Good Ol' Boy
Member
As always, I disagree with giving up any arms for any reason, as far as law abiding citizens go.
Questioning banning semi-automatic and military weapons
- Thread starter MissouriCrowinMass
- Start date
- Status
Arkansas Paul
Member
Out there? Probably.
In here? Don't hold your breath.
Well at least you realize it.
Old Dog
Member
OP said
I'm thinking that semi-auto weapons are just too effective in killing people to be legal and to be so available. I'm talking everything between an AR and an M-9. If a law that banned the manufacture of new semi-auto weapons and provided a buy-back of existing guns over a 30-year period were passed - anyone could keep their current semi's for their lifetime. I think such a law would need to additionally guarantee & reinforce the Right of Americans to own revolvers, bolt action rifles, low capacity auto-shotguns for hunting, pump shotguns and bolt action rifles forever. I'm not for dis-arming America. I am for reducing the number of semi-automatic human-killing machines available to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Say what? Clearest example of NOT understanding WHY the Second Amendment was written that I've seen in years.
I'm thinking that semi-auto weapons are just too effective in killing people to be legal and to be so available. I'm talking everything between an AR and an M-9. If a law that banned the manufacture of new semi-auto weapons and provided a buy-back of existing guns over a 30-year period were passed - anyone could keep their current semi's for their lifetime. I think such a law would need to additionally guarantee & reinforce the Right of Americans to own revolvers, bolt action rifles, low capacity auto-shotguns for hunting, pump shotguns and bolt action rifles forever. I'm not for dis-arming America. I am for reducing the number of semi-automatic human-killing machines available to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Say what? Clearest example of NOT understanding WHY the Second Amendment was written that I've seen in years.
Hokie_PhD
Member
It also doesn’t understand that many of us use them for sport. And the only way we’d use them any other way would be to defend ourselves, others or our rights when they come for our guns and ammo
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
I am done with these statements that are coming from people that "support the 2nd Amendment" but think they're plans are just common sense, lemme tell you something fella that my daddy once told me, "Common sense aint common" and in the end I will give up my life for the right of the american people to keep their rights that the constitution didnt give them only recognized, Im ready to die at a moments notice for this nation , question for ya though, Are you?
Hokie_PhD
Member
Tom Kaine uses that “I support the 2nd Amendment” lie. And then he says stuff like this before expanding it into Australian style bans
ontarget
Member
Amen to all my THR brothers. I will just keep my mouth in park. It always warms my heart to read threads like this one to remind me that I'm not alone in my view of OVER MY DEAD BODY.
Hokie_PhD
Member
And institute national conceal carry
Sovblocgunfan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
No thank you. OP, the very arms you describe are the very ones that should garner second amendment protection the most. Much like inflammatory speech that is protected by the first amendment. Which, not ironically, is backed up by the second.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Oh dear. Well, I see where you're coming from. And it seems to have been received about as well as could be expected.
I happen to think every idea is worth objective consideration; if only to find its faults, better understand the perspective of those who support it, and ultimately question one's own beliefs and/or stance on the matter.
I personally don't think your plan would help solve much of anything. But it's often in our nature to see what we want to see, rather than all the less attractive effects of a proposed idea.
Ironicaintit
Member
Dear OP,
If what you propose was even a plausible solution;
Would you be willing to forego all of your rights to see it instituted? because they'd have to go too, in order to "ensure compliance".
Not me.
If what you propose was even a plausible solution;
Would you be willing to forego all of your rights to see it instituted? because they'd have to go too, in order to "ensure compliance".
Not me.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
No Idea what a Tom Kaine is...
BSA1
member
No.
You Sir do not want to lose your right of self-protect yourself but you do not have any problems denying other citizens the same right of self-protection by not allowing them to use the tool they think is best for their needs.
The First American says it better than I can;
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin
I submit Sir that you deserve neither.
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
Several years ago, a "celebrity" by the name of Charlton Heston, made a quotable statement about this when he claimed: "From my cold, dead hands - - -."
tark
Member
I once saw a video, that pitted a man with a double barreled shotgun (I think it was Doug Koenig) loaded with 00Buckshot, against a shooter with a FULL AUTOMATIC AK-47. The challenge was to see which man could put 60 holes in some 2" thick plywood targets, it being determined that any projectile that could penetrate 2" of plywood....could probably inflict a lethal wound.
The range was 25 yards. The Shotgun was shooting 3" magnum shells, with 12 00B pellets per round. This meant he had to reload twice. The AK man used 30 round mags, which he only had to reload once.
You guessed it. The shotgun man was finished before the AK shooter finished his one magazine change!!! And the AK shooter only scored 18 hits on the target, the rest going high and off into the wild blue yonder.!!
They counted 54 hits for the shotgun.
I'm almost scared to post this, now the left will want to post double barreled shotguns.
The range was 25 yards. The Shotgun was shooting 3" magnum shells, with 12 00B pellets per round. This meant he had to reload twice. The AK man used 30 round mags, which he only had to reload once.
You guessed it. The shotgun man was finished before the AK shooter finished his one magazine change!!! And the AK shooter only scored 18 hits on the target, the rest going high and off into the wild blue yonder.!!
They counted 54 hits for the shotgun.
I'm almost scared to post this, now the left will want to post double barreled shotguns.
