Machineguns Should be legal with a Background Check Only?
- Thread starter mordechaianiliewicz
- Start date
- Status
Tuner my friend, got a few issues with what you said:
Because it is the most fun you can have while wearing pants.
It depends on your perspective. I know people who've wasted a lot more on bass boats, jets skis, and vacations to snobby countries.
That isn't true. The hoops suck, but aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. The inspection at whim part is false.
1. buy in bulk.
2. 2 words swap barrels
3. boring? Are you kidding?
Because it is the most fun you can have while wearing pants.
It depends on your perspective. I know people who've wasted a lot more on bass boats, jets skis, and vacations to snobby countries.
That isn't true. The hoops suck, but aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. The inspection at whim part is false.
1. buy in bulk.
2. 2 words swap barrels
3. boring? Are you kidding?
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
There's only one reason machine guns are 'horribly expensive' and that is current law.
An MP5 is going for what now? 10K? They can be bought new by a police department from HK for about 1K.
BAR's are going for up to 20K. A year or two ago, you could buy parts kits for around $700. Let us examine the costs of these kits. The company had to pay someone to go to Europe and locate the BAR's in some arsenal and then to handle the purchase and local make work required by the governing bureaucracy. Then the company had to pay people to torch cut the receivers according to ATF fiat. Then, if they were prudent, they'd paid someone to inspect each and every cut receiver to make sure an ATF boo boo hadn't been made. Then they had to pay to crate them up and ship them to the US. Once here, they had to ship them to their warehouse, clean them, and package them for sale. Then pay for advertisement.
Without current law, the company would have been able to sell the same firearm for less than the $700 charged with the receiver being cut. I don't consider $650 for a functional BAR to be horribly expensive.
There are warehouses with crates of unused Thompson sub machine guns in various states of the former Soviet Union. Crates to the ceiling in huge warehouses. If the laws were changed allowing these to be returned to their country of origin and sold to citizens-they'd go for less than a grand.
I'm sure this is true of some "collectors". However, I spend a lot of time hanging out on the full-auto forums, and the general concensus seems to be that most of us would rather own ten NFA's worth $1000 each than one worth $10000. The limited number of transfereable NFA's created by the '86 act is the only thing that's keeping those prices inflated.
If released rape/murderers are allowed to walk the streets, and buy knives and duct tape, then I don't see why guns will make much difference one way or the other.
Can anyone show me, logically, or with real-world evidence, why it matters?
Too many people, even here, share the anti's belief in the magical powers of laws. I have never seen ANY evidence that background checks actually reduce crime. Can anyone explain to me why it would work with machine guns?
If Jews (only Jews) were required to undergo background checks, in order to, say, build a place of worship, and you were a Jew - you wouldn't see a problem?
If Republicans (only Republicans ) were required to undergo background checks, in order to, say, be hired as news journalists, and you were a Republican - you wouldn't see a problem?
The problem is that you are being marked as different - dangerous, in need of special supervision, and having fewer rights than other people.
If you have no problem with such treatment, I suggest you're being very foolish. (Does anyone know what the German word was, for the armbands with the Star of David, which the Jews were required to wear?)
Can anyone show me, logically, or with real-world evidence, why it matters?
Too many people, even here, share the anti's belief in the magical powers of laws. I have never seen ANY evidence that background checks actually reduce crime. Can anyone explain to me why it would work with machine guns?
So, if blacks (only blacks) were required to undergo background checks, in order to, say, move into a neighborhood, and you were black - you wouldn't see a problem?
If Jews (only Jews) were required to undergo background checks, in order to, say, build a place of worship, and you were a Jew - you wouldn't see a problem?
If Republicans (only Republicans ) were required to undergo background checks, in order to, say, be hired as news journalists, and you were a Republican - you wouldn't see a problem?
The problem is that you are being marked as different - dangerous, in need of special supervision, and having fewer rights than other people.
If you have no problem with such treatment, I suggest you're being very foolish. (Does anyone know what the German word was, for the armbands with the Star of David, which the Jews were required to wear?)
