Since this was an issue before, all firearms or assault rifles?
If i was elected Dictator for life of america this is how i would do it for civilian use. I would limit things at the manufacturing level and let everything age its way through the system slowly and gradually.
Please keep in mind this is preliminary, subject to investigation and research yadda yadda.
Pistols
-Manufacture for civilian is limited to revolvers of 10 shots or less (i don' tthink 12 shot revolvers exist but they would soon enough)
-States can figure out how they want to do the carry rules on their own.
Rifles
Limit 10 round clips.
Limit 1 shot per 2 seconds.
I can argue that I should be allowed to purchase both, and whatever I use it for is a good enough reason to own it. Subjective.
I can argue I'm the queen of Sheeba. Doesn't mean i can belly dance.
That's not for you to decide for me.
... yes. It is. Thats the entire point of a democracy! We're the ones writing these laws (in theory, by proxy) It is for us to decide.
I could list a bunch of laws on the books that criminals already don't follow, but hell, what's a couple more?
Which is why i say hit manufacturing.
Fair enough, I guess. When deaths due to gun recklessness per year gets close to deaths due to reckless driving per year, you may have a point.
I have a point now. Its a cost benefit analysis. Individual choice does weigh into it, but in NO other issue is individual choice the only factor in a decision.
And by your argument, it would have to happen often enough to warrant a law.
Again, you don't do gray areas and reality is that simple. By your own argument you would have to demonsrtate that every drunk driver is going to hit and hurt someone.
... it did. And looked, we had a law! and look, the amount of drunk driving deaths dropped.
I harbor no illusions that I have a right to a bazooka, or something that needs to be mounted to a vehicle to fire safely, or...
So why do your own arguments not apply to the person to the right of you looking to go deer hunting with a belt fed M2 .50 cal. Machine Gun welded onto the back of a dune buggy? He wants to do it, who are you to tell him he cant?
So I say the law seems to work exactly like I've been saying when it concerns these things...
It does not. The second ammendment is not absolute. There are limits on what you can buy and those limits are constitutional.
And for the record, even though one can buy cannon, it is pretty difficult to track one down. You can't just go to a pawn shop and buy one (and I mean a fully functional cannon) :-)
You need to watch the show. Some of the stuff that comes in there is sweeeeet. And they test it before they buy it.
These numbers are impossible to define, but the number of people injured or killed by a firearm when used in the commission of a crime are the victims of a wound caused by a handgun more often than a rifle...
Again, If you give me the choice of one or the other i'd ban those first. But its not an or question.
As I said earlier in this post, the BATFE keeps a close eye on all NFA items. And while they seem to be having issues keeping things straight at the US/Mexico border, the number of registered machine guns used in commission of a crime is very low. The use of illegally converted semi-autos to full auto in a crime is also very low...
So in other words a near ban on such devices is working.
If I'm reading that right, then that right there is the heart of the matter, and no amount of further debate will allow you to see the other side of things...
Not really. I had pretty much the same view before the incident.
I was doing a bat survey in montana.
Someone had property near a very small patch of government land and a small, unused bridge. We started setting up for the night. Pickup truck started driving up, spider senses started tingling so i got the map out and spread it out the hood of the car and waved to the guy as he was pulling up.
Guy got out of the car, pointed an AK47 looking thing at my much smaller coworker once and then kept it pointed at the center of mass on me the rest of the time. Told me to back up, i took two BIG steps back so i could dive behind the car. He started talking about shooting coyotes and shooting people and not being bothered by either.
I explained (first) that we were studying bats. We have a gps unit and we were sent here. (translation: someone knows where we are if we don't come back they know who to ask about the bodies) We have bat books and a bat detector and we'd be happy to show you either but i don't think you want me going into the car. He had us turn around and lift up our shirts to show we weren't packing (that was the part where i was pondering a dive behind the car and a dash to the river) Put away the AK and showed us the pistol he also had on him. Took our liscenses, wondered what the hell a new yorker and pennsylvanian were doing out there, and mentioned something about meth labs.
I avoided ANY mention of federal claims on the land, we apologized, got in the car and drove off. So no big deal. We got the night off, i grabbed a hawian punch and started planning my dragon disciple.
