Fairlane67
US Veteran
It's our right but yet we need to concede in order to secure it...interesting thought...but once you concede a right to an other it becomes an allowed privilege.
We have a choice to make if we want to keep our guns
- Thread starter Gunzilla
- Start date
- Status
It's our right but yet we need to concede in order to secure it...interesting thought...but once you concede a right to an other it becomes an allowed privilege.
zip777
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 361
Well as part of our beloved Obamacare they are pushing for access to all of our medical records. All they need to do is augment the database as part of the background check. Nice huh??? IMO all that would do (if it happened) would keep even MORE people from seeking medical care if they went thru a rough patch in life.
I would "like" this post twice but the like button went away after I pushed it the first time.
gdauth
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 165
Why is an electronic key pad bad?
gdauth
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 165
I can see it now. You want to buy a gun? You must be crazy, request denied!
Sorry, but just because something is viewed as "unnecessary" doesn't mean we should restrict its ownership. My biggest contention with the whole "let's ban evil assault weapons and be done with it" argument is that it's based on appearances and raw emotion rather than hard facts or logic.
Has it occured to you that the average "sporting" or hunting rifle can easily defeat soft body armor and typically uses rounds that are far more lethal than 5.56 NATO? Should we then succumb to righteous indignation and demand something be done about these "cop-killer" rifles with "exploding" bullets? Does the mere act of owning one make someone a homicidal maniac who would only use one for unlawful purposes?
I'm unwilling to make "concessions" unless they have a solid basis in reason and logic. Sadly, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for removing military pattern semi-automatic rifles from public circulation.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,110
- Reaction score
- 46,864
Apparently, you did not see my reply to you in another thread, so I'll quote it here-
I'll waste a few minutes and refute your willingness to compromise with a bit of logic.
The old cliche says 'Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.'
They want 10 miles.
Assuming all evil black rifles disappeared tomorrow, would a mass killing be impossible?
Wouldn't a pistol and a sack of 7 rd magazines do?
From your User ID, I assume you know what a 1911 is. Do you, by any chance, know that Lanza would have been as deadly with one or two 1911s and a fanny pack of 7 rd magazines?
How about an M-1 with a sack of 8rd clips?
A revolver and 30 speedloaders?
A double shotgun and a shell pouch with 2 boxes (50rds) of 00?
A 30-30 and two boxes of ammo?
My point is that people who blame the guns can never be satisfied. Outlawing guns in increments is the objective.
EBR's and hi-cap mags today.
ALL semiautos tomorrow, including yours.
Pumps and levers after that, including your Henry 38 Magnum. Maybe revolvers on that same day.
Then double shotguns.
They'll get us down to muzzle loaders if they can. That won't stop it either. 1860-65 proved they can be rather deadly.
Then, there is the cans of blackpowder.......
Get them all, and some idiot with a bow will be shooting arrows into a crowd.
Face a deranged idiot holding a quality sword, and tell him to behave.
You truly don't get it.
My gun today means your gun tomorrow.
A ban on a particular TYPE of gun WON'T work.
It will only alter the type of gun used by an assailant.
After one TYPE of gun is banned and a crime is committed with ANOTHER TYPE of gun, they will want to ban THAT type.
They will go down the list till ALL types are banned.
Get it yet?
You have the right to believe what you want.
You have Freedom of Speech. You just don't have it here on my board.
If you think I will provide the soapbox for you to preach the idea of banning any currently legal firearms, you are very mistaken. It just won't happen here.
/\ Take note of that. /\
You might want to try it on GlockTalk or the Sig Forum though.
I think they're eager to hear it.
Let us know.
.
James&theGiant1911
Member
the average hunting rifle especially bolt action could never be operated in a manner such as the AR/ AK. Granted when or if they ban assault rifles people that want to change our way of life, make an impact statement, or just want to commit mass murder will find other means such as bombs, etc.