Cousin Mike
Member
Yes, I think machineguns should be legal with only a background check, and yes I want one, even though I have no specific need for one. I never knew "need" was an issue. How many of us have ever really "needed" the firearms we currently have?
I think they should roll back the '86 gunpowder treason entirely and allow manufactuer again.
As far as regulation, everything except full-auto should be allowable with just a background check (which is not kept on record, is instanteneous, etc.) and the disgression of a legal dealer. 4" barrel and a rifle stock? Suppressor? UZI with a stock, foregrip, laser pointer sight, bayonet, and remote start for when you don't want to go out in the cold to warm the engine? Why not?
The reason I do not think full-auto should be allowed is because it's too easily prone to inexperienced people going hog wild. Imagine the 1911 amateur firing off a full magazine into the roof of a range because they panic (a story told here on THR recently I believe). I think the requirements for full-auto should be similar to what some states (but not mine) have as requirements for concealed carry: you need to deminstrate basic proficiency and the ability a full-auto firearm on-target. This training would have a nominal fee - roughly what CC has now in less authoritarian states, I imagine. Like $30 minus ammunition ($100? depending on initial proficiency and how many times you've got to test) and firearm rental fees (marginal - $20?) at the testing range. The costs would likely be prohibitive for people who don't already own and practice with semi-autos, at any rate, due to simple firearm familiarization.
Also, there's that whole "well regulated militia" part of the clause; the regulation entails firearm proficiency, and the ability to keep the firearm well maintained. Not necessarily a prerequisite, but at least for full-auto, it makes practical sense to me to ensure you're not going to have some 20-year-old girl who bought a full-auto glock for home defense discharge a 30-round magazine into the floor of her apartment, killing the Jensons downstairs who is sitting down for a nice family dinner of mac'n'cheese. *deep breath*
The same should apply to any other AOW or NFA regulated item aside from suppressors, short barrels, and what have you, such as grenades, rocket launchers, "IEDs", and what have you. Pretty much anything that isn't inherrently unstable or dangerous.
I draw the line at things like AA guns, which are inherrently unsafe to use for surrounding populaces due to the fact that they fire up - and what goes up must come down. I think regulation - on line with what we've got for full-auto now - should be used for things like AA guns.
Nukes? Nope, they're inherrently dangerous to the population and truly do present a handling danger. Sure, a person or individual should be allowed to posess one, I guess, for peaceful purposes (ie a reactor) - just comply with governmental security precautions and regulations on such things to mitigate the risk of population, land, and property destruction, and you should be golden. If you can afford it.
As far as regulation, everything except full-auto should be allowable with just a background check (which is not kept on record, is instanteneous, etc.) and the disgression of a legal dealer. 4" barrel and a rifle stock? Suppressor? UZI with a stock, foregrip, laser pointer sight, bayonet, and remote start for when you don't want to go out in the cold to warm the engine? Why not?
The reason I do not think full-auto should be allowed is because it's too easily prone to inexperienced people going hog wild. Imagine the 1911 amateur firing off a full magazine into the roof of a range because they panic (a story told here on THR recently I believe). I think the requirements for full-auto should be similar to what some states (but not mine) have as requirements for concealed carry: you need to deminstrate basic proficiency and the ability a full-auto firearm on-target. This training would have a nominal fee - roughly what CC has now in less authoritarian states, I imagine. Like $30 minus ammunition ($100? depending on initial proficiency and how many times you've got to test) and firearm rental fees (marginal - $20?) at the testing range. The costs would likely be prohibitive for people who don't already own and practice with semi-autos, at any rate, due to simple firearm familiarization.
Also, there's that whole "well regulated militia" part of the clause; the regulation entails firearm proficiency, and the ability to keep the firearm well maintained. Not necessarily a prerequisite, but at least for full-auto, it makes practical sense to me to ensure you're not going to have some 20-year-old girl who bought a full-auto glock for home defense discharge a 30-round magazine into the floor of her apartment, killing the Jensons downstairs who is sitting down for a nice family dinner of mac'n'cheese. *deep breath*
The same should apply to any other AOW or NFA regulated item aside from suppressors, short barrels, and what have you, such as grenades, rocket launchers, "IEDs", and what have you. Pretty much anything that isn't inherrently unstable or dangerous.
