Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Join the fight

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Many statements in this thread are opinions. I believe the men who wrote the constitution and amendments were extremely smart and I agree we in the second amendment that we have the right to bear arms. In my opinion they could only been able to see into the countries future so much and if assualt rifles were available and their underlyinf use was hunting and personal defense I doubt assualt rifles would be included. Just my opinion.

    The military hypothesis is to me a scare tactic. By oath all military personel take one of two oaths to to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies. If our military tried to over the government the number of civilians and peace officers would not have a chance if the Army and Airforce through the coup unlike 1791 when the second ammendment and bear arms basically was the same playing field for civilians and military.

    Assualt weapons imo should be banned. The average civilian could not hit the broad side of a barn. In basic USMC training at 100 yards recruits who undertookbasic M16 familiarization and such missed the big fat target and in the first rounds of firing there were enough maggies drawers to clothe a small nation.

    Assualt weapons are a killing tool that has a firing rate that surpasses a semiautomatic bolt or lever action non assualt weapon which are weapons used to hunt critters for food and provide some protection.

    In the NIU shooting an assualt rifle was not used. He used two pistols(a 9mm glock a a 9mm SigSauer) and a shotgun, Other attacks did use semi Automatic assualt weapons but I have not found if they where modified or not.

    For what it is worth assualt weapons should have a distinct definition and have a detailed background check, a three week wating period for them as well as clip based pistols like the Glock and SigSauer. The limted restrictions we do have nee to be enforced a gun shows so that legally the playing field is the same. This will not lockdown all assualt rifles because of the black market but hopefully with a mandatory background check, and a waiting period may help the matter. When purchasing a new weapon a check of their FOID card should be done and if more that three years have passed then another background check may be called for.

    IMO assualt style and sniper class weapons should be banned. They have a key purpose which is to have a high cyclictic rate of fire and to kill indescrinately.

    To set the record straight I support a citizens right to bear arms, but for the better good a definition of assualt weapon and ease of modification by a gunsmith to adopt them to full automatics should be defined.

    I own 2 safes related to my rifles and shotguns(plugs always in.)
    and a seperate hidden safe for ammuntion in the house.

    My reference to kids is that in 2008 one of my daughters went thruthe NIU ordeal. She was sitting in on the ocean science class in the lecture hall when the shooting started.

    So yes, for obvious reasons I would like to see state and federal regulatins barring new sales of assualt weapons put into place, better background checks, a waiting period and followup background whenever their permit own firearms expires.

    Comment


      As you just stated that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Banning any gun won't do any good.Criminals don't obey laws.Mentally ill people don't consider laws when they snap.Law abiding citizens that own guns don't kill people.My choice is to keep my guns loaded because you can't tell a intruder with a gun "wait a minute i have to load my gun" . I'm thinking logically and your thinking emotionally.Not saying i'm right,but i'll bet i live longer if a armed intruder breaks into my house.You will have to load your gun after you unlock two separate safes.Good luck!As for gun laws Chicago has some of the strictest laws in the nation.They have already had nearly 100 gun related crimes this year and we haven't even seen a month go by.People will never agree on this subject so we each do what we think is best.I prefer to have equal or greater force than what i'm threatened with.
      I do all my own stunt work. hey ya'll watch dis.

      Comment


        Well I'm glad we all have the freedoms to discuss these issues like gentlemen, explain our sides and let the chips fall as they will on Election Day. When enough congressional representatives are elected who stand on a platform of banning "assault" style weapons, and they pass an amendment to the constitution to do so, I will say the process has worked as advertised. Until then, I will point out the existence and purpose of the second amendment and protect and defend the constitution and all of its amendments.
        Last edited by Ewok; 01-27-2013, 01:15 AM.
        2009 RZ2, PCM 343, MLA Surf Ballast, Premium Sound.
        2013 Toyota Sequoia 4WD W/Timbren SES

        Comment


          Amen, Ewok. Lab, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. That is a straw arguement. I can say, if my daughter was there when the shooting started, I would have wanted her to have that Sig or Glock right then and loaded.

          Comment


            I'm pretty sure muskets and flint locks would have been classified as Assault Rifles back when this Great Country started and they used them just as we do today
            Plus the British, Russians, and now the USA have tried to defeat Afghanistan rebels for the last little bit of recent history and could not get it done and yet they are only armed with small arms and IED's.
            Just my opinion.
            "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail" John Wooden- Rest in Peace

            Comment


              Since when did the Bill of Rights become the "Bill of Needs" or the "Bill of Wants"? You and I have the Right to own one or multiple firearms. If you choose not to own any, that's your Right. Don't think for one minute that I'm going to give up the same Rights as you do, and don't expect me to defend your Rights while you wish to deprive me of mine.