I do not buy into all the hate for Obama and I am by no means a supporter but he has taken steps and will take steps to make sure those weapons do not find there way into the hands of people like this school shooter. I think he will find a comprise and not ban them but like you have already stated they will tie multiple records and databases together to make a link.
The weak always look for a moment to strike when everyone least expects them to. You can not prepare for something you are unprepared for and I think that has a lot to do with peoples fear or the necessity for these type of weapons. Even the AR owners here I would doubt carry them around in their vehicles with them daily. Coming across an armed AR person with a CCW handgun you might as well just sign your own death certificate.
This guy is like Jerry Quarry going up against Ali, leading with his head.
Delos
Member
Lets state the problem and possible answers differently, more honest.
If the killers mother had locked her guns in a safe while she slept he would have been forced to use a butcher knife on her, while she slept. If she wrote down a combination to a safe the kid would probably know where to look.
Not too many people would lock up all their guns while asleep in own house.
But gun safes are good. Keys and combinations are the best.
Most killings in this country are done by drug gangs fighting over turf. After dark it becomes the war over street corners, parks, parking lots, and other suitable areas to hang out and sell drugs. Many gangs require new members to kill someone to become a member. Look at any city homicide map. Just put the city name and homicide map in a search engine.
When I was living in the Greater Los Angeles area in 1970’s the drug gangs have newer members make friends with other kids and give them the first marijuana cigarette free. After the new prospect gets hooked he is told how to burgle houses and what to steal.
Yes gun safes help while you are at work. Schoolyard shootings get lots of press time. Most kids who die are from car accidents, drug overdoses or gang violence. Most divorces, battered wives and kids, are alcohol and drug related.
At least get the cell phones out of new drivers hands for the first few years of driving.
There is no army of psycho’s out there going to shoot thousands of children.
If the killers mother had locked her guns in a safe while she slept he would have been forced to use a butcher knife on her, while she slept. If she wrote down a combination to a safe the kid would probably know where to look.
Not too many people would lock up all their guns while asleep in own house.
But gun safes are good. Keys and combinations are the best.
Most killings in this country are done by drug gangs fighting over turf. After dark it becomes the war over street corners, parks, parking lots, and other suitable areas to hang out and sell drugs. Many gangs require new members to kill someone to become a member. Look at any city homicide map. Just put the city name and homicide map in a search engine.
When I was living in the Greater Los Angeles area in 1970’s the drug gangs have newer members make friends with other kids and give them the first marijuana cigarette free. After the new prospect gets hooked he is told how to burgle houses and what to steal.
Yes gun safes help while you are at work. Schoolyard shootings get lots of press time. Most kids who die are from car accidents, drug overdoses or gang violence. Most divorces, battered wives and kids, are alcohol and drug related.
At least get the cell phones out of new drivers hands for the first few years of driving.
There is no army of psycho’s out there going to shoot thousands of children.
zip777
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 361
James1911. Why are you here?? Are you voicing opinions or just trying to stir up members so threads are closed like the last one? If the trend continues I'll advocate we email the administrators and have your account and IP address banned. We heard your perspective. That's great. IMO no need for you to continually jump into different threads and get in heated discussions as you seem to be doing.
Sure they can. I know for a fact that Lee-Enfield rifles can be fired and reloaded (via stripper clips) about as quickly as a semi-automatic rifle.
Sorry, but they'll still find ways of obtaining them. Whether through circumventing the law in creative ways or purchasing them illegally.
This will be the last time I respond, as I believe it would be in your best interests to heed the moderator's warnings.
Delos
Member
These guns used in that school were purchased legally. But lets talk about illegal guns.
It begins with a teenager’s new friend, who gave him his first illegal drugs for free, becomes his pusher. Then it becomes obvious he represents a fence. He knows what stolen items can be fenced for drugs.
In other words modern home burglars come with a mental shopping list. They do not accidentally stumble on a gun. They are looking under pillows and mattresses and in dresser drawers for that valuable handgun. How much heroin can he shoot in his arm after the fence and pusher get their cut? After the smugglers get their cut.