While I'm sorry to hear you were at the receiving end of a firearm, a threat to your life, liberty and freedom does not mean any of my freedoms need be taken away from me...
I just don't have any resonance for the "freedom" to own artillery.
Now, if I read that entirely wrong then I apologize. But I'm not sure how to read "Only seen one of those and it was from the wrong end" any other way...
Why? That wasn't you. He didn't strike me as the D&D type....
That said, like Kryzbyn, I too am enjoying the exchange...
Hmmm.. i'l have to bite harder..
First gun I had shoved in my face was by a whacked out junkie who was having a domestic dispute and decided to come to his estranged girlfriends milkbar and wave his .38 about, unfortunately it was at my head. Aged 7.
Happened in East LA.
Good thing there's plenty of guns around huh?
Yeah I'm a fan of tight gun control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've only had a loaded gun pointed at me (on purpose) once.
It was the police. Some friends and I were pulled over in a mall parking lot for allegedly vandalizing a car. We hadn't. We were pulled out of the car at gunpoint, searched, the car searched and my bags searched without permission asked or granted. We were then told we had to wash the car that had been defaced, even though we didn't do a damn thing and it looked untouched, or we would be taken in for further questioning.
Police, especially small town police, often just look for an excuse to leverage their power on people. It was a lazy day. I don't think suspected vandalism is warrant to draw a weapon on someone.
Thing is, that's why a LOT of people carry guns. To feel big. They may be law abiding, but the fact that they're packing heat 1)means they need a firearm to feel in control over the world 2)are more likely to escalate an insignificant conflict by drawing it. Same with other weapons.
So, as worried as I am about criminals using guns, I'm also worried about the guy waiting next to me in line at Culvers. The question isn't, to me, do you have a RIGHT to carry that firearm, but WHY are you?
If i was elected Dictator for life of america this is how i would do it for civilian use. I would limit things at the manufacturing level and let everything age its way through the system slowly and gradually.
Please keep in mind this is preliminary, subject to investigation and research yadda yadda.
Pistols
-Manufacture for civilian is limited to revolvers of 10 shots or less (i don' tthink 12 shot revolvers exist but they would soon enough)
-States can figure out how they want to do the carry rules on their own.
Rifles
Limit 10 round clips.
Limit 1 shot per 2 seconds.
That's not a bad idea.
... yes. It is. Thats the entire point of a democracy! We're the ones writing these laws (in theory, by proxy) It is for us to decide.
Prop 8.
So why do your own arguments not apply to the person to the right of you looking to go deer hunting with a belt fed M2 .50 cal. Machine Gun welded onto the back of a dune buggy? He wants to do it, who are you to tell him he cant?
I'm not saying he can't own one. I'm saying it'd be silly to assume that's covered by the 2nd amendment, is all. To my knowledge there's no law that says he can't...
|
It does not. The second ammendment is not absolute. There are limits on what you can buy and those limits are constitutional.
Alright then, what limits are you referring to? I seem to be confused as to what you mean...
The Federal government allows a person to own all NFA items, provided you can pass their background check, and pay them their $200...
State and local laws sometimes prohibit ownership and possession of NFA items, but again, the Federal government does not...
You need to watch the show. Some of the stuff that comes in there is sweeeeet. And they test it before they buy it.
I have, and I enjoy the show :-)
Again, If you give me the choice of one or the other i'd ban those first. But its not an or question.
You have presented your case for banning semi-autos because whack-jobs use them when they go postal and cause much devastation. But this is only half the case...
Follow me for a moment...
Some criminals will use a revolver or bolt action rifle, but they don't cause as much injury (because of ammo capacity and rate of fire), so you'll let us keep these guns...
Some criminals will use a semi-auto rifle. But see, while there are no hard fast numbers readily available here, this group of criminals is almost as small as the revolver/bolt action group. So the potential is there, but the statistics are not...
Most use a semi-auto pistol...
These are the vast majority of wing-nuts that are causing all the mayhem. So why lump ALL semi-auto firearms in this group? Potential use? I just don't get that...
So in other words a near ban on such devices is working.
Unless one lives in a state, county, or city that does not allow possession of NFA items, it's not a near ban as they are available to those that want them and have the means to purchase them...
