PDA

View Full Version : assault weapon ban again


Pages : [1] 2

esd10
12-30-2012, 11:29 AM
i have been very nervous about the goverment trying to take away are second ammendment right to bare arms. the problem is the goverment and bleading hearts want to blame the wrong thing instead of looking at the real problem with our horrible mental health servous. i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old and i feel for those familys who have lost there children to that maniac from a senceless act of violence but a firearm is a tool nothing else a firearm doesnt go off bye itself unless someone has to pull the trigger and loads it. there are a bunch of law abbiding citizens in this country with so called assault weapons and you never hear about them because they dont do stupid horrible things with them and follow all laws and regulations and the goverment is trying to take away are rights to own the type of rifle or pistol we want to own. i want to know what you board members think about this issue and like i said guns dont kill people people kill people no mater if its a gun or a hammer or a ballbat.

39special
12-30-2012, 12:10 PM
People should be able to bare arms.The horrible mental health service you stated is the way it is because every time there are budget cuts,mental health and social services are the first to get cut.The people in those field are over worked and under paid.My wife has worked in this field for 20 plus years.In the last 2 years her case load has gone from 30 to 85.
So don't blame the the mental heath industry,blame the government!

esd10
12-30-2012, 12:18 PM
i miss spoke on the way i put it the goverment needs to put more funds into the mental health field and that should be a priority to get these people help befor they harm others. the goverment just seems to over look the mental health field and pump more and more money in the wrong places just like when they bailed out the banks and auto industry they should have put those funds toward mental health and education.

39special
12-30-2012, 12:24 PM
I totally agree!! Maybe they should use some of the money they stuff there
pockets with!

barrysloate
12-30-2012, 12:40 PM
Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment. Responsible citizens will always be able to own a gun. If there is an assault weapon ban it will be aimed to keep very dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Whether or not it will work is unclear, but at least half the population believes it is worth the try. It's not only bleeding heart liberals who feel this way, it's people in all walks of life.

Try to understand what is going on instead of acting paranoid about it. The tide is turning and America wants to see some changes. You will still be able to owns guns if that is your thing.

And for the record it's "bear" arms. You have "bare" arms when your wear a tanktop.

novakjr
12-30-2012, 12:54 PM
Here's an interesting article about the old ban..

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

barrysloate
12-30-2012, 01:33 PM
For the record, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 to give American citizens the right to own a musket. There was virtually no police force back then and the militia was dispersed. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm.

By the 21st century, that amendment has been so misunderstood, and so distorted for the benefit of gun fanatics, that it has become unrecognizable. In no way does it say that any unhinged psychopath has the right to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK-47 rifle with only a minimal amount of red tape. But the NRA has made sure that the Second Amendment has been interpreted exactly the way they want it to be.

I would say most of the people who stand behind the Second Amendment have never read it, nor have a clue what it's all about. And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

drumback
12-30-2012, 02:00 PM
Barry,
It is "amendment", not "ammendment". :). Otherwise, I second everything you have stated.

Mark

drc
12-30-2012, 02:07 PM
My opinion is there are multiple contributing factors, and any side (NRA to 'liberal bleeding hearts') saying there is one cause is just one cause is wrong and often being disingenuous.

barrysloate
12-30-2012, 02:33 PM
Thanks Mark....my blood pressure rises on these kind of threads, and my spelling gets a little woozy!:)

Runscott
12-30-2012, 02:51 PM
It's good to see a thread on these hot topics (gun control and mental health) where everyone involved is making some degree of sense. I won't spoil that trend by adding my own thoughts :)

...Go Cowboys

esd10
12-30-2012, 02:55 PM
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

barrysloate
12-30-2012, 03:04 PM
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

And because you are a responsible citizen you are entitled to own one. Nobody is disputing that.

D. Bergin
12-30-2012, 06:44 PM
I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon. :confused:

Maybe the founding fathers approved of semi-automatic muskets, but I have yet to see any evidence of precedence.

The current clamor to turn teachers into glorified, armed bodyguards makes me a little sick to be honest.

D. Bergin
12-30-2012, 06:46 PM
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.


A tool for what?


Self-Defense? Do you feel as if you're constantly in danger and in need of a rapid fire clip to defend yourself?

vintagetoppsguy
12-30-2012, 08:31 PM
I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon. :confused:

I think it's comments like this that makes the OP nervous. It makes me nervous too. Why should I have to give up my semi-automatic handgun? Why should hunters have to give up their semi-automatic hunting rifles?

vintagetoppsguy
12-30-2012, 08:32 PM
i'm former military and its my right in this free society to own a semi automatic firearm i do no wrong with it and treat it as a tool which it is.

And because you are a responsible citizen you are entitled to own one. Nobody is disputing that.

Barry, read post #14 below yours. It says, "I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon." So yes, somebody is disputing that. That attitude is exactly why gun owners get nervous when talking about any kind of gun/magazine or ammo restrictions.

D. Bergin
12-30-2012, 11:33 PM
Barry, read post #14 below yours. It says, "I still have not read a valid reason why anybody not police or military needs a semi-automatic weapon." So yes, somebody is disputing that. That attitude is exactly why gun owners get nervous when talking about any kind of gun/magazine or ammo restrictions.


Yeah, that was me.

Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

Why would you get nervous? I don't have any power and I'm not political.

I live 1/2 an hour from Newtown. I've been through there dozens of times. Adam Lanza had access to semi-automatic weapons because his mother had access to semi-automatic weapons. Can you give me a good reason why Adam Lanza's mother or anybody else needs a semi-automatic weapon?

To protect yourself from the people who want to take your guns?

Let's call a spade a spade.

..........and nobody's gonna take your guns. Any legislation will have so many loopholes it won't matter a lick. You'll get grandfathered in, or at worst you'll have to slightly modify the guns you already have.

barrysloate
12-31-2012, 05:58 AM
Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon? We hear stories about Aurora and Sandy Hook but the fact is the chance of any of us confronting a crisis like that is about as likely as being struck by lightning. Furthermore, how many people would be able to react with nerves of steel in such a situation? From what I've read, and can imagine, people in a crisis situation tend to panic and freeze up, and the chances of actually being a hero and killing a potential attacker aren't great.

Earlier this year we had a gunman at the Empire State Building. The police got there in time and shot and killed him. They also wounded nine innocent people who were standing in the vicinity of the gunman. If trained professionals are that inaccurate, I'm pretty certain I don't want school teachers or principals packing heat.

So I make a distinction between the legal right to own a gun, and the actual need for private citizens to be armed. That's a debatable point.

esd10
12-31-2012, 06:58 AM
a tool to protect my family and my property from people who would do me harm and have you seen the police responce times? i would have to wait 5 min or longer for a police officer to show up to protect me and thats enough time for me and my family to be killed so my ar15 and my glock 22 is my protection from people trying to do me harm. so a glock for instance carrys between 15-16 rounds so if that kid would have just brought in just the 2 handguns and no extra mags he would have had between 30-32 rounds and woud have shot all those rounds in the same amount of time as a so called assault weapon. these so called assault rifles fire just as fast as a handgun and what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto so what they call a assault rifle just looks the part but doesnt do the same because its semi auto. do you know the worst school shootings up till now happened in country's with strict gun laws?

vintagetoppsguy
12-31-2012, 07:05 AM
Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

I have several answers: Personal protection. Hunting. Competitive target shooting.

Saying that no one other than military or police have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon is frightening. This is the same mentality that has spiked gun and ammo sales in the last few weeks.

Go NRA!!!

vintagetoppsguy
12-31-2012, 07:15 AM
Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon?

Barry, re-read you're post. You're saying one thing and then turning around and saying another. You're saying a responsible citizen has the right to own a gun, then you're turning around and questioning why does any citizen need to own a gun.

I'm confused. I really am.

barrysloate
12-31-2012, 07:23 AM
It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

vintagetoppsguy
12-31-2012, 08:40 AM
It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

You're misrepresenting the facts. Nobody said any citizen should have an "arsenal of weapons" and where did you get that the OP has "all these weapons" to protect himself because I didn't read that. The OP said he had two weapons. Maybe he has more, who knows? But the point is that you're making things up.

If you (or anybody else) wants to continue the debate, let's be fair and use facts. And, just as a point of reference, what is an arsenal? More than 1 gun? More than 5 guns?

barrysloate
12-31-2012, 09:01 AM
Hi David- obviously you don't want to really have this discussion, as you already have your mind made up. Have a healthy and happy new year. I've said all I could, and I'm done.

novakjr
12-31-2012, 09:06 AM
I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

vintagetoppsguy
12-31-2012, 09:40 AM
Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

Leon
12-31-2012, 11:20 AM
Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

I agree with almost everything you say David. The criminals will always have guns. What we do when we create laws is we keep the good people from doing something bad not the bad people from doing something bad. Bad people will always find a way. I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

Runscott
12-31-2012, 11:39 AM
I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

If it results in less carnage during these attacks, then I'm for it. People can find another way to kill wild hogs.

teetwoohsix
12-31-2012, 01:07 PM
I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

Great post David, well said.

Sincerely, Clayton

drc
12-31-2012, 02:37 PM
I must admit that people who earnestly envision a war with the invading US Army sound rather scary. And bunker-in-the-back-yard cooky.

The second amendment seems (to me) to be a relic of another century, a time when we were preparing a revolution against the British.

But the second amendment is the law, and I don't argue otherwise. If people don't like a particular amendment, they can try and repeal it the standard, legal way.

esd10
12-31-2012, 03:41 PM
one thing during ww2 the japanese emperor wanted to invade the usa but one of his commanders isoroku yamamto basically told him if they invade the US the american people are more a threat than our military and what he basically said was in america there is a firearm behind every blade of grass. So the 2nd amendment has protected us in the past with our right to bare arms that stopped a foreign invasion from happening so whats to say it would never happen again?

drc
12-31-2012, 03:58 PM
Clearly, I'm not pro gun, but that doesn't mean I don't see valid reasons for people owning them. Though the the Japanese attacking San Luis Obispo doesn't seem like one :)

esd10
12-31-2012, 06:48 PM
i'm very much pro gun and believe a law abiding citizen should be aloud to own what ever firearm with in reason to protect your family and property from the bad guys who wish to do you harm.

steve B
12-31-2012, 09:21 PM
I've lived and worked in a few areas that weren't great. And I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been of any use.

I'm all for ownership, probably more for it than most. But it's got to be on reasonable grounds. A panicky "I've GOT to protect myself" is exactly the sort of attitude that gets people hurt. Especially family members coming home a bit late or something.
Short of the deranged the last sort of person who should own or use any sort of firearm is someone panicky.
(Btw the panicky totally wrecks your aim)

Seriously, if your neighborhood is that bad you really need to move.

I do think that some limits on who owns what are good. Sadly by my standards a couple commenters here wouldn't make the grade, while others would likely be allowed a very free hand. You decide which group you think I'd put you in........

But outright banning something based purely on cosmetics is just silly. -the actual wording of the now lapsed "assault weapon" ban was almost purely about cosmetics- is only valid if you put it in terms of whether that sort of weapon attracts a larger percentage of people who shouldn't be trusted. (I think it does, just like sports cars attract a larger percentage of people who might just drive faster than others) I don't know of anyone that puts it like that.