AlexanderA
Member
He meant Sen.Tim Kaine.
jrmiddleton425
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
First, let's discuss what a "mass shooting" actually is. Public Law 112-265 amends Title 28 U.S.C. to define a "mass killing" as three or more dead in the same incident.
https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ265/PLAW-112publ265.pdf
A person intent on doing a mass shooting, can do it with anything that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile, in less time than it takes the police to arrive.
Understand this, here and now: as long as there is an unstable person who slips through the cracks, and decides they're going to do a mass shooting, YOU CANNOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS.
Frankly the OP smacks of "I don't care if guns are banned, so long as mine are left alone."
https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ265/PLAW-112publ265.pdf
A person intent on doing a mass shooting, can do it with anything that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile, in less time than it takes the police to arrive.
Understand this, here and now: as long as there is an unstable person who slips through the cracks, and decides they're going to do a mass shooting, YOU CANNOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS.
Frankly the OP smacks of "I don't care if guns are banned, so long as mine are left alone."
Guy B. Meredith
Member
There is no rational reason to ban ANY firearm. If a person is responsible with one type of firearm s/he will be responsible with all others. There is no rational, objective reason to compromise.
And the fact is that the really heavy weapons are just too expensive for most individuals.
There is plenty of reason to ban specific individuals. We need to enforce INDIVIDUAL responsibility, not communal responsibility. I think President Reagan said something to this effect. The community is not responsible for the individuals' behaviors and it is irrational to ask the community to accept that responsibility.
And the fact is that the really heavy weapons are just too expensive for most individuals.
There is plenty of reason to ban specific individuals. We need to enforce INDIVIDUAL responsibility, not communal responsibility. I think President Reagan said something to this effect. The community is not responsible for the individuals' behaviors and it is irrational to ask the community to accept that responsibility.
JeeperCreeper
Member
I've been down this rabbit hole myself. I regularly like to challenge my own beliefs now and again to make sure that I am actually believing in the correct thing. Time and time again I play devil's advocate with myself, and it always comes back to the same conclusion based on my personal worldview: that government "control" of any sort (firearms to finances to food to fun) is not something I'm comfortable with.
So in the end, one thing you may need to ask yourself is this: Can you ever truly control others? I'm talking on a micro-level. Can you ever control the behaviors, thoughts, actions, reactions, and emotions of others around you? The answer is no. I'm not talking about the cliche of "criminals will be able to get guns". I'm talking about how there is evil in this world and I want to be prepared to face it effectively. Because of this, this is why I don't want my rights taken away especially when it comes to the most effective means of self-defense for those that I love.
Here's a good example: My fiance is 5'0" tall and weighs under 110lbs. She lives alone in an old but big house with our dog as I am off working on my residency for my doctorate. She lives in the heart of a small city that ranks very high nationally for partying and alcohol related violence. She also works in law and has dealt with a few high profile cases that many of you would have heard about on the news.
Say a disgruntled client or relative of a client wants to do her harm. Say someone wants to threaten the employees of her office in their own homes. Since I can not control nor legislate the actions of someone who desires to commit evil, I want her to have the best chance to defend herself in that unlikely yet scary scenario. I don't want my petite fiance to have to handle a 12 gauge. I don't want her to only have 6 shots in a revolver. I don't want her to have to sling that lever on a 30-30. I want her to end the threat with 30 rounds of 300BLK in the most decisive and lethal manner possible.
You might think you don't "need" these "tactical military deadly" weapons. But I do. My tiny fiance does. And I won't tolerate people saying that "no one needs them". Just ask yourself, if someone broke into your daughter's home and intended her harm, would you want some politician to limit her choices for survival?
So in the end, one thing you may need to ask yourself is this: Can you ever truly control others? I'm talking on a micro-level. Can you ever control the behaviors, thoughts, actions, reactions, and emotions of others around you? The answer is no. I'm not talking about the cliche of "criminals will be able to get guns". I'm talking about how there is evil in this world and I want to be prepared to face it effectively. Because of this, this is why I don't want my rights taken away especially when it comes to the most effective means of self-defense for those that I love.
Here's a good example: My fiance is 5'0" tall and weighs under 110lbs. She lives alone in an old but big house with our dog as I am off working on my residency for my doctorate. She lives in the heart of a small city that ranks very high nationally for partying and alcohol related violence. She also works in law and has dealt with a few high profile cases that many of you would have heard about on the news.
Say a disgruntled client or relative of a client wants to do her harm. Say someone wants to threaten the employees of her office in their own homes. Since I can not control nor legislate the actions of someone who desires to commit evil, I want her to have the best chance to defend herself in that unlikely yet scary scenario. I don't want my petite fiance to have to handle a 12 gauge. I don't want her to only have 6 shots in a revolver. I don't want her to have to sling that lever on a 30-30. I want her to end the threat with 30 rounds of 300BLK in the most decisive and lethal manner possible.
You might think you don't "need" these "tactical military deadly" weapons. But I do. My tiny fiance does. And I won't tolerate people saying that "no one needs them". Just ask yourself, if someone broke into your daughter's home and intended her harm, would you want some politician to limit her choices for survival?
Some of you seem to have difficulty engaging in a civil discussion.
Some posts are going to be deleted and this thread will be locked.
Some posts are going to be deleted and this thread will be locked.
- Status
Similar threads
