RE: A new ACW.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 3:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I haven't really paid too much attention to the recent gun regulation debate. As a non-gunowner it really doesn't affect me much, unless some gun nut comes along someday and shoots me. My father owns a couple assault rifles, I'm embarrassed to say. They really aren't good for anything practical other than going to the range and shooting up targets or allowing one to at least partially live out fantasies involving some sort of combat against other human beings (which is itself a little scarry to begin with). Obviously there should be some kind of limit to what sorts of weapons average citizens should be permitted to own. I don't know if assault weapons are a good place to draw the line or not. It sounds to me like they are. Not sure why anyone needs an assault rifle other than the military or police. Pistols for self defense are maybe reasonable, but assault rifles seem a bit over the top. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by certain individuals, at least a little bit.


Banning any gun will never solve the problem. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, also had two handguns. And banning gun clips that hold more than 10 rounds will not change anything. Any criminal can simply carry multiple clips. Don't forget that Adam Lanza's mother owned the guns he used, he took them from her.

Jacob Tyler Roberts, who killed two people on a spree in an Oregon shopping mall, wouldn't have been affected, since he got his gun by stealing it.

The point is, there should be no ban on "assault rifles" or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The men who crafted the bill of rights wrote in clear words that the main reason for our second amendment is for the citizenry to protect itself from the government. The very protection we need now.



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:02:10 PM)

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.



vonRocko -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

The proposal that doctor's ask if a patient has guns at home is downright chilling. It is really no one's business if I have guns in my house.


Yes, isn't that brilliant! (sarcasm)[sm=rolleyes.gif] Next they will line you up and the "doctor" will send you to the left or right lines for "special treatment".



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:30:04 PM)

The first problem in banning 'assault weapons' is the definition. Non-gun owners just kind of wave their hand at the bunch and assume they're all 'assault weapons'. Kind of like porn, I guess-you can't really define it, but you 'know it when you see it'?

One of the problems with the 'assault weapons ban' that ran from 1994-2004 was the 'whack a mole' phenomenon. When you define X model as an assault weapon because of 'Y' characteristic (or even just the model number!), manufacturers change the model slightly (and give it a new model number) to evade those sanctions. Poorly defined legislation is fallible and liable for exploitation.

The majority of the 'assault weapons' sold in this country are semiautomatic rifles of small (.223 or 5.56mm) caliber. They DO make for excellent varmint rifles (squirrels, coyote, rabbit, other small game) because of the small caliber weapon and the flat ballistic trajectory offered by this particular cartridge. There are a fair number of handgun hunters out there that hunt sizeable game with large caliber pistols too.

But even if there were absolutely no useful hunting purpose for a semi-automatic weapon (now, we're probably talking about small frame pistols), I couldn't care less. Because legal ownership is not predicated upon its functionality as an exclusively hunting weapon.

I believe in reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms or weapons of exclusively military value. Case in point: existing regulations and restrictions against ownership of grenade launchers, RPGs, crew-served machine guns (genuine MGs, not semi-automatic weapons that are misclassified as 'machine guns') and comparatively strict regulation of fully automatic weapons. These have been in place for some time, have broad support and are reasonable.

For an honest discussion, both sides have to recognize what the other really really wants in the long run. Anti-gun advocates want abolition of all firearms of all types. Period. They'll go about getting it by 'nibbling on the edges' until de-facto abolition exists. It would be nice if they had the decency to underscore their end game. Some on the other side want access to anything and everything-all the time. They balk at ANY regulations, no matter how reasonable. Neither approach is reasonable.

There IS a reasonable middle ground here. Perhaps something that could be done to limit the likelihood of this occuring in the future. In my opinion, the middle ground lies not with definitions of what an assault weapon is or isn't or what it 'feels' like. Nor is it in identifying the 'legitimate' use of said weapon model as a hunting platform.

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur. There's a slippery slope to some of these issues, to be sure. And this is a Constitutional amendment / Bill of Rights we're talking about-not some traffic law subject to constant re-interpretation.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think that reasoned men can make some reasoned decisions about these sorts of things. I've not seen too much from either side yet to suggest that we're approaching this in a reasoned manner, unfortunately.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:33:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.