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then. That's right, 0.

When you buy an "AK-47" all you get is a lookalike. And a pretty poor one at that. (I've handled but not shot 3 real ones and one copy. The copy was worse than the one made in Bulgaria.)

The flip side for me is that any piece of hardware is just that, a chunk of metal and plastic and maybe some other stuff.

If my contractor builds my porch wrong I don't blame the hammer. (previous weapon of choice of the nut in NY)
If a card is trimmed I don't blame the scissors.
If someone gets shot I don't blame the gun. (Except in the actually unusual circumstance of one that's defective- It happens, not commonly, but it happens.)

Steve B

drc
12-31-2012, 10:33 PM
One one side of my home is a blind guy with three cats and on the other side is an elementary school teacher. Never felt the need to protect my family or property from them.

Though I must admit, if the blind guy got a gun, I might be a bit nervous.

vintagetoppsguy
12-31-2012, 10:42 PM
No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then.

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

teetwoohsix
01-01-2013, 04:43 AM
When an individual stepped on to one of my fellow bus driver's bus and pummeled him unconcious with a 2 by 4, and left him lying in a pool of his own blood, I wished someone on that bus was a CCP holder with a loaded firearm to come to his rescue. He was lucky to live, with all of those staples in his skull.

We weren't allowed to carry ANY type of weapon, had we been able to carry SOMETHING, he may have been able to defend himself.

The only time I truly felt safe driving the bus was when I was transporting off duty security officers who were carrying a firearm.

The "assault weapon ban" is nothing but a political agenda, and has been in the works for a long time. Wake up people, damn. I'll save the history lesson, as "no one thinks those things can happen here" (but I encourage you to study countries that banned their citizens from owning firearms, and what followed).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21526/the-dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-newtown-massacre

Sincerely, Clayton (an individual who does not own a gun but believes in peoples right to defend themselves any way they see fit)

novakjr
01-01-2013, 10:14 AM
Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.

steve B
01-01-2013, 11:51 AM
ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

The way the ban defined them was stuff like folding stocks etc.

That can also be found on wikipedia.

Selective fire is a form of full auto, and as I said has been tightly regulated since 1934. Although I don't think there were any selective fire guns made at the time.

Steve B

esd10
01-01-2013, 01:27 PM
selective fire firearms are still made bye a couple of people in the usa under strict laws and regulations but its like 2 or 3 people so a very small amount.

Leon
01-01-2013, 01:37 PM
If it results in less carnage during these attacks, then I'm for it. People can find another way to kill wild hogs.


As was previously stated, but I haven't personally confirmed it, there have been 0 instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a massacre. I don't understand why people grasp onto something that has never happened in 75+ yrs? But hey, if it makes you feel better about there being less carnage, go for it. I have heard worse fallacies.

I can easily see a ban on fully automatic assault weapons just to appease the folks that want a ban on them (as I stated). It will help 0 though in what is the real problem (and I am in the camp it's more the mental issues going untreated). No one in their right mind goes on a shooting rampage against un-associated people.

Runscott
01-02-2013, 12:29 PM
As was previously stated, but I haven't personally confirmed it, there have been 0 instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a massacre. I don't understand why people grasp onto something that has never happened in 75+ yrs? But hey, if it makes you feel better about there being less carnage, go for it. I have heard worse fallacies.

I can easily see a ban on fully automatic assault weapons just to appease the folks that want a ban on them (as I stated). It will help 0 though in what is the real problem (and I am in the camp it's more the mental issues going untreated). No one in their right mind goes on a shooting rampage against un-associated people.

Sorry, Leon - I didn't see the previous weapon to 'automatic'. I'm talking about the firepower needed to kill the wild hogs, which I think is around 40-60 rpm, according to the wild hog hunters on this board.

I totally get the fixation on the word 'automatic' by both sides - the non-gun people don't understand the term, and the gun people will fixate on the use of that term to avoid dealing with the issue, which is mass-killings by guns that aren't actually necessary for hunting, self-defense or anything else other than mental [male member] enlargement. Just my thoughts - I'm all for citizens being able to own guns - BIG guns. Just not that big.

Edited to add: I was responding to "automatic (or semi automatic) weapons". I thought 'semi automatic' was the term used for the 40-60 rpm guns such as the one used by the killer in Connecticut? If not, what are such weapons called?

vintagetoppsguy
01-02-2013, 01:26 PM
Edited to add: I was responding to "automatic (or semi automatic) weapons". I thought 'semi automatic' was the term used for the 40-60 rpm guns such as the one used by the killer in Connecticut? If not, what are such weapons called?

Automatic and semi-automatic are really terms used to describe the action that is required to move the bullet from the feed tube (or magazine) into the chamber. There are basically 4 types of rifles:

1.) Lever action. These are my personal favorite. I own five of them. There is a lever on the bottom of the rifle that has to be cocked every time before a bullet is fired. The lever is pulled down and the expended shell is ejected. The lever is pulled back up and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube into the chamber. The gun is ready to fire again. You see these types guns in old westerns, they've been around forever.

2.) Bolt action. Has is a sliding bolt that is pulled back and the expended shell is ejected and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube or magazine by pushing the bolt forward again and locking it into place. Very popular in WW2.

Most hunters are going to either use a lever action or bolt action rifle.

3.) Pump action. Pump action is mostly for shotguns, some older .22s. There is a fore stock (grip) that has to be slid (pumped) back and forth. The sliding of the fore stock ejects to expended shell and when you slide it back it extracts a shell from the feed tube into the chamber.

4.) Automatic/Semi-automatic. No action is required. This is the main difference. After each shot, the shell automatically ejects and a new shell is extracted from the magazine into the chamber.

So what's the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? On an automatic rifle, you pull the trigger and it fires continuously until your finger lets off the trigger. On a semi-automatic rifle, you have to pull the trigger each time it is fired - it is not capable of continuous fire. It will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Now think about this. Let's say you want to buy a rifle for home defense, nothing more. If someone were to break into your house and you had an opportunity to grab your rifle, do you want a rifle that requires an action (lever, bolt or pump) every time you want to fire, or do you want a rifle that automatically does it for you? In other words, do you want to waste valuable seconds cocking the gun each time you want to fire a shot or do you want to pull the trigger however many times it takes until he is dead?

Runscott
01-02-2013, 04:19 PM
Automatic and semi-automatic are really terms used to describe the action that is required to move the bullet from the feed tube (or magazine) into the chamber. There are basically 4 types of rifles:

1.) Lever action. These are my personal favorite. I own five of them. There is a lever on the bottom of the rifle that has to be cocked every time before a bullet is fired. The lever is pulled down and the expended shell is ejected. The lever is pulled back up and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube into the chamber. The gun is ready to fire again. You see these types guns in old westerns, they've been around forever.

2.) Bolt action. Has is a sliding bolt that is pulled back and the expended shell is ejected and a new shell is extracted from the feed tube or magazine by pushing the bolt forward again and locking it into place. Very popular in WW2.

Most hunters are going to either use a lever action or bolt action rifle.

3.) Pump action. Pump action is mostly for shotguns, some older .22s. There is a fore stock (grip) that has to be slid (pumped) back and forth. The sliding of the fore stock ejects to expended shell and when you slide it back it extracts a shell from the feed tube into the chamber.

4.) Automatic/Semi-automatic. No action is required. This is the main difference. After each shot, the shell automatically ejects and a new shell is extracted from the magazine into the chamber.

So what's the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? On an automatic rifle, you pull the trigger and it fires continuously until your finger lets off the trigger. On a semi-automatic rifle, you have to pull the trigger each time it is fired - it is not capable of continuous fire. It will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Now think about this. Let's say you want to buy a rifle for home defense, nothing more. If someone were to break into your house and you had an opportunity to grab your rifle, do you want a rifle that requires an action (lever, bolt or pump) every time you want to fire, or do you want a rifle that automatically does it for you? In other words, do you want to waste valuable seconds cocking the gun each time you want to fire a shot or do you want to pull the trigger however many times it takes until he is dead?

David, perhaps there are people who live in situations where they need guns that they can fire rapidly, in order to defend their homes. I'm not there and it's hard to imagine, but it sounds like that's the situation you are living in. Please keep posting so that we know you are okay.

edited to add: (that last comment was meant to be humorous, not sarcastic) By the way, I used to live in southeast Houston, in a bad area. My girlfriend's home was robbed while we were at a movie back in 1982, so I bought a gun the next day. I sold it when my kids got older, as I felt that a gun in my home (any gun) would have much more likelihood of being used accidentally, or against me, than by me. I still feel the same way, but if I lived in a different environment I might feel differently. Certainly I would want a gun if I lived out in the middle of nowhere.

vintagetoppsguy
01-02-2013, 07:03 PM
My girlfriend's home was robbed while we were at a movie back in 1982, so I bought a gun the next day. I sold it when my kids got older, as I felt that a gun in my home (any gun) would have much more likelihood of being used accidentally, or against me, than by me. I still feel the same way, but if I lived in a different environment I might feel differently. Certainly I would want a gun if I lived out in the middle of nowhere.

Your girlfriendís home was burglarized, not robbed. My home was burglarized too many years ago when I was not home. I called HPD and told them "my house has been robbed" and the dispatcher quickly corrected me and told me that it was burglarized, not robbed. Evidentially there is a difference. I have a few choice words for her and told her I wasn't there to argue semantics, but to report a burglary :D

Anyway, it's not the bad part of town you have to worry about. I can choose to stay away from there. The problem we have (as I'm sure in other parts of the country) are home invasions in the nicer parts of town. And it's never just one person, but several people. They usually tie the victim up and ransack the house looking for valuables.

Think about it, if you're wanting to invade a home, do you choose the house in the hood (where the homeowner probably isn't going to have anything of value to take) or do you choose a house in the nicer neighborhood (where there homeowner is more likely to have something of value)?

So, I still have the same question. If I have to shoot 3 or 4 home invaders, do I want a gun that I have to keep cocking every time I want to fire a shot, or do I want a gun that can shoot just as fast as I can pull the trigger? I prefer the latter.

esd10
01-02-2013, 08:05 PM
there is no difference between a semi auto hand gun which fires a larger round than a ar15 which shoots a 5.56mm or the .223 which is a tad bit bigger than a .22 and they fire at the same rate besides the 30 round to a 16 round magazine. the handgun bullets come in a wide variety of sizes and most of you know that and they do so much more damage than a .223 then why arent you calling for a ban on handguns and .22 rifles then just get ride of all firearms and we can be a socialist country where are goverment tells us what we can or cant do and they will protect us.

Runscott
01-03-2013, 12:42 AM
So, I still have the same question. If I have to shoot 3 or 4 home invaders, do I want a gun that I have to keep cocking every time I want to fire a shot, or do I want a gun that can shoot just as fast as I can pull the trigger? I prefer the latter.

That's a tough way to live. I live in downtown Seattle and the issue of how quickly I can fire a gun, is not an issue. If it gets to that point, I'll either move or get a gun, but I still doubt that defending my home will ever require the same firepower that it takes to mow down a herd of wild hogs.

teetwoohsix
01-03-2013, 01:19 AM
Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.


Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

I recently read that the Columbine tragedy happened during the last "ban on assault weapons". So, of course, the "new ban" will be way more restrictive & I wouldn't doubt it if they went as far as to try to ban all guns eventually. I'm sure this is why the gun stores can't keep much of anything in stock.

I think everyone is in agreement that certain people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and checks and balances (which are already in place, by the way) should be used when selling a firearm to someone. But I feel they should be looking at fixing the social problems in our society rather than taking away everyones rights. But they would have to look inward to do that, so it won't happen.

Sincerely, Clayton

Runscott
01-03-2013, 01:31 PM
Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

vintagetoppsguy
01-03-2013, 01:55 PM
For the record, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 to give American citizens the right to own a musket. There was virtually no police force back then and the militia was dispersed. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm.

Harm from whom? If you can't finish your statement, I'll finish it for you. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm from invading armies or an oppressive government.

Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment.

Last week (December 29th), was the 122nd anniversary of Wounded Knee where nearly 300 Sioux Indians were massacred. Why? Simple! The 7th Calvary wanted to disarm them of their guns. What about their Second Amendment rights, or does that not apply to Native Americans?

Gun confiscation has happened in other countries all over the world and even here in the US (many times). Wounded Knee is NOT the only example I can give, it just happens to be so close to the anniversary. Itís funny how the gun control advocates try to tell gun owners that nobody wants to take away their guns when history has proven otherwise. Itís also funny how Wounded Knee is barely mentioned (if mentioned at all) in our history books. I guess they wanted to just keep that hush hush.

teetwoohsix
01-03-2013, 02:40 PM
Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

No offense taken Scott, I appreciate the response.

I also agree with you about more funding to help the mentally ill. But, not every act of gun violence is perpetrated by a mentally ill person. More acts of gun violence happen by gang members (who own guns that were bought on the black market) than by mentally ill people. This is what I mean about them exploiting "certain" tragedies over others, to push an agenda.

Chicago alone in 2012 reached 500 gun related deaths, most gang/drug related. But, instead of logical steps in fixing "the drug problem", the failed war on drugs continues and people keep getting killed by people who shouldn't own guns (isn't this a tragedy?) and don't own them legally. Yet, they sensationalize the instances that a mentally ill person uses a gun to commit a tragedy and then blame it on THE GUN; and exploit it to take away people's right to bear arms.

And the hypocrites who are calling for the new "war on guns" all use guns to protect themselves one way or another, either by CCP's or armed security. So, it's ok for them but not for the common law abiding citizen I guess.

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person. I notice there's not much talk about what type of medications the shooter may or may not have been on- the focus is on guns.

The bottom line for me is if they take this right away (the right to bear arms) than we may as well kiss all of our rights away. The United Nations of America.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
01-03-2013, 03:02 PM
Harm from whom? If you can't finish your statement, I'll finish it for you. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm from invading armies or an oppressive government.



Last week (December 29th), was the 122nd anniversary of Wounded Knee where nearly 300 Sioux Indians were massacred. Why? Simple! The 7th Calvary wanted to disarm them of their guns. What about their Second Amendment rights, or does that not apply to Native Americans?

Gun confiscation has happened in other countries all over the world and even here in the US (many times). Wounded Knee is NOT the only example I can give, it just happens to be so close to the anniversary. Itís funny how the gun control advocates try to tell gun owners that nobody wants to take away their guns when history has proven otherwise. Itís also funny how Wounded Knee is barely mentioned (if mentioned at all) in our history books. I guess they wanted to just keep that hush hush.

Great point David.

I would post a link to a you tube movie, but because of it's violent and graphic images I will just give the name of the one hour movie. It's called "Innocents Betrayed". I would suggest people who are ok with taking away people's rights to defend themselves may want to watch this movie/documentary.

Sincerely, Clayton

esd10
01-03-2013, 03:08 PM
i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

vintagetoppsguy
01-03-2013, 03:33 PM
i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

Exactly! You have to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's families. When they were told of the tragic news, do you think they asked, "What kind of weapon was used?" "What caliber?" Or do you think they asked, "What would make a person do something like this?" Answer is pretty obvious.

Runscott
01-03-2013, 07:58 PM
I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person.

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

teetwoohsix
01-04-2013, 02:06 AM
Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

Modern day Salem witch trials.

They know the person is mentally ill, send him/her to a mental health facility for an "observation", give them who knows what kind of drugs/medication, and then say "he/she understands the charges against him/her", and now they are fit to stand trial. Yeah, that's it. Poof, no longer mentally ill.....:rolleyes:

My Grandmother (RIP) was actually treated for depression back in the 50's with "electric shock therapy", I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I found this out. It made me sick.

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
01-04-2013, 10:19 AM
David, perhaps there are people who live in situations where they need guns that they can fire rapidly, in order to defend their homes.

Scott, they not only need them to defend their homes, but they also need them for everyday situations - like having dinner with your family or taking your wife to the movies. You just never know when or where you're going to need a gun. Why is this so hard for you and others to comprehend???

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

This happened only 2 days after the CT shooting. Wonder why we didn't hear about this in the news? Simple! The left-wing media would NEVER report a story where a bad person with a gun was stopped by a good person with a gun. Thankfully SHE had that gun or the situation could have been a whole lot worse.

BTW, look at the picture in the article. Does that look like a bad part of town to you?

teetwoohsix
01-04-2013, 12:12 PM
Scott, they not only need them to defend their homes, but they also need them for everyday situations - like having dinner with your family or taking your wife to the movies. You just never know when or where you're going to need a gun. Why is this so hard for you and others to comprehend???

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

This happened only 2 days after the CT shooting. Wonder why we didn't hear about this in the news? Simple! The left-wing media would NEVER report a story where a bad person with a gun was stopped by a good person with a gun. Thankfully SHE had that gun or the situation could have been a whole lot worse.

BTW, look at the picture in the article. Does that look like a bad part of town to you?

Here's one for you David :

http://www.lvrj.com/news/coroner-identifies-man-killed-in-home-invasion-185029341.html

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
01-04-2013, 12:49 PM
Thanks for the article, Clayton. From the article: "Howard was shot after he and three other suspects forced their way into an apartment..." This confirms exactly what I was telling Scott in post #46. Most of the time, home invaders show up in groups or 2, 3, 4 (as in this case) or more. If 4 thugs kick in my door, I want a gun that can fire as many shots as I can, just as fast as I can.

teetwoohsix
01-04-2013, 11:12 PM
Thanks for the article, Clayton. From the article: "Howard was shot after he and three other suspects forced their way into an apartment..." This confirms exactly what I was telling Scott in post #46. Most of the time, home invaders show up in groups or 2, 3, 4 (as in this case) or more. If 4 thugs kick in my door, I want a gun that can fire as many shots as I can, just as fast as I can.

No problem David.

I found it interesting that the intruder who was killed wasn't even from this state. Scary stuff.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
01-04-2013, 11:28 PM
i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

I have to say I tend to look at the worst case scenario, so sometimes what I say may sound extreme. But, I read alot of history and true crime books. It is a bit alarming to me that we are over 16 trillion dollars in debt (that, to me is a mind boggling amount of money !!!!) and the issue of gun restriction/confiscation comes up. This is where reading history books kind of freaks me out :o

On the brighter side, our police and military take an oath to defend the Constitution, and when push comes to shove I like to think that they wouldn't obey unconstitutional orders. After all, they are just like us,,, citizens of the United States of America. I've talked with many active military and they've all seemed very grounded to me. I always make sure to thank them for their service. A big thanks to all active military and all vets for fighting for our freedoms !!!!

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
01-13-2013, 10:34 AM
Here is a perfect example of the media pushing an agenda. Ben Shapiro did an excellent job of stating the facts to Piers Morgan regarding the right to bear arms. It was clear to me that everytime Mr. Shapiro was telling truthful facts and making too much sense, Mr. Morgan would rudely interupt him, cut him off, and try to divert the discussion. Kudos to Mr. Shapiro for speaking the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

Sincerely, Clayton

esd10
01-20-2013, 11:31 AM
the ban will fail in the senate what from what i have read and heard and i believe the president is abusing his power and this needs to stop.

cubsfan-budman
01-20-2013, 12:33 PM
The President is not abusing his power any more than Geo. H.W. Bush was when he used his executive authority to liberate Kuwait. The President has the ability to make certain decisions without Congress' permission. It makes my blood boil to hear so many conservatives scream bloody murder about these types of things. Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I have a strong feeling that he knows when he's within his rights to do something based on the Constitution.

A couple of other points I'd like to chip in:

1. An AR-15 or AK-47 or whatever type of assault rifle you might own is BY FAR the worst implement you could choose with which to defend your home in case of a home invasion/robbery. Even soft point assault rounds will go right through all the drywall in your house, posing a risk to others inside your house as well as innocent bystanders next door (or several doors down). Your are much better off defending yourself with a pistol (frankly a revolver, as they don't jam) or with a shotgun. Neither of those 2 options are going to be taken away from anyone.

So, in a defense situation, what use are assault rifles? A lot of folks have heard about store owners using assault rifles to defend their property versus looters in places like post-Katrina New Orleans or during the Rodney King riots in California. You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff. If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

If a person breaks into your home or place of business with intent to harm you, then by all means defend yourself with deadly force. My suggestion is to use a shotgun or pistol to do so, but currently that's up to you.

Finally, "assault weapon" is not nearly as nebulous of a term as many might imagine. It has very little to do with "selective fire" as was stated above. In my experience there are 3 types of military-style rifles that are available to the general public.

1. Sniper-type rifles (many calibers up to and including .50 cal rifles)
2. Battle-type rifles (typically .308 and 30.06, examples include HK G3, FN FAL and FN SCAR heavy)
3. Assault-type rifles (typically .223 or 5.56mm (AR-15) or 7.62x39 (AK-47))

Interesting trivia: 7.62 is the "common denominator" when judging the type of rifle that you're looking at...a "battle rifle" will shoot 7.62x51 (which is the military designation of .308 Winchester) or 7.62x54(r) which is reasonably common because its the round that goes with the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, which is so numerous because of their use in WW2.

The original assault round was for the German "Sturmgewehr" when they noticed that most of their engagements were occurring at relatively close quarters, so the extra powder in their 7.62x51 rounds was unnecessary. If the chopped the round down to 7.62x39 their soldiers could retain their effectiveness AND carry more ammo (or be less encumbered by the same number of rounds).

So assault weapons are literally the type of weapons built around these type of rounds. That is: a "battle rifle" caliber chopped down in length for easy carry.

The .223/5.56 nato is a modern take on the WW2-era 7.62x39 concept.

vintagetoppsguy
01-20-2013, 02:40 PM
You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff.

Funny, funny stuff. Tell you what, I'm coming by your house at 10:00 tonight to rob you. Since you know I'm coming, just GO AWAY! Leave! It's just stuff, right?

You know I am not serious but, if I was, something tells me you wouldn't heed your own advice and just "go away". You would be there to defend your property.

If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

Why does it have to be a choice? Personally, I choose both, I HAVE insurance, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will certainly take their life.

teetwoohsix
01-21-2013, 03:18 PM
NM

Sean1125
01-22-2013, 04:14 AM
Funny, funny stuff. Tell you what, I'm coming by your house at 10:00 tonight to rob you. Since you know I'm coming, just GO AWAY! Leave! It's just stuff, right?