I think, and this is me just whistling in the wind here, but I think that the reason more criminals don't illegally convert more semi-autos is that unless you do it right (and to do it right takes know-how), you wind up with a firearm that was reliable, but now leaves you wondering if it will even fire when you pull the trigger...
Legal NFA items are now so rare that they cost many thousands of dollars and are so well protected by their owners that this alone makes their use in crimes low...
But yeah, I'm sure the laws governing their ownership have a part in not seeing their use in many crimes...
Not really. I had pretty much the same view before the incident.
Incredable story...
Why? That wasn't you. He didn't strike me as the D&D type....
I apologized because I was not sure if I fully understood what you meant by being at the wrong end of things. And I had already jumped to a conclusion that I did not know was correct...
So thank you for elaborating and sharing the story...
Hmmm.. i'l have to bite harder..
Now you're scaring me! ;-P
So I think I'll take the time to bring up what will undoubtedly be a controversial yet nuanced point.
And it's only so important a one to me because my state just passed a law allowing concealed carry of handguns, EVEN IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING, but banning cameras and protest signs there. I mean clearly 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st here now, which is surreal.
Do people have the right to not be intimidated and/or harassed by people with handguns?
With the 3 situations above, my own, BNW's and Shifty's, firearms whether automatic rifles or handguns were brought to bear in a situation entirely inappropriate to their use.
BNW's especially is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Let's assume that those guns were legally licensed and obtained. Let's further assume that he is an otherwise law-abiding citizen who never before or since misused his firearms.
He did that day. People who carry weapons look to use them.
If part of the argument about being allowed to open/conceal carry handguns is that you never know when a situation may arise you might need it to defend yourself, the underlying premises are that people wish to do you harm and the best way to deter them is with a handgun. Specifically other people with handguns or weapons. Is it not then reasonable to assume, erring on the side of safety, that those brandishing or showing that they are carrying a weapon, mean to do you harm? Isn't the very act of openly carrying a firearm, especially in an incongruous social situation like taking your kid to the zoo or getting a burger, intimidation?
The ridiculous logical conclusion to the open carry law, at least in otherwise liberal Madison, Wisconsin, is the necessity for businesses to put a sign in their window saying "No Guns Please". Because people here don't like it and private establishments still have that right. But if they all have that sign, then it becomes only permissible to carry handguns in public places, like the courthouse, or public schools, which I would argue people have the MOST right to be free of intimidation.
And yes, it is now perfectly legal to bring a handgun into a public school, b+%@$#@ crazy as it sounds.
That's not a bad idea.
See, I'm only slightly crazy.
Prop 8.
Remember what I was saying before about cost benefit. The connection between any harm being done and gay marriage is outright fertilizer of the bovine persuasion. So what you're doing is weighing an individuals right and choice to marry the person they love against... nothing. There's no harm that you're preventing by stopping their right to marry.
The connection between guns and dead people on the other hand is as clear and solid as the bullets they're prying out of people in the morgue.
I'm not saying he can't own one. I'm saying it'd be silly to assume that's covered by the 2nd amendment, is all. To my knowledge there's no law that says he can't...
Ok, what about a newer machine gun? Those are outright banned.
The government has done with machine guns what i said to do with automatic pistols: ban them getting more into the market, carefully look at whoever is getting the old ones.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
The Federal government allows a person to own all NFA items, provided you can pass their background check, and pay them their $200...
There's an outright ban on machine guns made after 1986 for example. There were bans on assault weapons. That expired, it wasn't declared unconstitutional.
That the laws are not currently on the books does not mean they CANT be put there. The current law has no more power than future laws. Its not a holy writ.
State and local laws sometimes prohibit ownership and possession of NFA items, but again, the Federal government does not...
But it can. If it wasn't legal for the feds it wouldn't be legal for the states.
I have, and I enjoy the show :-)
Then how do you not know that they have cannons! And a gatlin gun...I love the brasswork on those things.
Some criminals will use a semi-auto rifle. But see, while there are no hard fast numbers readily available here, this group of criminals is almost as small as the revolver/bolt action group. So the potential is there, but the statistics are not...