              Comment


                Originally posted by 383ws6 View Post
                Since when did the Bill of Rights become the "Bill of Needs" or the "Bill of Wants"? You and I have the Right to own one or multiple firearms. If you choose not to own any, that's your Right. Don't think for one minute that I'm going to give up the same Rights as you do, and don't expect me to defend your Rights while you wish to deprive me of mine.
                I agree
                www.1320diesel.com Home of the Fastest Diesels!
                http://youtu.be/dEDdM0Y3IGs?hd=1

                Comment


                  Originally posted by 383ws6 View Post
                  Since when did the Bill of Rights become the "Bill of Needs" or the "Bill of Wants"? You and I have the Right to own one or multiple firearms. If you choose not to own any, that's your Right. Don't think for one minute that I'm going to give up the same Rights as you do, and don't expect me to defend your Rights while you wish to deprive me of mine.
                  Then buy all means, enjoy your right to inhale asbestos, eat trans fats, induce narcotics of any choice, remove your catalytic converter, use lead plumbing and pick up some C4 while your at the hardware store. It's your RIGHT.

                  Comment


                    One thing to keep in mind: Firearms are special. There is a reason they are the one and only physical product specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Our Founders knew that, and we forget it at our peril.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by WABoating View Post
                      One thing to keep in mind: Firearms are special. There is a reason they are the one and only physical product specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Our Founders knew that, and we forget it at our peril.
                      Well said.

                      As to my daughter and using a Sig or Glock tthey did not have access to one and if they did it would not go to school.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Nobody View Post
                        Many here see gun limitations as a violation against their 2nd amendment instead of looking at the purpose and usefulness of specific weapons in "modern society". We've outlawed many things that have posed a risk to to our health and society when it's proven they cause more harm than good. If we really cared about our society as much as we do our family, we would make compromises for the greater good. Instead, we're back to the same ole selfish, self centered few that cry like little children when their candy gets taken away.
                        How is it that you think your opinion is any less self centered or selfish , lead pipes doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly, asbestas doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly , and last guns, any guns, any weapon, doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly.
                        If the DEMS were so caring about all people as you said then why have they always held back the blacks, the Rs passed the civil rights bill, and the DEMS continue to hold them back with all their wealfare programs just like when they were on the southern Dems, plantations, they fed them ( food stamps ) clothed and housed them ( welfare checks and hud ), look at all the Dems who were KKK members in congress, so dont tell me about how caring you are as a DEM, NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF, all you ever do on this forum is insult people is that your definition of caring?

                        Comment


                          ^^^^^And now you know"The rest of the story"
                          I do all my own stunt work. hey ya'll watch dis.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by dom w. forte View Post
                            How is it that you think your opinion is any less self centered or selfish , lead pipes doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly, asbestas doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly , and last guns, any guns, any weapon, doesnt hurt anybody unless handled improperly.
                            If the DEMS were so caring about all people as you said then why have they always held back the blacks, the Rs passed the civil rights bill, and the DEMS continue to hold them back with all their wealfare programs just like when they were on the southern Dems, plantations, they fed them ( food stamps ) clothed and housed them ( welfare checks and hud ), look at all the Dems who were KKK members in congress, so dont tell me about how caring you are as a DEM, NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF, all you ever do on this forum is insult people is that your definition of caring?
                            Yes Dom, that must be all I do. At least I'm not fear based worried about a military or government coup coming to take me away.

                            Comment


                              ^^^^^^ HAHA DONT HAVE to read this dipshit anymore.. Just see his name.. LMAO love it doods a tool
                              www.1320diesel.com Home of the Fastest Diesels!
                              http://youtu.be/dEDdM0Y3IGs?hd=1

                              Comment


                                For those who think we should "get rid of guns" because "it might save just one life", consider the following:

                                Vaccinations save countless lives every year. But there is a nonzero percentage of people, including infants, that are killed by the vaccinations themselves. Just getting the vaccination kills them. This is widely known, and yet our society and our government actively promote the sale and use of vaccinations from birth on up.

                                Let me say that again: Vaccinations KILL people. Many more than "just one life" will be lost this year, and every year, from reactions to vaccinations. Why on earth would our society and our government tolerate, let alone promote (and in some cases outright require!), something that is absolutely guaranteed to kill children and adults?

                                Answer: Because the net result is positive. The aggregate outcome is better than if we were to "ban" vaccines. While it is absolutely true that some lives will be lost to vaccines, many more will be saved by them. And while it's not touchy-feely and warm-fuzzy to talk about it, rational decision makers must weigh the good against the bad when making decisions involving life and death.

                                The same is true for over-the-counter medicines. Thousands of people die every year from misuse, intentional and unintentional, of OTC medications. We could absolutely, without question, save lives by banning the sale of OTC medicines and requiring everyone to go to a doctor or hospital for all medicines. But we don't, because the aggregate outcome is positive.

                                Firearms are another example like vaccines and OTC medicines. Products like these can save lives - and take lives. They can cause horrible damage - and they can also literally save your life when nothing else can.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X