You know I am not serious but, if I was, something tells me you wouldn't heed your own advice and just "go away". You would be there to defend your property.



Why does it have to be a choice? Personally, I choose both, I HAVE insurance, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will certainly take their life.

I agree with partially with the latter point... It is not socially accepted to break into someones house, you don't know why they are there or what they can or will do, you don't know if they are going to harm you your family or your child(ren)... If you see they are armed you cannot take chances - them or you - I don't think I would shoot to kill though who knows as I hope I am never in that situation.

esd10
01-25-2013, 09:09 AM
a person coming into your home while knowing you are home they have the intent of harming you and your family and to take what is yours so i will defend my family with my so called assault weapon. a 9mm round will go through a wall just as easy as a 223 round so thats garbage and has no argument.

cubsfan-budman
01-25-2013, 09:36 AM
a person coming into your home while knowing you are home they have the intent of harming you and your family and to take what is yours so i will defend my family with my so called assault weapon. a 9mm round will go through a wall just as easy as a 223 round so thats garbage and has no argument.

This is patently false. There is TONS of "frangible" 9mm ammo on the market this purpose-made to break up once it hits drywall/brick/other building material. If you go to WalMart, you'll find more types of "home defense" ammo than normal "hardball" ammo.

.223 does come in soft-point varieties, but unless you load the rounds yourself, there is too much powder behind the bullet to stop it from going through drywall/hardy plank/whatever.

In fairness, I'm sure you could find some specialty ammo for your AR-15 on the web somewhere that would be appropriate for defense inside your home, but the stuff you get at WalMart/Cabela's/Academy isn't going to do the job.

Also, even in a "carbine" configuration, the fact that you need to raise the weapon to your shoulder to be effective and the barrel length being what it is (18in) your ability to acquire your target effectively in the dark is really diminished...even with the best ammo.

Anyhow, if you have the sincere desire to protect your house from intruders, short-barrelled shotguns with 00 buckshot are absolutely your best, most effective solution, followed by revolvers with frangible ammo.

In my previous post, I wasnt speaking against killing someone who threatens your life or the life of your family. And I definitely feel that someone who knowingly enters your home while you're in it has the intention of harming you. I was merely speaking against those people who use their guns only to protect their property. IN MY OPINION, no stuff is worth taking someones life for. If you find yourself in a Katrina-type situation, the most ethical and frankly safest thing to do is LEAVE THE AREA.

vintagetoppsguy
01-25-2013, 01:48 PM
http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetration-Analysis-Test-(Adpat)

cubsfan-budman
01-25-2013, 02:10 PM
Interesting info David, and certainly not what I expected.

I wonder though why they used frangible ammo in the .223, but not in the pistol, if they wanted to compare apples to apples.

Anyhow, I've personally punched holes in a cast iron bathtub with 5.56 FMJ, so my assumption was that it would punch through drywall like it was paper. Maybe not.

yanks12025
02-03-2013, 05:31 PM
Perfect thing to explain.

teetwoohsix
02-03-2013, 10:15 PM
Great post Brock :)

Hopefully someday soon people will wake up to the scam that this really is.

Sincerely, Clayton

EvilKing00
02-09-2013, 12:32 PM
I think if bad people who want to do bad things will go out and get illeagle guns. Not go get a permit for one. Those normal people who want protection get the permits. I dont have a gun, but if i want one i should be able to go get one

Shoele$$
02-17-2013, 04:46 AM
I'm all for responsible citizens owning guns, but the truth is for home protection all you really need is two things, a dog who will give you a heads up by barking when somebody is trying to enter the house who shouldn't be there and a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with magnum 00 buck if they do happen to enter. At night when it's dark and you're all disorientated, you want something that will give you a nice spread and a better chance to hit your target ;)

teetwoohsix
02-17-2013, 10:18 AM
This is one of those topics that I could get into all day long, because I think the topic goes much deeper than banning assault weapons/gun confiscation.

I try to figure out the logic behind : Arming foreign rebels in other countries who are trying to overthrow their governments (many of these groups have ties to Al Queda~ I thought we were "after them"?), but yet, imposing all of these restrictions (assault weapon ban/gun confiscation/Patriot Act/NDAA/etc.,etc.) on law abiding Americans. Does this make sense?

I mean, what's really wrong with this picture? I honestly wonder if people are even paying attention anymore.

Sincerely, Clayton

cammb
02-20-2013, 07:24 AM
Yeah, that was me.

Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

Why would you get nervous? I don't have any power and I'm not political.

I live 1/2 an hour from Newtown. I've been through there dozens of times. Adam Lanza had access to semi-automatic weapons because his mother had access to semi-automatic weapons. Can you give me a good reason why Adam Lanza's mother or anybody else needs a semi-automatic weapon?

To protect yourself from the people who want to take your guns?

Let's call a spade a spade.

..........and nobody's gonna take your guns. Any legislation will have so many loopholes it won't matter a lick. You'll get grandfathered in, or at worst you'll have to slightly modify the guns you already have.

"Nobody is going to take your guns"? Educate yourself and go to youtube and lookup videos on Hurricane Katrina You will see videos of the National Guard going to homes , not affected by the hurricane, and taking weapons away from these lawabiding citizens. Some are even put in handcuffs. Dont ever think it cant happen here.

SetBuilder
02-21-2013, 11:22 AM
If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike? Sounds like a good investment right now. I can buy an AR or AK and just wait until they ban them, grandfather me in, and then I can re-sell in the future at a huge markup.

Look at the fully automatic rifles. They were once legal too, and probably sold as cheap as a semi-auto today. Today if you want to buy a full-auto rifle legally, it'll cost you over $30,000 in some cases.

vintagetoppsguy
02-21-2013, 12:35 PM
If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike?

I don't think so. You're seeing a price spike right now because supply can't keep up with demand. Anybody that's ever seriously thought about owning one is buying now, pre-ban. I don't think they're buying them as an "investment" to re-sell later. The folks that are buying them are just afraid that they won't be able to purchase one later and want to do it now before any ban. So, if there is a ban, anybody that wants one will already own one. Ban or not, the prices will come back down.

teetwoohsix
02-25-2013, 12:34 AM
"Nobody is going to take your guns"? Educate yourself and go to youtube and lookup videos on Hurricane Katrina You will see videos of the National Guard going to homes , not affected by the hurricane, and taking weapons away from these lawabiding citizens. Some are even put in handcuffs. Dont ever think it cant happen here.

cammb-

I'm convinced that the mainstream media has brainwashed people to the point of no return. They will only understand what is going on when the SHTF.
And then it's too late.

People need to start looking at alternative news on the internet, and start waking up fast. Learn the truth, it's out there. SNAP OUT OF THE TRANCE.
Sincerely, Clayton

ChiefBenderForever
02-25-2013, 01:48 PM
If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike? Sounds like a good investment right now. I can buy an AR or AK and just wait until they ban them, grandfather me in, and then I can re-sell in the future at a huge markup.

Look at the fully automatic rifles. They were once legal too, and probably sold as cheap as a semi-auto today. Today if you want to buy a full-auto rifle legally, it'll cost you over $30,000 in some cases.

Grandfather you in ? Try ban= felony so turn them in or get raided and arrested. If they are banned it will be against the law to own them, how can you resell something that is against the law to own? What will happen is our goverment will branch out from the DEA and form a GEA and go raid all registered gun owners that don't turn in weapons, then they will turn around and sell them to the Mexican Cartel.

Ease
02-25-2013, 02:05 PM
Hey Johnny! Good to see ya!
Some of the firearms manufacturers are refusing to sell to LE/Gov't agencies in states where citizens are restricted. Not the big boys (Ruger, Glock, Sig, etc) but its a start.
Check it out. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/15/group-of-second-amendment-supporting-gun-makers-now-refusing-to-sell-arms-to-law-enforcement-in-new-york-and-other-gun-restricting-states/)

cubsfan-budman
02-25-2013, 02:14 PM
that is not how it worked during the previous clinton-era assault weapons ban.



Grandfather you in ? Try ban= felony so turn them in or get raided and arrested. If they are banned it will be against the law to own them, how can you resell something that is against the law to own? What will happen is our goverment will branch out from the DEA and form a GEA and go raid all registered gun owners that don't turn in weapons, then they will turn around and sell them to the Mexican Cartel.

vintagetoppsguy
02-25-2013, 02:33 PM
that is not how it worked during the previous clinton-era assault weapons ban.

I didn't think so either. If I remember correctly (and I could be wrong), anything that you owned that fell under the ban was grandfathered in and was not illegal to own or shoot. It was just illegal to buy, sell or trade.

ChiefBenderForever
02-25-2013, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't compare anything that happened 20 yrs ago to what is going on today.

teetwoohsix
02-25-2013, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't compare anything that happened 20 yrs ago to what is going on today.

+1

Sincerely, Clayton

*Agree, great to see you posting again Johnny :)

teetwoohsix
02-25-2013, 03:27 PM
Hey Johnny! Good to see ya!
Some of the firearms manufacturers are refusing to sell to LE/Gov't agencies in states where citizens are restricted. Not the big boys (Ruger, Glock, Sig, etc) but its a start.
Check it out. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/15/group-of-second-amendment-supporting-gun-makers-now-refusing-to-sell-arms-to-law-enforcement-in-new-york-and-other-gun-restricting-states/)

Nice post Eric, thanks for that link.

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
02-25-2013, 05:16 PM
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x137/vintagetoppsguy/gunproblem_zpsde984254.jpg

daywalker2029
02-26-2013, 04:40 AM
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x137/vintagetoppsguy/gunproblem_zpsde984254.jpg
im glad somebody points this out, im a big supporter of the 2nd amnd and live in NY. ever since the conn shooting all these quick to action anti gun officails are trying to pass their gun restrictions fast (look what cuomo did virtually overnight here in NY ) but they arent really addressing the problem which is the people that are the problem, not the gun

i dotn hear alot of people speaking to the real issue which is, IMO (i know im not a big poster here so take it for what its worth LOL) , people control. not many mention that the conn shooter attempted to by a gun himself before the shooting but he store turned him down. fact of the matter is gun control worked, the guns owned by his mother should have been properly secured and kept out of his reach.

law makers need to focus on the illegal guns that are out there and work on better mental health programs and evaluations NOT quick bans and restrictions that only affect responsible gun owners

teetwoohsix
02-26-2013, 12:26 PM
I think what people don't realize is that this has been an agenda way before these three mass shootings. These shootings are what they are using to push the agenda into the national spotlight. We all know that criminals have been shooting each other for decades with handguns, often not even hitting thier intended targets (innocent victims, often children in drive by shootings). They didn't care so much then, did they? Why now?

When you realize that this has been the plan for a long time, you can see how devious all of this really is. You really need to ask yourself, why do they want the guns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiydW83TYg

Sincerely, Clayton

*Edit to add:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

Naahh, no brainwashing going on....

daywalker2029
02-26-2013, 04:54 PM
I think what people don't realize is that this has been an agenda way before these three mass shootings. These shootings are what they are using to push the agenda into the national spotlight. We all know that criminals have been shooting each other for decades with handguns, often not even hitting thier intended targets (innocent victims, often children in drive by shootings). They didn't care so much then, did they? Why now?