Again, it is irrelevant whether something is controversial. All that matters is the second amendment. We must always be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government and this can't be done without being armed properly. Step one ban assault rifles because we are told we do not need them. Step two, clips with more than 10 rounds because the government says we don't need them. Then all rifles, because someone murders people with one and we are told by the government "YOU DON'T NEED A RIFLE". Stalin and Hitler did not suddenly take power on a Monday and by the end of the day they were in total control. They took baby steps. That is why we should oppose these proposals.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:36:28 PM)

quote:

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur.


I have no problem with background checks, but it is so obvious this would have changed nothing about Sandy Hook, the shooter's mother legally bought the gun he used and he took it from her. So once again, those who want to do harm will.



Mundy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:38:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.


Hyperbole much Gary?

FBI Stats

Why the irrational angst against so called "assault weapons"? Clearly, they are involved in a extremely small percentage of murders. All rifles combined make up 2.5% of them. It seems that gun haters' sense of cause and effect leaves much to be desired.

If military type weapons are clearly not intended for the common people, then why can't I have a sawed off shotgun? When that went before the supreme court, the ban was upheld because it was not a weapon the military would use.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:44:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur.


I have no problem with background checks, but it is so obvious this would have changed nothing about Sandy Hook, the shooter's mother legally bought the gun he used and he took it from her. So once again, those who want to do harm will.


You're right. Which is why the timing of Obama's Executive Orders is inherently suspect here. Clearly, it's taking advantage of the raw wound on the American / world psyche associated with Sandy Hook. They're trying to push through something-anything will do-while this is a front page issue.

No matter whether it would have prevented the tragedy or not. This mechanism (rushed Executive Orders rather than bills vetted by both houses and the courts) is suspect, as are the motives for its signing.

This suspicious activity, clearly without bi-partisan support (or support outside of the White House) is political theatre, nothing more. When it is cast down as being unconstitutional or found by the courts to be beyond the bounds of the Executive office, it will be years from now. Nothing will have changed.

Our imperious President should have someone whispering in his ear that real change is not by Imperial fiat. "Supreme power is extended by a mandate from the masses, not some farsical aquatic ceremony!" Alright, the last bit I borrowed from Monty Python, but you get the idea. Executive orders don't stand the test of time.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:45:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.


Hyperbole much Gary?

FBI Stats

Why the irrational angst against so called "assault weapons"? Clearly, they are involved in a extremely small percentage of murders. All rifles combined make up 2.5% of them. It seems that gun haters' sense of cause and effect leaves much to be desired.

If military type weapons are clearly not intended for the common people, then why can't I have a sawed off shotgun? When that went before the supreme court, the ban was upheld because it was not a weapon the military would use.



All good points. We should recall the 1994 ban on assault rifles-it was a failure. Shootings occurred regularly after the ban. I hate to be a realist here, but I don't think there is a solution.



danlongman -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:55:23 PM)

This discussion passed having any meaning a long time ago. Everybody thinks they are smarter than everybody else
when the discussion is more about FEELINGS than anything. No logic applies and the amount of smartass commentary
and ridiculous hyperbole indicates nobody is serious on a discussion level. They just KNOW they are right and never,
ever think about it because thinking is for humans. If pro gun people want to keep their guns they had better start
thinking and stop reacting. Your position is by no means obviously correct as is so arrogantly suggested.
The only reason things are the way they are is that gun regulation people just can't get their sh*t together.
If they ever do you can say goodbye to your hokey old gun religion. I am not pro regulation, I am anti idiot.
And that is how I FEEL.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 4:56:49 PM)

The estimable Professor Walter E. Williams recently wrote:

"When I attended primary and secondary school -- during the 1940s and '50s -- one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped."

"Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father."

"Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society."