I draw the line at things like AA guns, which are inherrently unsafe to use for surrounding populaces due to the fact that they fire up - and what goes up must come down. I think regulation - on line with what we've got for full-auto now - should be used for things like AA guns.
Nukes? Nope, they're inherrently dangerous to the population and truly do present a handling danger. Sure, a person or individual should be allowed to posess one, I guess, for peaceful purposes (ie a reactor) - just comply with governmental security precautions and regulations on such things to mitigate the risk of population, land, and property destruction, and you should be golden. If you can afford it.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I Need Every One I Have...
...to keep the government in check. In fact, I'm way behind the Eight Ball on this issue! I've got a lot of catching up to do!
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
...to keep the government in check. In fact, I'm way behind the Eight Ball on this issue! I've got a lot of catching up to do!
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
Sistema1927
Member
You would probably be OK if the government mandated that you needed to show competency before purchasing a car with more than 65 horsepower, since we all know that "inexperienced people go hog wild" in powerful automobiles. :banghead:
Its called FREEDOM folks, why are so many of you frightened by it?
wacki
Member
The key is low hanging fruit. I would think everyone here would agree criminals generally aren't the smartest of people. Yes a well motivated criminal will buy a gun if he puts his mind to it even if all guns were banned. The point is that we shouldn't make it super easy for someone without the best judgment and a history of committing grievous violent acts to go out and buy a gun. If they really turn their life around and become a model citizen then fine you can reinstate their rights. But by default they should not be freely handed the tools to commit the same crimes they have a history of committing. This is especially true when the crimes are so severe and they have yet to show ample proof they will not fall back into their old ways.
Sistema1927
Member
wacki,
If so, then we ought to push to have such persons locked up for life. If we feel that you are safe to walk our streets, then you should have the same rights as anyone else. If not, then we need to put you away where you cannot harm anyone else.
We are concentrating on gun control, but the true "low hanging fruit" is the rotten criminal justice system. We need to fix that.
ksnecktieman
Member
I think our government should save the millions of dollars it is spending on gun registrations, and permits, and 4473 forms. Their only impact is on our time and money as shooters, and as taxpayers. These laws demonizing guns, and gun ownership are not stopping criminals from getting guns.
If you insist on felons not owning guns, make gun possesion for felons a crime, and send them to prison when you catch them.
And for the ones of you that think minor infringments on our rights are satisfactory (4473s, permit to carry, FOID cards, restricting felons, or teachers at work). Where will president Hillary push that line in the sand to when she is elected?
If you insist on felons not owning guns, make gun possesion for felons a crime, and send them to prison when you catch them.
And for the ones of you that think minor infringments on our rights are satisfactory (4473s, permit to carry, FOID cards, restricting felons, or teachers at work). Where will president Hillary push that line in the sand to when she is elected?
I think that the only NFA items should be cannons and the like...
That said, the means for getting a machinegun or any other firearm should be: go to store, get background check, take home, have fun. Private firearms transfers require background checks as well (go to gun store, call up feds), except for from parent to child, or from people who've known each other for at least three years and are sure that neither are violent felons.
License to CCW necessary to carry guns, you can apply for permit to CCW at age 18, if you don't get that permit, you can still carry openly. If you have a license, you can carry openly at courts, police stations, etc.
That said, the means for getting a machinegun or any other firearm should be: go to store, get background check, take home, have fun. Private firearms transfers require background checks as well (go to gun store, call up feds), except for from parent to child, or from people who've known each other for at least three years and are sure that neither are violent felons.
License to CCW necessary to carry guns, you can apply for permit to CCW at age 18, if you don't get that permit, you can still carry openly. If you have a license, you can carry openly at courts, police stations, etc.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I tend to think that each State should treat machine guns however they fancy.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Amen!
Here's a proposal I developed long ago:
The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.
Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.
That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable gun control, based on three principles:
Targeting. The purpose of gun control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts.
Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.
Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.
We target the violent criminal through two laws;
1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal
We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.
We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.
A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.
If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.