When you realize that this has been the plan for a long time, you can see how devious all of this really is. You really need to ask yourself, why do they want the guns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiydW83TYg

Sincerely, Clayton

*Edit to add:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

Naahh, no brainwashing going on....

im completely agree - its not like gun crime just came about recently - gun crime isnt some new problem, but why all of a sudden is it the main topic for all political debate ? its sad that anti-gun lobbyist wouldn't use horrible events like these shootings to push their agenda

frankly all the gun laws in teh world arent going to stop a criminal from hurting someone if thats their goal

theres an old bumper sticker in my fathers gun cabinet that says " when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them". it really holds true, why dont the people that are some against guns spend their time/money/energy on getting rid of illegal guns that are in criminal hands

drc
02-26-2013, 07:46 PM
The pro gun argument often is "you don't need a gun to kill someone." Ala 'Take away a criminal's gun,and a criminal will kill you with a knife or brick or whatever." That argument merely begs the question of why then do you guys need guns?

Take it as a rhetorical question, or as commentary on a less than logically air tight slogan. Football beer commercials and political slogans (from all sides) are the lowest level of human communication, so I'm not pointing fingers just at the NRA. 99% percent of political slogans don't hold up to logical or reasoned analysis, and really just exist for emotional or visceral effect.

vintagetoppsguy
02-26-2013, 08:12 PM
The pro gun argument often is "you don't need a gun to kill someone." Ala 'Take away a criminal's gun,and a criminal will kill you with a knife or brick or whatever." That argument merely begs the question of why then do you guys need guns?

Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters.

My guns serve me 3 purposes. Hunting, target shooting and home defense. I could care less what the person who breaks into my house it holding. It doesn't matter if it's a shotgun or a staple gun or nothing at all. If I can get to my gun, I am going to shoot them dead. Period! If I shoot them and they are not dead, I'm going to shoot again and again and again and again until they are dead. If someone breaks into my house and I am able to get my gun, they will not leave my house alive.

teetwoohsix
02-27-2013, 01:50 PM
"Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters."

This is the point exactly.

Read history people. Read history.

Sincerely, Clayton

Ease
02-27-2013, 02:09 PM
Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters.

My guns serve me 3 purposes. Hunting, target shooting and home defense. I could care less what the person who breaks into my house it holding. It doesn't matter if it's a shotgun or a staple gun or nothing at all. If I can get to my gun, I am going to shoot them dead. Period! If I shoot them and they are not dead, I'm going to shoot again and again and again and again until they are dead. If someone breaks into my house and I am able to get my gun, they will not leave my house alive.

DJ is on point once again. Fantastic post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Matthew H
03-06-2013, 11:47 AM
Love, love, love all the "tyrannical government, home defense, 2nd amendment BS..... You own guns because they're fun to shoot, collectible, and because you look bad-ass in those pictures with one leg up on a rock and aiming off in the distance that you post on FB.

teetwoohsix
03-06-2013, 03:41 PM
So now they are arguing that it's constitutional to drone bomb Americans on American soil. What next? :mad:

Sincerely, Clayton

Cardboard Junkie
03-06-2013, 04:28 PM
Regarding all of the shootings to drum up support for banning weapons, I have 2 words. Sleeper Agents


Dave Pierson.....proud owner Mac 10's and 11's ,(with all the candy), 42 Hand guns, 870 Remington Pump w/pistol grip. And a dozen rifles from 22 to 500Nitro Express. My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

vintagetoppsguy
03-06-2013, 04:35 PM
Regarding all of the shootings to drum up support for banning weapons, I have 2 words. Sleeper Agents


Dave Pierson.....proud owner Mac 10's and 11's ,(with all the candy), 42 Hand guns, 870 Remington Pump w/pistol grip. And a dozen rifles from 22 to 500Nitro Express. My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

You, sir, are my hero

Ease
03-07-2013, 02:57 PM
My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

Yikes that's like 5-6 bucks a shot! You handloading?

Cardboard Junkie
03-07-2013, 03:25 PM
Yikes that's like 5-6 bucks a shot! You handloading?

I used too, now I just save my brass and send it to a buddy in Detroit. He reloads. Another great round is Marlin 444 Sporter, (465 grains)....jeeesh talk about a handheld lightning bolt, I'm convinced you could kill a Marmon truck with it. Even a near miss would probably do it, Ha ha. Dave:D

Ease
03-07-2013, 04:39 PM
465 grains! U mean 46.5 right?
Here's a little something for yall's reading pleasure...

http://freebeacon.com/the-watermelon-hunter/

Cardboard Junkie
03-07-2013, 05:03 PM
265 grains......typo:o

quinnsryche
03-09-2013, 09:00 AM
Yea! More guns! That will definitely make things better. We keep shooting all these terrorists on American soil while keeping the population safe. Wait, stop, oh that's right, no terrorists caught here but school kids and innocent bystanders keep dying by psychos who love automatic/assault weapons. Why do you need 40 guns? Can you fire them all at once, or are they placed strategically ever 2 feet from you in your home? Yup, that sounds safe AND sane.
Continue on with the gun love fest.

Cardboard Junkie
03-09-2013, 11:25 AM
Yea! More guns! That will definitely make things better. We keep shooting all these terrorists on American soil while keeping the population safe. Wait, stop, oh that's right, no terrorists caught here but school kids and innocent bystanders keep dying by psychos who love automatic/assault weapons. Why do you need 40 guns? Can you fire them all at once, or are they placed strategically ever 2 feet from you in your home? Yup, that sounds safe AND sane.
Continue on with the gun love fest.
Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.:)

teetwoohsix
03-12-2013, 03:04 AM
Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.:)

See, now that's what gun control should be about. A gun owner responsibly being in control of his guns. :D

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Turn off CNN and come back to Earth.

Sincerely, Clayton

quinnsryche
03-12-2013, 07:35 AM
I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Not at all. No gun, no shooting deaths. Plain and simple. It's not the gun, it's the psycho/criminal who uses it. I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true. Guns give a disconnect from the crime. Most people wouldn't have the guts to commit a crime/murder if they had to do the job physically. Hammer/bat/crowbar crimes would not rise significantly if guns were banned.

vintagetoppsguy
03-12-2013, 07:47 AM
You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

Cardboard Junkie
03-12-2013, 10:46 AM
Guns don't kill people.......bullets do! (written in jest.):p

yanksfan09
03-12-2013, 02:42 PM
Criminals would have a field day if they knew all guns were out of honest law-abiding citizens hands. Criminals don't follow gun laws, only good people who follow laws do. Guns are necessary for home defense, I never understood how people can't see that. That's all I have too say, as I hate political threads in my cards place.:)

Leon
03-12-2013, 05:44 PM
Personally I think this needs to be a mental health debate more than a gun debate. Don't take the guns away from law abiding people. Then the only ones with them will be the criminals. I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause. I also like the idea of school administrators packing heat too (when licensed to do so).

vintagetoppsguy
03-13-2013, 11:04 AM
I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause.

Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

drc
03-13-2013, 12:44 PM
The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

vintagetoppsguy
03-13-2013, 02:49 PM
The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

How do you draw that comparison? And, why not the overaccumulation of other things? Baseball cards? Cars? My wife's shoes?

teetwoohsix
03-13-2013, 04:02 PM
The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
03-13-2013, 04:11 PM
Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

I've read these statistics as well, but you won't hear about this on the brainwashing cable media. All they want people to hear about are people getting shot *especially people getting shot in groups, as it goes with their agenda.

I wish the news went back to reporting facts. If they did, there would be no hype about gun restriction/bans. The statistics in Chicago should make every citizen want to own a firearm, for protection.

Sincerely, Clayton

quinnsryche
03-13-2013, 07:23 PM
You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

daywalker2029
03-13-2013, 08:10 PM
My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it.

but where do you technically draw your line ? you suggest no semi-automatic weapons? but then suggest handguns for protection ? do you mean only revolvers and not semi-automatic handguns ? if thats the case what about a double action vs single action revolver ?

also what technically defines a weapon as an "assault weapon" ?? - the reason i ask is b/c i live in NY (where we also have some of the strictest gun laws on record) - right after sandy hook ny gov't rushed to pass new restrictions - the ironic thing is that my modern AR15 is no longer allowed to be bought/sold in the state and next month will need to be registered with NY state for me to maintain legal ownership, while my fathers WWII M1 carbine is not affected at all - funny thing is his old carbine is by the definitions outlined in the orig 94 ban MORE of an "assault weapon" than my modern AR15 is

vintagetoppsguy
03-13-2013, 08:19 PM
I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

Tony,

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but I couldn't agree with you more on the stricter penalties. I read somewhere that only 1/10th of one percent of applicants caught lying on a gun purchase application are prosecuted. That is ridiculous! I think we need to work on enforcing the gun control laws that we do have before talking about enacting new laws. I also agree with the idea to build more prisons. Overcrowding has the scumbags getting out early.

teetwoohsix
03-13-2013, 09:33 PM
Building more prisons will not fix the problems, because prisons only house criminals around more criminals-there is no rehabilitation, no program to change the criminal into a productive member of society when they get out. So, in essence, what you get is a criminal who completed his/her sentence hitting the streets with no new skills & not much of a chance to rebuild their lives. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. If you want to fix the problems, fix the criminals.

California built what, 33 prisons? Compared to how many Universities? Building prisons is not the answer-unless they are rehabilitated while in prison. They need to learn trades, skills, and transition into society with employers who will employ ex-felons. Locking people in cells for years, just to release them into the real world doesn't fix anything. Go to South Central Los Angeles, or Oakland California, and then tell me more prisons work :rolleyes: These places are still warzones & have been for decades.

And, you can have all of the gun restrictions and bans you want, but you are only hurting law abiding citizens because criminals don't get guns the legal way-so they don't care about gun laws, etc. This is the point.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
03-14-2013, 09:08 AM
In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

cubsfan-budman
03-14-2013, 09:17 AM
In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

just speaking off the cuff here, but isn't that a problem with privatizing things like jails? private companies exist to make money. prisons make money by having inmates.

there's no impetus to "solve" crime problems because the prisons NEED inmates.

teetwoohsix
03-14-2013, 09:31 AM
just speaking off the cuff here, but isn't that a problem with privatizing things like jails? private companies exist to make money. prisons make money by having inmates.

there's no impetus to "solve" crime problems because the prisons NEED inmates.

Exactly :)

If you (or anyone) take the time to check out the link I posted, you will see a program that works. The current system is a failure, in my opinion, because they just "shelve" people. There is no "fixing the problem". Some people have the attitude "who cares about these scumbags?" but guess what- those scumbags will be back in someones neighborhood again, with no skills and no help, and will more than likely go back to what they know.

Sincerely, Clayton

Ease
03-14-2013, 12:04 PM
Exactly :)

If you (or anyone) take the time to check out the link I posted, you will see a program that works. The current system is a failure, in my opinion, because they just "shelve" people. There is no "fixing the problem". Some people have the attitude "who cares about these scumbags?" but guess what- those scumbags will be back in someones neighborhood again, with no skills and no help, and will more than likely go back to what they know.