Hard to support strict gun control laws when we read what Dr. Williams wrote.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 5:12:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: danlongman

This discussion passed having any meaning a long time ago. Everybody thinks they are smarter than everybody else
when the discussion is more about FEELINGS than anything. No logic applies and the amount of smartass commentary
and ridiculous hyperbole indicates nobody is serious on a discussion level. They just KNOW they are right and never,
ever think about it because thinking is for humans. If pro gun people want to keep their guns they had better start
thinking and stop reacting. Your position is by no means obviously correct as is so arrogantly suggested.
The only reason things are the way they are is that gun regulation people just can't get their sh*t together.
If they ever do you can say goodbye to your hokey old gun religion. I am not pro regulation, I am anti idiot.
And that is how I FEEL.


Establishing legislation on our Constitution amendments on the basis of your reactive feelings fills me with dread. At least that's the way I think.



Qwixt -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 5:17:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: danlongman

This discussion passed having any meaning a long time ago. Everybody thinks they are smarter than everybody else
when the discussion is more about FEELINGS than anything. No logic applies and the amount of smartass commentary
and ridiculous hyperbole indicates nobody is serious on a discussion level. They just KNOW they are right and never,
ever think about it because thinking is for humans. If pro gun people want to keep their guns they had better start
thinking and stop reacting. Your position is by no means obviously correct as is so arrogantly suggested.
The only reason things are the way they are is that gun regulation people just can't get their sh*t together.
If they ever do you can say goodbye to your hokey old gun religion. I am not pro regulation, I am anti idiot.
And that is how I FEEL.


It's an internet forum, and it's disproportionately for one side. Does anyone really take these things seriously due to the anonymity? There is no real discussion here. It's basically the same few posting the same stuff ad nauseum till there is just one position represented, then a congratulatory pat on the back for having a great discussion. The thread was officially over with the Hitler quote as far as I am concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 5:33:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: danlongman

This discussion passed having any meaning a long time ago. Everybody thinks they are smarter than everybody else
when the discussion is more about FEELINGS than anything. No logic applies and the amount of smartass commentary
and ridiculous hyperbole indicates nobody is serious on a discussion level. They just KNOW they are right and never,
ever think about it because thinking is for humans. If pro gun people want to keep their guns they had better start
thinking and stop reacting. Your position is by no means obviously correct as is so arrogantly suggested.
The only reason things are the way they are is that gun regulation people just can't get their sh*t together.
If they ever do you can say goodbye to your hokey old gun religion. I am not pro regulation, I am anti idiot.
And that is how I FEEL.


Establishing legislation on our Constitution amendments on the basis of your reactive feelings fills me with dread. At least that's the way I think.


This is where i exit stage left. Having the discussion is pointless when many refuse to research and understand the second amendment. It is also disheartening when many refuse to admit that no amount of legislation restricting guns or ammo will ever change anything-except infringement upon the second amendment.

Most congressman(democrats included) will oppose most of the President's proposals because they will be told to by their bosses-voters.

I'm done here.



Mobius -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 6:45:01 PM)

There is a problem with background checks. That is someone who isn't allowed to have a gun can get someone else to buy it for them. It often is a female relative or companion with no record or history of criminal activity or mental illness.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 6:59:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

There is a problem with background checks. That is someone who isn't allowed to have a gun can get someone else to buy it for them. It often is a female relative or companion with no record or history of criminal activity or mental illness.

That's one of many problems with the currently implemented background checks.

Another biggy? Fake IDs or IDs used for people other than the person providing the ID. Some recent checks have found that FBI undercover buyers have no problem with buying with fake IDs. The background check isn't designed to identify use of fake IDs per se.

Another other biggy? Vastly different state compliance rates with reporting people with medical histories of mental illness. Some states do a pretty good job, other states have reported fewer than 5 total cases since 2004. It's difficult for the states uniformly enforce compliance in this era of patient rights, HIPAA concerns and the like. Curiously, some states do a good job at reporting convictions for domestic violence to the background check, but a poorer job of identifying other felonies. Some states will allow access to purchase after time served (from a felony), but not for misdeameanor drug / alcohol or domestic violence convictions / pleads. The whole thing is impenetrable and fraught with loopholes, exceptions and head scratchers.



vonRocko -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 8:43:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law



Well you know, a smart population would be on the watch for similarities because it is so easy to repeat those mistakes. If comparisons are made, it is only to remind people that the world has seen this stuff before, in a "civilized" country, and we know where it could lead. But it is already lost anyway, the masses couldn't care less. They got cellphones, american idol, and cars and video games. Who needs freedom now? We're all quit comfy in the gilded cage.
[8D]



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 8:56:21 PM)

quote:

. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by a few individuals, at least a little bit.