Most use a semi-auto pistol...These are the vast majority of wing-nuts that are causing all the mayhem. So why lump ALL semi-auto firearms in this group? Potential use? I just don't get that...
The harm done, while rare, is actual and concrete. The benefit of having these weapons out there is negligible.
Unless one lives in a state, county, or city that does not allow possession of NFA items, it's not a near ban as they are available to those that want them and have the means to purchase them...
It is if you live in the state.
I think, and this is me just whistling in the wind here, but I think that the reason more criminals don't illegally convert more semi-autos is that unless you do it right (and to do it right takes know-how), you wind up with a firearm that was reliable, but now leaves you wondering if it will even fire when you pull the trigger...
There's simply little point. Most of a guns use is to intimidate: You point it at the store owner they give you the money, you point it at the guy on the street they give you a wallet. By the time it comes down to do the drive by shooting there's no time to convert it.
And if they were the type to plan ahead they wouldn't be street thugs. They would be a mob.
Legal NFA items are now so rare that they cost many thousands of dollars and are so well protected by their owners that this alone makes their use in crimes low...
So why not do the same thing with pistols? Stop the new ones from entering the market and keep track of the folks buying the old ones.
But yeah, I'm sure the laws governing their ownership have a part in not seeing their use in many crimes...
Ok, so laws against semi automatic handguns would reduce their use in crimes and laws against semi automatic rifles would do the same for folks going postal. Both could be constitutional.
If you don't think the ban on semi automatic rifles is needed because its too rare and people are having too much fun with them that's fine. Its a different balance between use and danger.
Stuff.
Slightly ;)
What's the difference between a 10 or 12 shot revolver and a semi-auto with a 10 or 12 shot clip?I brought up prop 8, not to equate the two, but to point out that just because you can do soemthing with the democratic process doesn't mean you should or that it's automaticly awesome and good. Apaprently the people that voted in favor of prop 8 thought the cost was high enough. I think it's stupid, but then again I'm not trying to legislate what people do in their bedrooms or have in their bedrooms.
Well, I guess then the law says I can't own a new AK-47. But it doesn't say I can't own one period.
Stuff.Slightly ;)
What's the difference between a 10 or 12 shot revolver and a semi-auto with a 10 or 12 shot clip?
Well for one thing you won't fine a 10~12 shot revolver in anything bigger than a .22, while the 10~12 shot clip could be any caliber.
Also revolvers have shorter range (generally) due to the escaped gasses from around the cylinder (though they have found some ways to help minimize this in relatively modern revolvers).
Also it really depends on the technology of the revolver too. If its a single action you're going to have a lot more work firing it quickly repeatedly than you will the pistol.
Most double action revolvers lack a safety lock as well (though generally have a 10 pound trigger so it takes some doing to fire still), which could be an issue (could -- not is).
Slightly ;)
What's the difference between a 10 or 12 shot revolver and a semi-auto with a 10 or 12 shot clip?
Cost, size, ease of use, concealability and accuracy.
Yes, there are people who can pop off shots with a revolver as accurately and as quickly as they can with a semi automatic pistol. I am really not worried about those people.
I brought up prop 8, not to equate the two, but to point out that just because you can do soemthing with the democratic process doesn't mean you should or that it's automaticly awesome and good.
Right, the idea needs to be evaluated on whether its a good idea or not... something you're side stepping when you insist that laws can't be made by the majority against the will of the minority. There is a balance between individual rights and what other people want to do. If that individual right wasn't a factor guns would have been outlawed a century ago. The question is where we set the line, you're trying to ask if we can set a line anywhere. The answer to the latter is an emphatic yes, because its what nearly every law does.
Apaprently the people that voted in favor of prop 8 thought the cost was high enough. I think it's stupid, but then again I'm not trying to legislate what people do in their bedrooms or have in their bedrooms.
The difference being that you cannot make guns and then keep them in the home. Once they're made and sold they're free range.
Well, I guess then the law says I can't own a new AK-47. But it doesn't say I can't own one period.
Well how about a fully functional Abrams tank with the machine gun and cannon still operational? Or an f 16 with missles?
Cost, size, ease of use, concealability and accuracy.