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanx for that link Clayton, I'd never heard of that. I'm sure you understand that many of those scumbags, though, are too far gone, and no amount of help or rehabilitation will help.

teetwoohsix
03-14-2013, 12:47 PM
Thanx for that link Clayton, I'd never heard of that. I'm sure you understand that many of those scumbags, though, are too far gone, and no amount of help or rehabilitation will help.

You're welcome Eric, thanks for reading it. :)

And yes, I do understand that many are too far gone, or flat out don't want help. I honestly don't have much sympathy for those types. I just think there should be more to it than locking people up, and then returning them to the streets full of hatred toward society with no skills or hope. I mean, where's the common sense in this. Punishment is one thing, but rehabilitation and opportunity has to play into it otherwise you don't change anything.

Sincerely, Clayton

* Edit to add: I am currently reading a book called "Education Of A Felon" written by a man named Edward Bunker. I am about halfway through the book, and it is one of the most intense books I've read (so far). It was a Los Angeles Times Best Book Of The Year and won a few awards.

Edward Bunker tells his life story.He played Mr.Blue in Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. So far I can say it's worth reading, this guy has been through hell but obviously became a productive member of society. Check it out if you can.

teetwoohsix
03-15-2013, 02:12 PM
Alright, my apologies for derailing the thread- I know the topic is about an assault weapon ban, not fixing society :)

I am more into preserving our rights (all of them) that are supposed to be protected with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is not an old out dated piece of paper, but the supreme law of the land that these politicians, as well as the police and military, promised to protect and uphold.

My worry is that when you start taking away people's rights, there will be more to follow. Once they are gone, good luck getting them back. Now, I highly doubt that any logical sane person would want a menatlly ill individual owning any type of firearm, and the same goes for gun violence in general. I am against all of that-but the question begs- who decides if someone is mentally ill? If you have depression , anxiety, or insomnia, does that make you mentally ill? I think everyone has these feelings from time to time. I know I do, but I am dealing with a very painful physical medical problem. But, does that make me mentally ill?

Barry, I wish you would have stayed in this conversation, as you are one of my favorite posters and I always enjoy your opinion. We don't all have to agree to talk about this subject. But I understand it upsets you.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread, it's nice to see people's opinions on issues like this. I respect everyone's opinion, even if I disagree with you. :)

I feel there is more of an agenda with this subject, and that we've been lied to so many times by the powers that be, so it comes down to TRUST. So, understanding history, along with many "official lies", I don't trust the agenda. We are supposed to be the Land of the Free....but we have more people incarcerated in this country than any other country in the WORLD !!!!! We have the Patriot Act (warrantless wiretapping), the NDAA ( indefinate detention of American citizens with no due process, no right to a jury trial of your peers, all because you were "labled" a terrorist by some unknown person). All in the name of "keeping us safe". Are we ever going to get back to the country we used to be before 9-11-2001? Freedom? Liberty? Remember?

"Shall Not Be Infringed".

And do something already about Corzine damnit !!!!! (just had to throw that in :D).

Sincerely, Clayton

Ease
03-15-2013, 03:12 PM
Great post Clayton. I need to watch the news more or something. I'd never heard of Jon Corzine.

teetwoohsix
03-16-2013, 02:33 AM
Thanks Eric.

You won't hear much of Corzine anymore on the news. It's been swept under the rug.

Sincerely, Clayton

barrysloate
03-16-2013, 05:42 AM
Clayton, I left this discussion because I don't really think you guys are willing to listen to other opinions. You all have your minds made up, and when somebody disagrees with you you don't really hear them. You simply say they are wrong. There's no give and take, no real discussion at all, so I won't waste my time with it. And yes, I disagree with a whole lot of the specious arguments in this post but I choose to continue to stay out. Please don't send any questions my way because I won't be answering them.

drc
03-16-2013, 02:13 PM
I (probably obviously) disagree with Clayton on the gun issue, but agree that if prisoners are going to be re-introduced into society in the future you should work to make them ready for society, address their drug/psychological etc problems. Even if you're an ultra conservative, anti-crime person this only makes common sense. The ex-prisoners could very well move into your and your family's neighborhood. So which would you rather they be released from prison as-- someone who can get a job and integrate into normal society, or some who is even worse than when he went in? Rehabilitating prisoners is good both for the prisoners and society in general-- and the crime rate . . . It's hypocritical and defies common sense to both complain about criminal recidivism while preventing prisoners from getting rehabilitation and treatment.

esd10
03-16-2013, 04:26 PM
the problem is with the new proposed ban it will not just take so called assault rifles out of our hands but they are going after anything with a clip/magazine

teetwoohsix
03-16-2013, 11:05 PM
Clayton, I left this discussion because I don't really think you guys are willing to listen to other opinions. You all have your minds made up, and when somebody disagrees with you you don't really hear them. You simply say they are wrong. There's no give and take, no real discussion at all, so I won't waste my time with it. And yes, I disagree with a whole lot of the specious arguments in this post but I choose to continue to stay out. Please don't send any questions my way because I won't be answering them.

Thanks for your response Barry :)

I'm willing to listen to everyone's opinions, and I respect your position. I won't send any questions your way. I try to always stay open minded about everything, and I know this is a touchy subject.

Hope all is well with you-

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
03-16-2013, 11:11 PM
I (probably obviously) disagree with Clayton on the gun issue, but agree that if prisoners are going to be re-introduced into society in the future you should work to make them ready for society, address their drug/psychological etc problems. Even if you're an ultra conservative, anti-crime person this only makes common sense. The ex-prisoners could very well move into your and your family's neighborhood. So which would you rather they be released from prison as-- someone who can get a job and integrate into normal society, or some who is even worse than when he went in? Rehabilitating prisoners is good both for the prisoners and society in general-- and the crime rate . . . It's hypocritical and defies common sense to both complain about criminal recidivism while preventing prisoners from getting rehabilitation and treatment.

Thanks David, I agree with this 100%.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
05-21-2013, 09:13 PM
In the recent thread regarding "our open forum" on the main page, I was a bit suprised at the resistance I recieved by just saying "long live the first amendment". I was told my understanding of the first amendment was as "limited" as my understanding of the second amendment. I was also singled out for mentioning the word "God" one time, even though it was in the context of "natural, God given rights".

This made me realize that many people clearly have different opinions on what the Constitution means, and/or what it WAS MEANT to mean.

How "conditioned" are you?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4


I hope that before anyone blasts me, that you watch this. It is an hour and a half film *all credits for this film belong to Larken Rose*. Watch it when you are bored, or, when you want to have a deeper understanding of what the Constitution was MEANT to be.

Sincerely, Clayton

Runscott
05-21-2013, 09:30 PM
Clayton, you have the right to say anything you want in an internet forum, subject to Leon's restrictions, which I think are extremely fair and prudent.

But you also have to realize that forum posters come in all sorts of flavors. There are a few who sit around quietly with a bug up their @ss because of something you typed that offended them, perhaps months ago, and perhaps totally inadvertently - join the club of those who have accidentally offended Adam at some point. I never did figure out what I did to piss him off, but it's been too much effort trying to get back in his good graces.

I'll go down in flames defending someone's right to say what they want, provided they don't call names or go overboard insulting my intelligence...or anyone else's. I guess that's the Libertarian in me, so you know what my thoughts are regarding the Constitution.

I have a TON of friends on this forum, so I am proof that speaking your mind works just fine - keep it up.

cyseymour
05-21-2013, 09:38 PM
In the recent thread regarding "our open forum" on the main page, I was a bit suprised at the resistance I recieved by just saying "long live the first amendment". I was told my understanding of the first amendment was as "limited" as my understanding of the second amendment. I was also singled out for mentioning the word "God" one time, even though it was in the context of "natural, God given rights".

This made me realize that many people clearly have different opinions on what the Constitution means, and/or what it WAS MEANT to mean.

How "conditioned" are you?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_pfgt6R7S8

I hope that before anyone blasts me, that you watch this. It is an hour and a half film *all credits for this film belong to Larken Rose*. Watch it when you are bored, or, when you want to have a deeper understanding of what the Constitution was MEANT to be.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, I don't think people were intentionally trying to blast you, it's just that your viewpoints tend toward the extreme. I honestly can't dedicate 90 minutes of my time to watching a video that will presumably be nothing more than right-wing propaganda. But I can tell you that throughout American history, there have been politicians and judges who have held a very strict and literal view of the constitution, and those who view its application in more practical terms.

Point being that it's simply hard to govern in the context of rigid ideology. Put aside your arguments of "freedom" for a second, and try to view the other side of the gun control debate - America is one of the very few developed countries without much gun control, and the murder rate is more than double that of other countries. It's hard to be free if you're dead. Meanwhile the countries with lax control like South Africa also suffer from a very high murder rate.

I don't think that's ideally how a society ought to function. But it is how societies function without gun control. Asking them to function otherwise goes against human nature - people who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves as well as other people. So just realize that there is another side of things, call it the "social contract", if you will, that says, although we would like to be free in the truest sense of the word, there are compromises that need to be made for the well-being of our society.

Cardboard Junkie
05-21-2013, 09:52 PM
I decided to take a break reading about all the constitutional and religious stuff and take my new 4 wheel drive ATV for a spin......

teetwoohsix
05-21-2013, 09:54 PM
Thanks Scott, I appreciate the support. :)

cysemour, I knew you wouldn't watch the film ;) The funny thing about it, is that I am a registered Democrat. So much for the "extreme right wing gun nut" theory :D And, I am not "extreme" at all, I've never even been to a "protest" before :D

I admit, I don't feel I identify with either Democrat or Republican 100%, I think I will label myself an "Independant" from now on. I will vote for someone based on their "values" and not because someone belongs to a particular party.The "two party system" keeps the country divided, and people no longer are willing to hold someone accountable if they belong to "their party", which is truly shameful.

The video is non-partisan, you may want to give it a look.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
05-21-2013, 09:57 PM
That was funny David :D

Don't hurt yourself on that thing :p

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
05-21-2013, 10:00 PM
Until this past weekend I have never owned an assault rifle. However, I have always supported those that chose to do so.

I have shot many of them in the Army and they never really appealed to me outside military life. I just didn't find them practical.

All that changed this past weekend. With the recent events of the federal government (IRS) targeting folks based on their political and religious beliefs, I decided it was time to purchase one. I also purchased 2500 rounds, 500 of which are armor piercing.

cyseymour
05-21-2013, 10:16 PM
Thanks Scott, I appreciate the support. :)

cysemour, I knew you wouldn't watch the film ;) The funny thing about it, is that I am a registered Democrat. So much for the "extreme right wing gun nut" theory :D And, I am not "extreme" at all, I've never even been to a "protest" before :D

I admit, I don't feel I identify with either Democrat or Republican 100%, I think I will label myself an "Independant" from now on. I will vote for someone based on their "values" and not because someone belongs to a particular party.The "two party system" keeps the country divided, and people no longer are willing to hold someone accountable if they belong to "their party", which is truly shameful.

The video is non-partisan, you may want to give it a look.

Sincerely, Clayton

Ninety minutes for a homemade video is a lot to ask, even a non-partisan one. ;)

Never would have guessed you were a registered Democrat, lol. The two-party system probably does keep the country divided, our system is unlike most democracies were there are many different parties and parties are able to combine votes to form a coalition.