Gary, that, along with the quotes from VP Biden and Pres. Obama saying (more or less) 'We have to take action, even if it only saves one life' ; begs the question "what other things are there that we could do to save one (or more) life(lives)?

In 2010 in the US 35,332 people died in motor vehicle accident.
In 2010 in the US 25,682 people died due to alcohol-induced deaths.
In 2010 in the US 10,078 people died (homicide) by discharge of firearms.

Since more than twice as many people are killed by alcohol than guns, and more than three times as many people are killed by motor vehicles than by guns, should we consider banning alcohol and motor vehicles?

We can save many more lives by banning alcohol and motor vehicles than we can save by banning guns.
(And keep in mind that death caused by assault weapons is a small subset of the overall ' death by firearms' category).



Jeffrey H. -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 8:57:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

There is a problem with background checks. That is someone who isn't allowed to have a gun can get someone else to buy it for them. It often is a female relative or companion with no record or history of criminal activity or mental illness.



I'm pretty sure that's called a "straw purchase" and I'm also pretty sure that's also a crime. I do recall that some of the guns used by the Columbine murders were essentially straw purchases.

I don't know what the conviction rates are for straw purchases but noone was convicted in the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Of course, our government can do it all it wants to. Rules ? Those are for the law abiding types.




Jeffrey H. -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 9:02:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

All good points. We should recall the 1994 ban on assault rifles-it was a failure. Shootings occurred regularly after the ban. I hate to be a realist here, but I don't think there is a solution.



Well, there is, but the consequences of trying to make it happen are even worse than the resulting perceived benefit.




Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 9:13:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

There is a problem with background checks. That is someone who isn't allowed to have a gun can get someone else to buy it for them. It often is a female relative or companion with no record or history of criminal activity or mental illness.



I'm pretty sure that's called a "straw purchase" and I'm also pretty sure that's also a crime. I do recall that some of the guns used by the Columbine murders were essentially straw purchases.

I don't know what the conviction rates are for straw purchases but noone was convicted in the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Of course, our government can do it all it wants to. Rules ? Those are for the law abiding types.




Good point. And the most frustrating part about politicians thinking that they can "solve the problem by passing a law" is that many laws currently on the books are not being enforced. I thought I heard somewhere that a federal department that conducts audits on firearms applications determined that over 70,000 people a year lie on their application (which is a criminal offense if I recall). But they prosecuted less than a couple hundred of those. So what sense did it make make it a crime to lie if they only enforce a handful of cases. People will lie if they know that they are unlikely to be punished for it.





barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 10:27:14 PM)

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/17/2013 10:57:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45
what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

Let's just leave that particular debate out of the thread please. It's walked a fine line so far but I can't see it surviving if that is added to the mix.

Cheers

Pip



Aurelian -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 1:42:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45
what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

Let's just leave that particular debate out of the thread please. It's walked a fine line so far but I can't see it surviving if that is added to the mix.

Cheers

Pip



Yes. Let's not go down that road.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 1:55:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

[&o]



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 4:12:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.


Hyperbole much Gary?

FBI Stats

Why the irrational angst against so called "assault weapons"? Clearly, they are involved in a extremely small percentage of murders. All rifles combined make up 2.5% of them. It seems that gun haters' sense of cause and effect leaves much to be desired.

If military type weapons are clearly not intended for the common people, then why can't I have a sawed off shotgun? When that went before the supreme court, the ban was upheld because it was not a weapon the military would use.



What irrational angst??? [&:]

EDIT: Well, only 12 people were killed by explosives in 2011. Should we conclude that private ownership of explosives should be ok?