We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.
They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.
They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various localities, because local prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate state prosecution of the firearms charges.
And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.
harvester of sorrow
Member
Who will that affect? Dangerous criminals, or you and me? Let's pass a law, that will show those rapists and murderers that we mean business.
wacki said:
We aren't making it ANYTHING for dangerous criminals. Dangerous criminals live outside the law. The only affect we can have on dangerous criminals via the law is to make their trade easier and less dangerous for them by restricting ourselves.
glockfan.45 said:
Well, right now there are 90mm antitank cannons, 75mm howitzers, 81mm and 60mm mortars, and at least one 3" naval rifle in the registry. Someone out there owns them. Has there been a rash of negligent discharges sending 10lb projectiles through all the houses on the street that I've missed?
You keep using this as some kind of pejorative. Is this really the way you see your fellow Americans? Or, worse, your fellow gunowners? The worst thing that I see on TheHighRoad from time to time is the zeal of the newly converted. Having discovered the joy of self-sufficiency, they immediately decide that only SOME people (people like them) have the steely nerve, determination, incredible cat-like reflexes, and knowledge of tactics and the law that would do credit to both the Navy SEALs and the United States Attorney's Office to carry a firearm for self-protection. Having discovered fire, they immediately want to shut others out in the cold. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but you keep referring to your neighbor "Bubba." "Bubba" is a slob who smokes and burns his house down. "Bubba" is likely to shoot a mortar round through your house. Everyone must be protected from "Bubba" and "Bubba" must be protected from himself......
Sounds a lot like Nancy Pelosi.So being in the majority automatically makes you right? At one time, the majority of Americans thought that it was okay to enslave other human beings. The majority of Americans thought that rounding up all the Japanese-Americans in California and locking them in camps was alright, too. If the majority of Americans tomorrow decided that YOU shouldn't have a gun, would the fact that 51% (or even 99%) of the people felt that way make them right? Liberty is not an American Idol contest.
I'll go over this one more time. Violent, dangerous criminals shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place. However, in today's criminal justice system, they are. It is currently illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun. Surprising as it may be to some, this doesn't appear to discourage any of them who are set on committing more crimes upon their release. They aren't affected by waiting periods. They aren't affected by background checks. They aren't affected by "one gun a month" legislation. They aren't affected by the requirements set out in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Based on the fact that the North Hollywood bank robbers acquired their guns in Mexico, they don't appear to be affected by the importation laws under the Gun Control Act of 1968. They aren't affected by having to get a Firearms Owners Identifcation Card. They aren't affected by the Sullivan Act. They aren't affected by registration or taxation. The only people affected by any of these things are you and me. The only convicted felon who is affected by any of these things is the one who has decided that he's going to obey the law from now on. If he's decided that, he's not a danger to you or anyone else.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Wow! There are a lot of people on this pro-gun-rights website who don't seem to mind infringements to our Right to Keep and bear Arms.
If all you who don't seem to mind these infringements would abide the Constitution, you'd be out trying to get the Constitution amended to allow these infringements you seem to be so OK with. You are no better than the law makers who ignore the Constitution in making these laws. There is no magnanimity in what you do or allow - especially where it concerns everyone else's rights. All you who don't seem to mind the infringements are no better than the creeps in Congress who passed and refuse to remove the unconstitutional law.
People who have infringed our rights are no better than the criminals who ignore the law. Criminals misuse arms to steal from us. Politicians who pass law limiting or prohibiting our keeping and bearing of arms make things easier for criminals. People who approve of these infringements are no better than the criminals who misuse arms and the politicians who keep arms from us.
Then there is the issue of defending ourselves from invasion from without and tyranny from within. I know who to blame when it comes to being disarmed or insufficiently armed in a crisis. I'll blame all those in government who disarmed us, and all those who placed those of us in power who did the disarming. Pardon me if I don't or won't comply with any disarmament.