One thing I will say is that too often people belong to a political party and are simply told what to think by the leaders of that political party. At times that can be good, but other times it can be bad. For instance, Republicans not believing in global warming despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, or Democratic support for some failed goverment programs like school busing, ethanol, etc.

teetwoohsix
05-22-2013, 02:33 AM
Ninety minutes for a homemade video is a lot to ask, even a non-partisan one. ;)

Never would have guessed you were a registered Democrat, lol. The two-party system probably does keep the country divided, our system is unlike most democracies were there are many different parties and parties are able to combine votes to form a coalition.

One thing I will say is that too often people belong to a political party and are simply told what to think by the leaders of that political party. At times that can be good, but other times it can be bad. For instance, Republicans not believing in global warming despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, or Democratic support for some failed goverment programs like school busing, ethanol, etc.

Well, even though it was a homemade video, it effectively shows the importance of the Constitution; as it was meant to be. And it was designed to wake people up, in a non partisan way.

When I asked the question "how conditioned are you?" it was because I understood that the media has people believing that anyone who is for "the Constitution" or "the second amendment" must be a "right wing extremist" or a "gun-nut". Since when did believing in your Constitution become "extreme"?! Since when did the second amendment defenders only side on the right? We, as Americans, should all be concerned for the loss of our rights equally. We should all be concerned, as Americans- regardless of political party, when politicians try to justify (usually in the name of "safety") taking freedoms away.

No one in their right mind believes in gun violence. But, people do understand that it's the individual holding the gun that is responsible for what he/she does with the gun. As was said in the other thread-and applies to any rights we have- individual responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom and liberty.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
05-22-2013, 02:47 AM
Clayton, you have the right to say anything you want in an internet forum, subject to Leon's restrictions, which I think are extremely fair and prudent.

But you also have to realize that forum posters come in all sorts of flavors. There are a few who sit around quietly with a bug up their @ss because of something you typed that offended them, perhaps months ago, and perhaps totally inadvertently - join the club of those who have accidentally offended Adam at some point. I never did figure out what I did to piss him off, but it's been too much effort trying to get back in his good graces.

I'll go down in flames defending someone's right to say what they want, provided they don't call names or go overboard insulting my intelligence...or anyone else's. I guess that's the Libertarian in me, so you know what my thoughts are regarding the Constitution.

I have a TON of friends on this forum, so I am proof that speaking your mind works just fine - keep it up.

I agree with you, and I actually don't hold a grudge with Adam or anyone else for that matter, simply because I believe in freedom of speech :D I can respect anyone's opinion regardless of whether I agree with it or not. If people want to hold a grudge with me, I'm ok with it.

I've made plenty of friends on this board, and value being a part of Net54. I know this is a vintage baseball card forum, but I also think it's healthy for us to be able to discuss what is going on in the world. Especially in these trying times.

I just hope people are awake, because if this country is ever going to "fix itself" the first step (in my opinion) is to understand why the problems are happening. The next step is to put our petty differences aside and work together for solutions. We need leaders who have our best intentions at heart, and leaders who the children (tomorrows future) can look up to.

And when it comes to our freedoms and liberties, we all have the same things at stake. That video is important.

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
07-03-2013, 12:18 AM
Until this past weekend I have never owned an assault rifle. However, I have always supported those that chose to do so.

I have shot many of them in the Army and they never really appealed to me outside military life. I just didn't find them practical.

All that changed this past weekend. With the recent events of the federal government (IRS) targeting folks based on their political and religious beliefs, I decided it was time to purchase one. I also purchased 2500 rounds, 500 of which are armor piercing.

Since the last posts on this thread, it's had 2,609 views :) Even if a fraction of those people viewed the link I posted to the film, I am thrilled. Thank you. And, David, I don't blame you for stocking up. DHS is doing the same thing. Couple that with the latest NSA spying, I believe people should be very concerned- what, exactly, is going on?

Sincerely, Clayton

Cardboard Junkie
07-03-2013, 05:21 PM
The silence is deafening.......eyes wide shut?

teetwoohsix
07-04-2013, 03:09 AM
The silence is deafening.......eyes wide shut?

:D Nice.

"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act"~ George Orwell

Happy 4th of July-

Sincerely, Clayton

EvilKing00
07-04-2013, 09:12 AM
Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes:D. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

Jlighter
07-04-2013, 09:58 PM
Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes:D. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

I can see your point, don't necessarily agree with it, but I do want to address it.

I think what might happen in your plan may have an adverse effect, albeit unintended, on homicide rates.

Why not go out in a public spectacle. A final blaze of unearned glory. Your name on front page headlines. Seems better then the alternative.

EvilKing00
07-05-2013, 06:08 AM
I can see your point, don't necessarily agree with it, but I do want to address it.

I think what might happen in your plan may have an adverse effect, albeit unintended, on homicide rates.

Why not go out in a public spectacle. A final blaze of unearned glory. Your name on front page headlines. Seems better then the alternative.

well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.

Jlighter
07-05-2013, 07:06 AM
well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.

To address your first point, the data may have been a result of correlation and causation. I haven't seen any research on it, nor do I really feel like doing it.:)

As for your second point, typically a public hanging is a solemn event. But, I doubt a hanging in Time Square with Pay-Per-View could provide such an environment.

Runscott
07-05-2013, 10:54 AM
well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.

From what I've read, pirates weren't too crazy about getting hung - they tied their hands, but not their feet, so they did a 'jig' for the spectators. Afterward, their corpses were publicly displayed, rotting until they were nothing but bones. An embarrassing, ignonimous finish, but not sure it was a deterrent to anything other than getting caught.

EvilKing00
07-05-2013, 05:41 PM
but not sure it was a deterrent to anything other than getting caught.

very true - and the title of the pay par view events "Everyone Gets caught"

teetwoohsix
07-18-2013, 04:02 AM
Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes:D. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

Between 1892 and 1951 (although the numbers are believed to be much higher) 4,370 people were reportedly lynched in the U.S.. 1,293 were white and 3,437 were black or Asian.

The word "lynch" was coined after a Virginia planter named Charles Lynch, who summarily lynched (executed) a number of loyalists to the British during the American Revolution.

It was common back then to torture and execute suspected felons by hanging without due process of the law. While I have no sympathy for child molesters or rapists or child killers, I do believe every American is entitled to due process.

As far as the original topic at hand, I am glad for the most part the second amendment remains intact. They are trying very hard to dismantle the constitution piece by piece, now trying very hard to justify spying on all Americans behind everyone's backs, knowing damn well it's a violation of the fourth amendment. Time to repeal the "Patriot Act" and void the NDAA. This garbage needs to end ASAP.

Sincerely, Clayton

EvilKing00
07-18-2013, 06:39 PM
Between 1892 and 1951 (although the numbers are believed to be much higher) 4,370 people were reportedly lynched in the U.S.. 1,293 were white and 3,437 were black or Asian.

The word "lynch" was coined after a Virginia planter named Charles Lynch, who summarily lynched (executed) a number of loyalists to the British during the American Revolution.

It was common back then to torture and execute suspected felons by hanging without due process of the law. While I have no sympathy for child molesters or rapists or child killers, I do believe every American is entitled to due process.

As far as the original topic at hand, I am glad for the most part the second amendment remains intact. They are trying very hard to dismantle the constitution piece by piece, now trying very hard to justify spying on all Americans behind everyone's backs, knowing damn well it's a violation of the fourth amendment. Time to repeal the "Patriot Act" and void the NDAA. This garbage needs to end ASAP.

Sincerely, Clayton

agree 100%, due process - but when found guilty of a hanous crime - the state should pull out a rope and get a deal with HBO.

Mark17
07-28-2013, 03:07 PM
And not let the guy spend 20 years on appeal, watching TV and eating 3 meals a day, sleeping in a warm bed, etc. Give him his trial. Allow a year or maybe two to prepare one appeal. If still found guilty, put him down.

If a veterinarian can put a pet down in a matter of moments, then use the same method to get rid of these murderers. There doesn't need to be a show, with heads popping off, or 100,000 volts sparking off the guy, or soiled pants.

vintagetoppsguy
04-10-2014, 09:11 AM
I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true.

Then you just got proven wrong yesterday in Pennsylvania.

When someone wants to hurt/kill others, they will use any means they can.

Runscott
04-10-2014, 11:18 AM
Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

vintagetoppsguy
04-10-2014, 11:54 AM
Correct. If you find one example that supports your point, then it is true in all cases. There is a crazy toddler at the table next to me, attempting to destroy everything in sight. I am intelligent enough to reach the conclusion that all toddlers will behave in exactly the same way, which is why I avoid them.

Well, let me put it back in your court. How many examples does it take to prove a point?

And if that toddler is annoying you too much, go tell your teacher. If that don't work, change daycares. :D

Runscott
04-10-2014, 02:55 PM
David, it's still in your court. You made a blanket statement, based on a single incident, in response to Tony. I happen to agree with him, but I understand the guns argument. I began avoiding these discussions when a poster stated that he wanted to carry guns around in order to protect himself and others. I'm really okay with the police department - not perfect, but better than Net54 members trying to do the job.

Unfortunately, the toddlers were at the coffee shop where I go to work and do research, and there aren't many alternatives out here.

jhs5120
04-11-2014, 09:21 AM
Then you just got proven wrong yesterday in Pennsylvania.

When someone wants to hurt/kill others, they will use any means they can.

I'm indifferent toward this topic, but there were 22 children injured this week because of a stabbing. If the child had a gun, there would have been 22 deaths.

22 children's lives were saved because a gun was not accessible to one mentally unstable kid.

vintagetoppsguy
04-11-2014, 10:05 AM
22 children's lives were saved because a gun was not accessible to one mentally unstable kid.

Jason, you're absolutely right...and if he would have had a gun, it could have been even higher than 22.

But the point I was trying to make though is that even when guns aren't accessible, mentally ill people will still find others ways to mass harm or kill people - knives, bombs, driving a car into a crowd, poison Kool-Aid, etc.

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

Runscott
04-11-2014, 11:21 AM
I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

steve B
04-11-2014, 12:47 PM
You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

I'd agree with this.

There's a rush towards the knee jerk reaction to punish. That's what our society seems to demand (Myself included fairly often)

But the ability to deal with any underlying mental aspects even if they're known in advance is either totally missing or done in such an all or nothing way that it's unworkable.
Someone with a problem can't be forced to get help or to maintain that help. At least until they cross a certain line. And the alternative looks bad too if the people involved are clueless. Like the school that forced a kid who was fidgeting with a pencil into a 5 hour mental and physical evaluation after another kid who had been picking on him claimed he was making gun motions with the pencil - Coerced consent with no due process looks pretty ugly.

And there's no sensible provision for temporary circumstances. If someone in a bad situation says or is accused of saying the wrong thing, a restraining order is issued (probably appropriately) And that then precludes gun ownership permanently in many places. leading to the obligatory confiscations "voluntary" or otherwise. Likely prolonging the anger and making it more severe in the short term.
I can't help but think that many of those people will be just fine in some period of time. Their anger fades and the risk just isn't there. But the effects of that one mistake are for life.
An ability to temporarily remove someone's guns until a particularly bad stretch of their life has passed would be more work, and more difficult, but perhaps more fair in the long term.