Have a policeman stand at the school door with a drug sniffing dog on occasion. In other words give the kids some help against the pushers and fences. (Police harassment the hungry lawyers will say)
The politicians and the courts seem to not be serious about the war on drugs. We must buy safes and house alarm systems, and form neighborhood watches. Many people who must live in or near the bad side of town put bars on windows.
Easy to blame the victim rather than enforce laws. Good guy politicians get reelected. Keeping someone’s poor criminal child in jail is such a burden.
How about if Hollywood starts putting out movies where the young people actually dial 911 when appropriate. Movies where police actually show up and teenagers give a description of the criminal. A movie where most people act like honorable adults.
Next we will need cement garages with steel doors to secure our vehicles. Or it will be our fault when it is stolen and stripped by someone’s child needing drugs, someone whose vote the politician wants.
How about we vote for law and order politicians who can also balance the budget. How about they not give pardons to criminals as they leave office. How about our politicians not retire from their jobs as millionaires.
beemerphile
Member
It is a short trip from " You have to have a safe" to "All your guns have to be locked in a safe unloaded and the ammo has to be locked up separately in a different room".
I would suggest that this legislation be titled "The Home Invaders Full Employment Act"
I would suggest that this legislation be titled "The Home Invaders Full Employment Act"
andrewb70
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 211
Handejector was right on the money when he said that you do not get it. So let me put it another way.
My parents brought me to this country from the USSR in 1980. Unlike you, I clearly understand the meaning and the intent of the 2nd amendment. It has zero to do with crime and 100% to do with protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you take up reading some history books instead of convincing people that they don't need this or that type of gun.
This country is looking like the USSR with each passing day and it pisses me off, as it should everyone.
Andrew
Vom Brunhaus K9
Member
Biden should not be allowed to run Obamas Committee, hes shown his prejudice towards guns and gun owners for over 3 decades. People should discuss with him this USAs involvemewnt with wars and invasions with these Radical Countries that teach their YOUNG to carry Auto and Semi Autos from the time they can walk. Nothing more these Countries, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan would like to hear is that the US is disarming its Citzens step by step with Gun bans and Restrictions.
andrewb70
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 211
There is nothing to discuss. The law of the land clearly states:
"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."
Can't people read?
"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."
Can't people read?
OP
Gunzilla
Member
....as you wish:
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/guns_theft_fs.pdf
“How Many Guns Are Stolen Each Year Statistics” | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog
How many guns are stolen each year? | ChaCha
How 232,400 Guns Are Stolen Each Year | American Criminal Justice
Some estimates are higher (600,000) and some are lower (235,000), not sure how they are calculated....but does it really make any difference? The fact that guns are stolen at an alarming rate and mostly used to commit other crimes (and sometimes to accidentally kill a brother or sister) should be enough to encourage the staunchest gun rights advocate to buy a safe to secure and protect their investments, documents, jewelry, cameras, cash, gold...etc...etc...etc.....from theft and fire.
My question is what do you want more: a 2nd amendment intact without restrictions to the type of firearms....or limits, and the possible outright ban, on civilian ownership of guns?
We all know the liberals want the latter and are fighting hard to get it.....what are you willing to do to cut them off at the pass?
I contend that doing nothing is inviting laws that none of us will be willing to obey.
OP
Gunzilla
Member
Where do you come to this asinine conclusion by reading my postings?
Nowhere did I suggest that EVERY GUN be under lock & key.....only the ones NOT being carried for self defense on a daily basis.
With all this resistance to being responsible I'm having my doubts about how many of you I would want as my neighbor...knowing that your closet is your only means available to you to secure your guns.
It incomprehensible to think that a group of people that love their guns so much take so few precautions to insure that they will still be there when they come home from work each day....and that their children haven't shot each other, or their classmates, yet.