Yes, there are people who can pop off shots with a revolver as accurately and as quickly as they can with a semi automatic pistol. I am really not worried about those people.
All handguns, revolver or otherwise are 3-5 hundred bucks.
A snub nose .38 revolver is as concealable as a compact 9mm semi-auto.Going to mandate a minimum barrel length as well?
Loading a revolver or loading a clip isn't any more or less compicated than the other. Inserting a clip and chambering a round isn't complicated at all.
Dunno really, what you're going for here.
Right, the idea needs to be evaluated on whether its a good idea or not... something you're side stepping when you insist that laws can't be made by the majority against the will of the minority. There is a balance between individual rights and what other people want to do. If that individual right wasn't a factor guns would have been outlawed a century ago. The question is where we set the line, you're trying to ask if we can set a line anywhere. The answer to the latter is an emphatic yes, because its what nearly every law does.
I guess we just don't agree where the line would be, then.
The difference being that you cannot make guns and then keep them in the home. Once they're made and sold they're free range.
What if I could make my own firearms? How does that change anything?
Well how about a fully functional Abrams tank with the machine gun and cannon still operational? Or an f 16 with missles?
Going to the other end of the extreme doesn't help. I've already said where I stand on this.
Well how about a fully functional Abrams tank with the machine gun and cannon still operational? Or an f 16 with missles?
technically, you can own one. Just need a licensce for it.
Well how about a fully functional Abrams tank with the machine gun and cannon still operational? Or an f 16 with missles?
technically, you can own one. Just need a licensce for it.
Actually I would be all for this -- figuring out who is messing about in a tank and then taking out the tank would be a lot easier than figuring out who is shooting people with a .38 special.
All handguns, revolver or otherwise are 3-5 hundred bucks.
Sure, for a six shooter.
A snub nose .38 revolver is as concealable as a compact 9mm semi-auto.
Going to mandate a minimum barrel length as well?
Which is again, a six shooter.
Sure. Why not?
Loading a revolver or loading a clip isn't any more or less compicated than the other. Inserting a clip and chambering a round isn't complicated at all.
Dunno really, what you're going for here.
Most people don't reload during a crime.
The big issue is that its harder to fire off quick and accurate shots with a revolver because the pull weight on the trigger is much higher... i know there are people who can do it anyyway. Again, i'm not worried about them.
There's a reason people don't do drive by's with revolvers.
I guess we just don't agree where the line would be, then.
Which is an improvement.
What if I could make my own firearms? How does that change anything?
Making anything more than a musket requires some pretty expensive machinery. (i'm pretty sure a cheap gun costs less than a good anvil you need for even a musket...)
I'm really not worried about some mechanicaly minded gun smith making things and keeping them in his house.
Going to the other end of the extreme doesn't help. I've already said where I stand on this.
Right, i'm just trying to point out that your own arguments don't lend themselves well to putting the line in any particular place.
ok, so let me make sure i get the arguement of this post straight before i post my pov:
the point is bignorse is talking about modifying the gun control laws to be more restrictive and limiting the way guns are manufactured, who can own them, and also making sure that said laws follow some unknown but important line, correct?
Alt posting
Dude, party foul.
???
Taking a shot at someone that you are actively engaged with/about with an alt. Either include it in your statements with your original post alt (aka Dewn Mou'tain) or don't do it.
If you think it's going to detract from your credibility or be seen as a personal swipe then perhaps it shouldn't be posted at all.
But instead going and posting it under an alt is just... cheap. I know you deleted it after my quoting it but still had to call you on it.
touche.
I would put the line at bullets.
If it fires bullets of a certain caliber (or mm when appropriate) or lower, it's permissable, with exceptions for shotguns.
RoF or magazine size wouldn't be factors, but I know you wouldn't agree with that.
This would count out bazookas, tanks, nukes, f-16's etc.
EDIT: ...and no more than 2 barrels. I just realized an M-61 rotary cannon fired 7.62 bullets 0.0
the point is bignorse is talking about modifying the gun control laws to be more restrictive and limiting the way guns are manufactured, who can own them, and also making sure that said laws follow some unknown but important line, correct?