Pardon me if I have disdain for those of us who go along with all this disarmament and arms limitations, bureaucratic record keeping, background checks, and release from prison of violent criminals and other felons who misuse arms. You can't have my little corner of the Earth nor the rights I was born with. I've bought and paid for my little corner. I've got rights that allow me to defend it, myself, and my family. Pass all the laws you want that would destroy that. In the end, all you'll get out of those laws is death. Keep our rights uninfringed instead and LIVE FREE! With our rights in tact, no one can take our freedom, spoil our happiness, or take our lives without the risk of losing their own.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
If all you who don't seem to mind these infringements would abide the Constitution, you'd be out trying to get the Constitution amended to allow these infringements you seem to be so OK with. You are no better than the law makers who ignore the Constitution in making these laws. There is no magnanimity in what you do or allow - especially where it concerns everyone else's rights. All you who don't seem to mind the infringements are no better than the creeps in Congress who passed and refuse to remove the unconstitutional law.
People who have infringed our rights are no better than the criminals who ignore the law. Criminals misuse arms to steal from us. Politicians who pass law limiting or prohibiting our keeping and bearing of arms make things easier for criminals. People who approve of these infringements are no better than the criminals who misuse arms and the politicians who keep arms from us.
Then there is the issue of defending ourselves from invasion from without and tyranny from within. I know who to blame when it comes to being disarmed or insufficiently armed in a crisis. I'll blame all those in government who disarmed us, and all those who placed those of us in power who did the disarming. Pardon me if I don't or won't comply with any disarmament.
Pardon me if I have disdain for those of us who go along with all this disarmament and arms limitations, bureaucratic record keeping, background checks, and release from prison of violent criminals and other felons who misuse arms. You can't have my little corner of the Earth nor the rights I was born with. I've bought and paid for my little corner. I've got rights that allow me to defend it, myself, and my family. Pass all the laws you want that would destroy that. In the end, all you'll get out of those laws is death. Keep our rights uninfringed instead and LIVE FREE! With our rights in tact, no one can take our freedom, spoil our happiness, or take our lives without the risk of losing their own.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Glockfan.45
member
Well right now the amount of said ordinance in civilian hands is quite limited. If only 1000 people in America possesed alcohol do you think the number of DUIs would go down?
Calling a person Pelosi should result in a duel
. Bubba is a example nothing more. You know full and well the type of person I mean when I say Bubba, he gets brought up on this forum all the time. Bubba is the guy that says "watch this" right before he blows a finger off holding a firecracker in his hand too long, Bubba is the idiot that leaves his guns in a gun rack in the back window of his truck parked at Wal-Mart with his windows down, and the doors unlocked, Bubba is the guy that cleans his loaded shotgun while leaning over the barrel. I think we all know a Bubba. I dont care one iota about Bubba or his well being (I am a Darwinist after all). I feel no desire to protect Bubba from himself. I do however feel the desire to protect myself from Bubba. Case in point Bubba may think storing 100lbs of TNT a few feet from his fireplace is a good idea, I living across the street see it otherwise. We cant make stupid people smart, so unfourtunately having requirements regarding the storage of HE, as well as using it would be the only way to go.You saw the poll I started and you saw the results. If you cant convince other people who are relatively like minded that yours is a good idea, then how do you convince people who are either not sure, or have already formed an opinion different than yours? My point in the statement you were refering to was that to a person who is on the fence about gun ownership, or a mild anti who may still see the light saying things like "I think murderers, and rapist should own guns" does me or you no good. If you dont care what others think on the issue you should because that fence setter may be a registered voter and your little pearl of wisdom may play out in his head when he decides to punch the ballot for Schumer, or Fienstein because in his mind now any canidate who supports the Second Ammendment must also support arming criminals. Like it or not America works on the majority rules system, always has and hopefully always will (when the minority rules its called a dictatorship). Total uninfringed 100% liberty does not exist in civilized society, nor can it. Unfortunately there will always be people that may not be left to their own devices, people that need a set of rules to follow. The degree of liberty you seem to advocate exist only within the wild, and we humans shrugged off that liberty a few thousand years ago.