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 4:18:26 AM)

Speaking of guns. I was awoken at 1:00 a.m. this morning with a phone call from my daughter who lives about 15 miles from me. She said she heard what she believed someone was trying to get in her back door and the sound of it woke her up. I told her to call the police and to turn on the lights quickly, which she did. She is alone with my grandson as her fiancee is on deployment in Afghanistan. The police arrived about 20 minutes later and checked the area and were unable to find anyone around her premises. The rest of the night she stayed awake laying in her sons bed with him. Keep in mind that she is in a low crime area, but break ins do happen from time to time and it could very easily be some meth head looking for cash or worse. I couldn't sleep after that either.

This morning she called me again and asked if I could loan her one of my shotguns or a pistol, either of which I think would be too unwieldy for her situation. I'm afraid of her using one of my semi-automatics for fear of a FFF or stovepipe. I'm just not sure that she could rectify it in that fateful moment. Plus, the only revolvers I have are .357's. Too big for a girl. I suggested she purchase something along the lines of a .38 in the slim probability that she would need to defend herself and my grandson.

Today I met her after work at a local gun dealer and let me tell you it was mayhem in there. I have never seen it so busy, even around deer season. They said, and was later confirmed by calling around to other dealers, that there are not enough guns available from the manufactures and they could not even order any at this time. Whatever one thinks of the current trend, there is definitely a run on firearms.
Luckily they did have what she was looking for in a Smith and Wesson .38 Special Model 637 AirWeight. Very nice piece.

Tomorrow we hit the range for an intense practice/ familiarity/ safety lesson. I think we will both sleep better knowing that in the rare event that she needs to defend her castle that she will be properly armed and her skills will be honed. It's her first pistol and with that it is her duty to be both safe and comfortable with her new firearm. I intend to make her so.

Prices are high right now though and her timing was not the best for her pocketbook. I pray that it never sees any action besides the gun range, yet with the man of the house gone in some distant land, it is her right and duty to protect her valuables, especially young Jeremiah.

And this is why we have our Second Amendment, among others. Individual and property Rights.

It sucks that some would threaten those Rights, whether they be the politicians, pundits, or criminals.





[image]local://upfiles/21148/EDD0243418CD4F6D809348E03B16E4F3.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/21148/F916B2214418491B88AFBB0EE4492ED2.jpg[/image]



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 5:29:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by a few individuals, at least a little bit.


Gary, that, along with the quotes from VP Biden and Pres. Obama saying (more or less) 'We have to take action, even if it only saves one life' ; begs the question "what other things are there that we could do to save one (or more) life(lives)?

In 2010 in the US 35,332 people died in motor vehicle accident.
In 2010 in the US 25,682 people died due to alcohol-induced deaths.
In 2010 in the US 10,078 people died (homicide) by discharge of firearms.

Since more than twice as many people are killed by alcohol than guns, and more than three times as many people are killed by motor vehicles than by guns, should we consider banning alcohol and motor vehicles?

We can save many more lives by banning alcohol and motor vehicles than we can save by banning guns.
(And keep in mind that death caused by assault weapons is a small subset of the overall ' death by firearms' category).


I really can't see living without motor vehicles. Alcohol, how often does someone break into your house and force you to drink yourself to death so if people want to drink themselves to death that's maybe arguably their business. And DUI is probably well off being illegal. But assault guns? I can see society without assault guns and it doesn't look so bleak. Not sure what good assault guns are except for killing the most human beings in the shortest amount of time. They aren't really for hunting and they are a bit overkill for self defense. Pistols are probably more practical for that. Most people I have encountered who fight tooth and nail for assault guns usually seem to think the government is out to get them or think the world is about to end and they need to build a bunker in their basement...not the most mentally stable people out there. Take any murderer out there and ask him why he used a pistol or shotgun and he'd probably tell you because he couldn't conveniently get his hands on an AK-47 at the moment. Assault guns are for killing humans en masse. That's sort of why they were invented and that's what they are best for. If you aren't in the army then there really aren't many situations where a private citizen needs to kill large numbers of human beings. If a burglar breaks into your house a .357 magnum is probably as good a deterent as any. [:(]



Aurelian -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 5:37:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

[&o]


So we do want to go down this road....OK.

Ummm, abortion is legal. And why would the President, any President, be a hypocrite? Last I looked, SCOTUS decided Roe.

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 5:48:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.


+1



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875