We already do that. We limit the kinds of guns you can manufacture for civilians, we have background checks and waiting periods for handguns, and you basically need to submit to a government colonoscopy if you want to get the heavy equipment.
The problem is a balance between two mutually competing desires: i don't want the government telling people what to do (or what not to do) and i don't want a whole bunch of innocent people getting killed. I want people to be able to defend themselves but i don't want them to need to do that in the first place. People are getting killed and entire swaths of urban areas are under the control of gangs.
Living is a need. People need to not be shot, and there doesn't seem to be an effective alternative for controlling guns besides banning them.
The question for me then is what do we need guns for? Self defense and hunting. Do we need semi automatic pistols and rifles to accomplish that? No. So ban them. Peoples desires to play rambo at the range does not override people's desire to not be gunned down.
I don't imagine a scenario where I'd use my pistol to fight the gov't, federal or local, or foreign invaders.
I imagine a scenario where I'd have to protect my family vs. an intruder, and can get to my pistol.
So, no snarky movies here.
Have they modified the class III firearms license?
It used to involve an intensive background check and a substantial fee, but if you got one, you could get and own military grade rifles, assault, sniper and submachine guns, and sell them to toher folks with such a license.
@kryzbyn, no they havent modified the license. you still can, for a meager fee of $400, own military grade guns and ammo. i call that a pretty sweet deal! Exercising my 2nd amendment to the fullest!!!
@guy: i love guns. i have 4 of them, for now. a .22 remington nylon rifle, a 8mm K98 Mauser, a 7.62mm Mosin Nagant, and a 12 guage remington 870 express. i do plan to own an M16 with 5.56mm ammo, along with a Baretta .50 cal rifle, along with numerous pistols, ranging from .22 to .45 cal. While i have them, do i feel like a guy in a movie being the staunch hero who refuses to give up his guns due to a misled government? no. because i already live in that society. i already have enough wool-headed individuals knocking on my front door telling me that guns are bad, guns are evil, and guns need to be banned. i just tell them that i support the constitution, i took an oath to defend the constitution, against all enemies, both foreign, and DOMESTIC, i end that with a pointed glare at them. If they fail to get the point, i tell them that their presence is no longer welcome on my property and they have exactly til the count of three, or the hammer drops.
|
|
Have they modified the class III firearms license?
It used to involve an intensive background check and a substantial fee
A Class III license is for dealers, so yes, if one has a Class III license, then one can buy, sell, and transfer NFA items to those that fill out the proper forms and get the OK from the Feds...
|
|
@kryzbyn, no they havent modified the license. you still can, for a meager fee of $400, own military grade guns and ammo. i call that a pretty sweet deal! Exercising my 2nd amendment to the fullest!!!
The fee is only $200, and only $5.00 (yes, five dollars), if you want an AOW (Any Other Weapon) such as a pen-gun, suitcase gun, or one of those Serbu "Super Shorty" shotguns for example...
I imagine most people on the other side of the debate like to imagine themselves as the star in their own little action movie. Communist Nazis take over the country and the only one that can stop them is <insert gun control opponent's name here>, good thing he didn't let the government take away <his/her> guns!
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to oppose gun control but I imagine that's top of the list.
I do know a few gun owners that are like that. However they are not the vast majority of gun owners I know. Some legitimately believe that they are safer with their concealed carriers permit (the actual value of a gun in self defense for the vast majority of such cases is rather suspect however). Most are what I would call 'heritage' owners.
In my view 'heritage' gun owners own guns for the cultural heritage of owning guns. They aren't expecting to repel the Communist, they might hunt but it's not something they are relying on for a living, they enjoy shooting in the correct social situations (aka not just popping off at cans down the street) and they could have their concealed carriers permits (though this is often just to avoid hassles while transporting their guns when needed). For them owning the gun is part of the 'American heritage' and that is reason enough. They collect or practice shooting to feel a better bond to the history of the USA and their ancestors (at least as they imagine them to be if not completely factually correct).
They might like to own an AK-47 for its technical aspects or because their relative brought it back over from action overseas but over all they just want to own their guns. They don't like the thought that someone might stop that and they have fond memories of recreational shooting.