Must.....resist.........urge...........to.........beat.......dead.......horse. I have said it before and I will now say it for the last time. THE ISSUE IS NOT CAN CRIMINALS GET GUNS! The issue is should they be allowed to do so under the law. Lots of people have said violent criminals shouldnt be released from prison, I agree. That however sadly is not the case with our legal system today. We live in a nation where murderers, and rapist are released every day and I see now way that allowing them to bear arms is of benefit to anybody. As to the folks that make a one line post on this thread reading something like "Nobodys rights should be infringed" I dont know what to say other than your logic sounds as insane as Sarah Brady saying "Nobody needs a gun to protect themsevles". Things are rarely black and white, we often live in a world of gray. I am done on this thread, there is little left for me to say that I have not said already. You all have read the arguments, and either agree or not.
ksnecktieman
Member
I think the states should treat the first amendment however they fancy. Here in Kansas in the middle of the bible belt I think we could get a consensus to prohibit persons with a name that could be construed as a vulgarity imprisoned for it. At least on the internet, where our children might see it.
"It is for the children" is a good argument for removing rights?
I think we have a wonderful gun control law, that we need to support and enforce.
Thanks woodcdi, I have been feeling lonely as the only radical supporter of the second ammendment, as written, and as it was intended.
Glock, you want to make/change laws? Let us change the ones that let predators out of prison. Not the ones that make laws that are not enforced.
"It is for the children" is a good argument for removing rights?
I think we have a wonderful gun control law, that we need to support and enforce.
Thanks woodcdi, I have been feeling lonely as the only radical supporter of the second ammendment, as written, and as it was intended.
Glock, you want to make/change laws? Let us change the ones that let predators out of prison. Not the ones that make laws that are not enforced.
Quote:
If released rape/murderers are allowed to walk the streets, and buy knives and duct tape, then I don't see why guns will make much difference one way or the other.
Duct tape and knives required the user to be close. Firearms can be effectively used at distances.
If released rape/murderers are allowed to walk the streets, and buy knives and duct tape, then I don't see why guns will make much difference one way or the other.
Duct tape and knives required the user to be close. Firearms can be effectively used at distances.
xd9fan
Member
I'm not for a background check on ANY Bill of Right.....even reguardless what the majority of the masses think. Liberty is not defined by any majority.....Its about Individual liberty.
Sistema1927
Member
LOL!
I didn't even participate in your silly poll. It is poorly constructed and biased to your point of view. Very much a "when did you quit beating your wife" type of situation.
The answer to your poll that you missed was this:
"Do you believe that violent criminals should be permanently removed from society so as to keep them from harming other innocent people?"
It's sad that so many gun laws have been passed by people who have never even held a gun in their entire life. Honestly, what real effect do any of these things have?
Can't get an SBR, then I'll get a pistol, the SBR would be bulkier anyway.
Can't get a full-auto, then I'll get a semi and pull the trigger really fast, or worse, go on a shooting spree knowing I can't just spray everything and actually aim. (guess which guns prove more deadly in shootouts, FA's or Semi's)
Can't get a DD, then I'll just pack lighter and with more ammo.
and these points come AFTER the one where criminals don't obey laws!
It's so simple! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
*sigh*
I can easily see in the not so distant future, a bunch of guys waiting in line to get their air-rifle permits discussing the good ole' days where people could actually own firearms, and thinking that if the government keep walking all over them that they're gonna have to do something about it.
I honestly see discussing a rebellion a more realistic future than getting all the current gun law BS repealed, but neither are likely to happen.
Can't get an SBR, then I'll get a pistol, the SBR would be bulkier anyway.
Can't get a full-auto, then I'll get a semi and pull the trigger really fast, or worse, go on a shooting spree knowing I can't just spray everything and actually aim. (guess which guns prove more deadly in shootouts, FA's or Semi's)
Can't get a DD, then I'll just pack lighter and with more ammo.
and these points come AFTER the one where criminals don't obey laws!
It's so simple! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
*sigh*
I can easily see in the not so distant future, a bunch of guys waiting in line to get their air-rifle permits discussing the good ole' days where people could actually own firearms, and thinking that if the government keep walking all over them that they're gonna have to do something about it.
I honestly see discussing a rebellion a more realistic future than getting all the current gun law BS repealed, but neither are likely to happen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