Updated quote from another thread
The Connecticut massacre is of far higher consequence that all other gun incidence in the last 100 years because it involves for all intents murdering women and babies. The same massacres in Scotland and Germany (and Australia) caused such public outrage firearms were confiscated in mass. Legislators will be pressed to vote for any bill place in from of them, second amendment or no second amendment, for fear the public will not only vote them out of office but tar and feather them if they don’t. Killing babies is the greatest sin in society (just read the recent trial furor of mothers killing their kids in recent years).
In this process there is a far bigger issue on the table than guns or firearms in general or owing gun safes. It is the age old question of how our government will keep the masses in line so we don’t have the potential to destroy our government. History shows a governments first job will always be to preserve itself even at the cost of its citizens. Our founding fathers understood this and left the threat of armed citizens in the constitution as a counter balance to government control.
With Obama being a big governments centrist like those in European government his aim is control. His primary vehicle of will be Homeland Security and his control method will be information about all firearms in the form of federal registrations and their potential threat to the U.S. Government. Even though this is currently a states right under “… the need to support and maintain militias…” Obama will challenge states registration under national security and terrorist acts laws.
Under the guise of weeping for the fallen babies Obama will apply as much of language in the current U.N. gun proliferation treaty now in progress to his new law. There are any numbers of scenarios that may come from this treaty but the objective is simple: cut off the spread or proliferation of (trade and importation) of guns and ammo between nations. In the process many types of apparatus that apply to “military fire power” will be made illegal for civilian usage and ownership (bans) of certain firearms may be included in confiscation if enough voting support is available (there will be some exceptions if this is done).
The wave of public indignation surrounding this tragedy, the liberal media thrashing that all gun owners will take and the verbal beatings and warnings from Obama will cause even the staunchest gun owner to capitulate to Obama’s demands.
This is the point in U.S. history that the government by the people for the people may end. It may end with liberal reporters asking each of our representatives in congress “…So what is more important <Reps name> preventing the killing of women and babies or protecting gun owners…”
The Connecticut massacre is of far higher consequence that all other gun incidence in the last 100 years because it involves for all intents murdering women and babies. The same massacres in Scotland and Germany (and Australia) caused such public outrage firearms were confiscated in mass. Legislators will be pressed to vote for any bill place in from of them, second amendment or no second amendment, for fear the public will not only vote them out of office but tar and feather them if they don’t. Killing babies is the greatest sin in society (just read the recent trial furor of mothers killing their kids in recent years).
In this process there is a far bigger issue on the table than guns or firearms in general or owing gun safes. It is the age old question of how our government will keep the masses in line so we don’t have the potential to destroy our government. History shows a governments first job will always be to preserve itself even at the cost of its citizens. Our founding fathers understood this and left the threat of armed citizens in the constitution as a counter balance to government control.
With Obama being a big governments centrist like those in European government his aim is control. His primary vehicle of will be Homeland Security and his control method will be information about all firearms in the form of federal registrations and their potential threat to the U.S. Government. Even though this is currently a states right under “… the need to support and maintain militias…” Obama will challenge states registration under national security and terrorist acts laws.
Under the guise of weeping for the fallen babies Obama will apply as much of language in the current U.N. gun proliferation treaty now in progress to his new law. There are any numbers of scenarios that may come from this treaty but the objective is simple: cut off the spread or proliferation of (trade and importation) of guns and ammo between nations. In the process many types of apparatus that apply to “military fire power” will be made illegal for civilian usage and ownership (bans) of certain firearms may be included in confiscation if enough voting support is available (there will be some exceptions if this is done).
The wave of public indignation surrounding this tragedy, the liberal media thrashing that all gun owners will take and the verbal beatings and warnings from Obama will cause even the staunchest gun owner to capitulate to Obama’s demands.
This is the point in U.S. history that the government by the people for the people may end. It may end with liberal reporters asking each of our representatives in congress “…So what is more important <Reps name> preventing the killing of women and babies or protecting gun owners…”
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