They get upset when someone starts with gun control more as a gut reaction -- not out of a desire to own the latest death dealing device as others might put it. Basically it comes down to a 'why can't you leave me and mine alone" attitude (which isn't completely unreasonable).
I think the current gun control standards (broadly speaking and at a Federal level) are fine for the USA -- what I would like to see more of though is a development of a mature attitude towards firearms in general by the USA public (including gun owners but certainly not limited to them). I think a class for gun safety and ownership would be a great idea at the high school level but don't think it should be mandatory across the board, and I think most gun owners would -- after getting past the gut reaction -- not be so opposed to the current standards and many of the basic ideas in this thread.
@kryzbyn, no they havent modified the license. you still can, for a meager fee of $400, own military grade guns and ammo. i call that a pretty sweet deal! Exercising my 2nd amendment to the fullest!!!The fee is only $200, and only $5.00 (yes, five dollars), if you want an AOW (Any Other Weapon) such as a pen-gun, suitcase gun, or one of those Serbu "Super Shorty" shotguns for example...
WHAT?!?!? $200! THAT FRICKEN CHEAT! OH HE IS GOING DOWN!
My position is: Guns are cool.
Guns shouldn't be banned.
I would love to have a fully automatic weapon, but I don't trust everyone to own such a weapon, and so I feel such weapons need to be restricted.
yes
yesand they already are restricted to "license only" :(
@guy: i love guns. i have 4 of them, for now. a .22 remington nylon rifle, a 8mm K98 Mauser, a 7.62mm Mosin Nagant, and a 12 guage remington 870 express. i do plan to own an M16 with 5.56mm ammo, along with a Baretta .50 cal rifle, along with numerous pistols, ranging from .22 to .45 cal. While i have them, do i feel like a guy in a movie being the staunch hero who refuses to give up his guns due to a misled government? no. because i already live in that society. i already have enough wool-headed individuals knocking on my front door telling me that guns are bad, guns are evil, and guns need to be banned. i just tell them that i support the constitution, i took an oath to defend the constitution, against all enemies, both foreign, and DOMESTIC, i end that with a pointed glare at them. If they fail to get the point, i tell them that their presence is no longer welcome on my property and they have exactly til the count of three, or the hammer drops.This is the kind of thing that makes me worry about some gun lovers.
What, exactly, do you mean by "or the hammer drops"?
For me, i call the cops for having people trespassing on my property. ill even pull out the cell and call in front of them. But usually they are off my property when i say "one".
What do you think i am? dumb? think i would threaten a person by pulling a gun on them? that is truely idiotic. i am not going to jail for that.
the only time i pull a gun is when i intend to use it. i pull the gun out at the firing range, when im hunting, or when i think someone is breaking into my house at night(hence why i have a shotgun with buckshot). i take out my guns to clean them and to show them off to my friends.
I do know a few gun owners that are like that. However they are not the vast majority of gun owners I know.
I know a couple people who are legitimate hunters/outdoorsmen, who spend a lot of time learning about tracking, animal behavior, healthy ecosystems, naturalism, etc., and who take gun safety incredibly seriously. I am very, very happy they are armed.
However, the vast majority of gun owners I know think that a firearm is a substitute for a penis. They think shooting big guns makes them cool and powerful and successful and smart and noble and sexually irresistable. They think that owning more guns automatically makes them more so. They go shooting at targets as a way to brag about how awesome they are (in their own minds), and then talk you ear off for hours about how their gun is bigger than yours.
These people might be better off if they were enlightened as to what firearm violence is actually like, as opposed to just the social giddiness of making loud bangs.
I do know a few gun owners that are like that. However they are not the vast majority of gun owners I know.I know a couple people who are legitimate hunters/outdoorsmen, who spend a lot of time learning about tracking, animal behavior, healthy ecosystems, naturalism, etc., and who take gun safety incredibly seriously. I am very, very happy they are armed.
However, the vast majority of gun owners I know think that a firearm is a substitute for a penis. They think shooting big guns makes them cool and powerful and successful and smart and noble and sexually irresistable. They think that owning more guns automatically makes them more so. They go shooting at targets as a way to brag about how awesome they are (in their own minds), and then talk you ear off for hours about how their gun is bigger than yours.
These people might be better off if they were enlightened as to what firearm violence is actually like, as opposed to just the social giddiness of making loud bangs.
Yeah like I said I'm glad that those are the few for me. Not saying they aren't out there, but they aren't the most common gun owner I've met.
I think guns are cool
I'm assuming that you've not been in a position in which you had to use one for real (to kill another person), or in which you faced a likelihood of it being used on you?
A gun is no "cooler" than a wrench or a screwdriver.
I think guns are coolI'm assuming that you've not been in a position in which you had to use one for real (to kill another person), or in which you faced a likelihood of it being used on you?
A gun is no "cooler" than a wrench or a screwdriver.
I never really get that either. Like I've said I grew up around guns. It's been a long time now since I fired one, but I grew up in an area where most of my peers thought that shooting off guns was a good way to pass a Saturday afternoon. I've always been sort of nonplussed.
These sort of comments just remind me of Beavis and Butthead ("Heh heh, fire's cool").
|
|
A gun is no "cooler" than a wrench or a screwdriver.
Not many people I know of will schedule an afternoon or a whole weekend to go out with their friends and family to specifically use a wrench or a screwdriver...
Yes, guns are tools, but they are tools that can be used AND enjoyed beyond their intended purpose...
I know of many people in both the military and law enforcement who have not only had guns pointed at them, but also have been fired upon and/or even had to use one with the intent to kill, and yet these same people STILL enjoy an outing with the specific intent of shooting firearms for recreation...
Yes, some change their tune when a gun is pointed, used on them or someone close to them, or had to use one in self defense, but these people are a minority within the greater gun community...
A gun is no "cooler" than a wrench or a screwdriver.Not many people I know of will schedule an afternoon or a whole weekend to go out with their friends and family to specifically use a wrench or a screwdriver...
Yes, guns are tools, but they are tools that can be used AND enjoyed beyond their intended purpose...
I know of many people in both the military and law enforcement who have not only had guns pointed at them, but also have been fired upon and/or even had to use one with the intent to kill, and yet these same people STILL enjoy an outing with the specific intent of shooting firearms for recreation...
Yes, some change their tune when a gun is pointed, used on them or someone close to them, or had to use one in self defense, but these people are a minority within the greater gun community...
We're not saying that guns aren't fun to anyone. Fun is completely subjective. We don't think it's fun, or at least not fun enough to go out of our way to do.
Can we at least agree that whether it's fun or not is far less important a factor to where the line should be drawn than weighing their potential dangers and practical uses? I mean, I'm sure blowing something up with a atomic bomb is fun to some people, but that's never brought up when we're deciding whether we should drawn down our nuclear arsenal or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I'm sure blowing something up with a atomic bomb is fun to some people, but that's never brought up when we're deciding whether we should drawn down our nuclear arsenal or not.
Narrator: Here comes the President and Prime Minister now -- lets go to Jim our reporter and see what came out of this historic meeting:
Reporter: Mr. President! Did you and the Russian Prime Minister reach an agreement on drawing down the number of Nuclear weapons both countries have.President: No.
Reporter: Why not Mr. President? Did he stall or have unreasonable demands?
President: Oh no! We were both in agreement and about to sign and then we stopped and looked at each other and realized, gosh darn it! There's a lot of fun to be had with setting off a Nuclear device every now and then -- in fact we're going do to North Korea next weekend for a nuclear turkey shoot. Winner gets fifty bucks and a free rounds at the next G8 summit!
Yes, guns are tools, but they are tools that can be used AND enjoyed beyond their intended purpose...
Especially for those insecure in their manhood... A wrench or screwdriver doesn't represent power over other people the way a firearm does, which is why a lot of people get off on shooting. Not all, certainly, but a respectable fraction.
|
|
A wrench or screwdriver doesn't represent power over other people the way a firearm does, which is why a lot of people get off on shooting. Not all, certainly, but a respectable fraction.
It sounds as though you are not a fan of guns. So as such, your view of whether or not they are "cool" is going to hold the same bias...
But then, if you’ve read through this thread, you'd have noted that I too am biased in a particular direction...
My point is, whether or not guns are "cool" depends upon the individual...
Kirth isn't in the business of personal attacks. Reread his post, especially the last line.