Steve B

Runscott
04-11-2014, 01:43 PM
Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

steve B
04-11-2014, 03:52 PM
Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.


I don't think it's right or just. But that's the initial instinctive reaction of many people.

Somehow it's not that hard for me to comprehend someone doing something horrific. History is full of evidence that it's not only possible but sadly likely.
What is hard is figuring out what's reasonable to do. it's a hard choice to let someone slide on it because they weren't right mentally. As a Montana judge supposedly said when denying an insanity defense - something like yes, normal people don't usually kill other people. (naive for a judge, I'd think he'd at least have heard of people doing that for hire :confused: )
But it's also hard to justify a serious punishment for someone who probably had no idea what they were actually doing.

The flip side is people who do something like that with a plan or to hide another crime, or just because they don't give a _ about anyone but themselves (Like locking kids in a car in 100+ weather to spend an hour or two in a bar) .........yes, fast and severe punishment.

Steve B

teetwoohsix
04-13-2014, 09:16 AM
Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

+1

Unfortunately, this is an area where society hasn't evolved.

As far as gun control, I think the Ministry of Propaganda, along with political driven agendas, have used a few terrible incidents to attempt to convince the masses that this (mentally ill people going on rampages with guns) is a common place thing. You have far more intentional gang shootings by people who know what they are doing and are not mentally ill. Why don't they use this platform? Because then you have to talk about the failed war on drugs, poverty, the prison industrial complex, decaying infrastructure in the inner cities, no jobs, bad economy, national debt, etc. It's much easier to divert the attention to the mentally ill, cherry pick a couple of tragedies, and push the "gun control" agenda that way.

If the two issues were separated- you would not hear much talk about the mentally ill, sadly.

Sincerely, Clayton

Cardboard Junkie
04-13-2014, 11:18 AM
"......a few terrible incidents..." = Sleeper Agents!

drcy
04-13-2014, 11:26 PM
Most shooters are male. Second biggest statistical connection to gun violence is most probably alcohol.

So pro gun people who are men who like to drink alcohol should be careful about using statistics and demographics to decide who should be allowed to own guns.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
04-20-2014, 05:32 PM
It's always good to see spirited debate on politics. Let me add my 2 cents.

I believe that a lot of gun violence is attributable to untreated mental health conditions. Providing adequate screening and treatment for mental health would be damn near impossible, especially given the current stigma attached to treatment. The simpler response is to have a knee jerk reaction and take away guns.

vintage954
04-22-2014, 06:09 PM
Pro 2A here as well. ALso, a collector

jhs5120
04-23-2014, 03:50 PM
It looks like Georgia passed a "Guns Everywhere" bill allowing concealed firearms to be carried in some schools, bars and churches.

CNN Article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/)

I'm a pro second amendment man in many regards, but I have never felt that more guns make for a safer society. It'll be interesting to see how this experiment plays out. Hopefully no harm is caused by it.

Runscott
04-30-2014, 10:44 AM
I wonder if there will be signs in bars, like in the old west, telling patrons they have to give their guns to the bartender when they enter. I guess the process would be that the patron leaves the house with his gun, ready to protect all of us from bad guys, stops for a drink as many of us do, but ends up drunk. Goes to the next bar and gets told to give up his gun...or doesn't show it until he needs to start protecting people.

Great plan.

Do the churches have to post signs above their entrances, saying 'No Guns Allowed?"

Runscott
05-01-2014, 10:53 AM
David - I don't mind getting hammered for my last post. I was raised Republican, with guns everywhere and I'm a diehard Libertarian. Plus, I get a huge (deleted) when I think about buying another gun, which is imminent.

I just don't get this new Georgia law. Probably the fact that I lived in Texas for 35 years and North Georgia for 11, and hung out in pool halls for most of my adult life, has tainted my thoughts regarding guns in the hands of many of my friends, or even worse - the ones who weren't my friends.

(Barry - why is it so natural to type "the ones that" when it's correct to type "the ones who" ?)

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 03:13 PM
I just don't get this new Georgia law.

Scott, Remember a few months ago when the IRS was targeting people for their political AND religious beliefs? That's not some right-wing conspiracy theory, that's a fact. It was a pretty big scandal. Also remember a couple of years ago when the gov't purchased an estimated 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (many of which were hollow point) - including the Social Security Admin, IRS, Dept of Educ, etc.? Just another hard fact. So if the IRS is targeting people for their religious beliefs and given that they have thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, you really question why one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun to church? You need to move back to Texas, you've been gone too long.

Edited to add: If you can give me a valid reason why the IRS would target people for their political and religious beliefs, and also give me a valid reason why the IRS needs hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, maybe you can change my mind.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 04:39 PM
I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 05:21 PM
I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I'll connect the dots.

Can we at least agree the following 4 statements/questions are true:
The IRS has hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, right?
The IRS was targeting people based on their religious views, right?
More specific, they were targeting particular churches, right?
People go to church to express their religious views and worship as they choose, right?

So, if the IRS (who is heavily armed) was targeting people based on their religious views and people go to church to express their religious views, don't people have a right to carry a gun into church to feel safe against a group that was targeting them based on their beliefs? The new Georgia law allows people to carry a gun into church. After all, why do people carry guns? To feel safe.

Sound far-fetched to you? Maybe it is, IDK, then again, ask Cliven Bundy. A similar situation could happen in Texas with 90,000 acres near the Red River. Americans are finally standing up.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 05:57 PM
I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Runscott
05-01-2014, 06:00 PM
Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 06:05 PM
I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

:D Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 06:19 PM
Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 06:19 PM
I think my disagreement with many on this topic, is really a matter of 'how much is needed based on likely scenarios?' I guess you could argue that if the IRS thinks people in the church might be armed, then they are less likely to attack in force during a service; however, would they ever do that, even if guns were not allowed? Anyone who was really in fear of such an event would have a gun anyway, and if their particular church had been publicly targeted by the IRS, even moreso. The new law just sets up bad possibilities for those who would not otherwise carry.

The armed drunks in the bar scenario is just plain scary - my preferred watering holes were the hole-in-the-wall North Georgia bars where if you weren't a local, you needed to be alert, and pool halls where we just plain out had fist-fights. Guns would have been a really horrible unknown factor in such places. My APA team had four legitimate alcoholics on it, and two other guys who were looking for fights even when sober and whose SAT scores couldn't have gotten them into mail-in colleges in the Caribbean. I'm certain both would (will) bring guns to the pool hall, just in case someone who they might get in a fight with brought one.

Look for the name 'Jamie' in the Marietta obits - he should get there within the year.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 06:21 PM
You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

To be fair, you never answered my question about guns in bars. You did respond to my question about churches, but that wasn't near the concern for me as the bars.

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 06:24 PM
:D Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/

The fact is that we rarely see ANY laws that are perfect - there is so much bartering, etc, among lawmakers that you quite often end up with a law that is so bastardized that it would have been preferable to both sides not to have even enacted the law. That common practice for law-making could have dire circumstances when applied to gun control.

But the real proof will be in looking back at the results of the new law, perhaps 5-10 years from now. Hell, maybe the IRS will get scared and blow up their ammo caches. If our government could indeed be rendered useless and incapable of attacking anyone, much less its own citizens...what would all those guys in Idaho do?

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 07:22 PM
Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 08:13 PM
David,

I understand the appeal of arguing with a straw man, but no need to do it with me - I don't attribute facts to right-wing conspiracy theories; in fact, when a group of people come up with a view that I think is nutz or paranoid, unless it affects others in a negative way, I generally ignore them, realizing that there could be some mental issues going on that are hurting them a great deal than me - no need to make it worse for them.

I think I agreed with you in print, that none of these groups you mention need stores of ammo, but if not, let's make sure you understand that we are in agreement on that point. I'm also in agreement that we should have the right to protect ourselves with arms, for whatever reason we choose, be it a fear of the government or a fear of crazies with guns. But if that right infringes on the rights of others, and endangers them, I think we have to reconsider it. Thus my thoughts about guns in bars.

Regarding the churches, I was thinking of real churches - I don't want to guess which ones you are actually referring to, as that would be putting words in your mouth. Give examples and I will respond. For instance, I wasn't thinking of the Waco situation as involving a church, although technically they did have a church in their compound.

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 09:28 PM
Give examples and I will respond.

Scott, do you really want to go down this road with me about subjects you are totally ignorant of? Let's play.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/FBI-raids-Jasper-office-church-and-home-5207288.php

Respond

Runscott
05-01-2014, 09:52 PM
Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 10:18 PM
Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

My response was an insult to you? You called me out by name (post #174) and I answered your questions. Granted, it was just my opinion, but I still answered your questions. Then, when I asked you questions, you wouldn't even answer. I didn't ask you to back up your answer with fact, I just wanted your opinion. Surely you have one?

I apologize if you felt my response was an insult. I deleted my response because I didn't want to argue about it anymore. But, since you obviously read it, I'll go back and add my response back word for word exactly as it was written.

Runscott
05-01-2014, 10:29 PM
David, best to end this. Obviously some miscommunication and I'm sure we both can find non-argumentative discussions.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

vintagetoppsguy
05-01-2014, 10:31 PM
Agreed.

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 10:15 AM
I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas. :D

Runscott
05-02-2014, 11:12 AM
I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas. :D

I couldn't understand it either, which is why I suggested we stop discussing with each other. David is a great guy, but I should have learned by now to not talk about gun control with him. This was totally my bad.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 11:41 AM
I tried to understand the back-and-forth above, but I must be operating at a different wave length.

I do not believe it is rational to carry a gun into a church to protect yourself against the IRS. If you would like to carry a gun into a church then that is your right (if you are abiding by the applicable carrying laws), but I would hope you have a better reason than to feel safe against the IRS.

Sometimes when I fill out TurboTax I'll keep my gun on the desk just so the computer doesn't get any funny ideas. :D

It's pretty simple, really. Scott asked me why one would need to carry a gun into church. My answer was based on speculation, just my opinion. Is it possible for the IRS to raid a church? Certainly, it's happened before - very recently in fact (see link). Is it probable? No, it's not. I don't think my little 80 member Baptist church is going to be raided. Do I carry a gun to church? No, I don't. Would I if it were legal? No, I wouldn't.

Now on the other hand, when I asked Scott to answer my question which required him to speculate, he couldn't do it. Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 11:46 AM
It's pretty simple, really. Scott asked me why one would need to carry a gun into church. My answer was based on speculation, just my opinion. Is it possible for the IRS to raid a church? Certainly, it's happened before - very recently in fact (see link). Is it probable? No, it's not. I don't think my little 80 member Baptist church is going to be raided. Do I carry a gun to church? No, I don't. Would I if it were legal? No, I wouldn't.

Now on the other hand, when I asked Scott to answer my question which required him to speculate, he couldn't do it. Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

Okay, I understand that the IRS can raid a church, and there are several reasonable reasons to do so, but that does not explain why you would want to carry a firearm into said church.

If I was minding my own business on a Sunday morning at mass and the FBI came in to arrest my priest - I'm not going to open fire on them, would you? Probably not. Would anyone? I hope not. Just because the IRS may raid a church does not explain why someone would want to arm themselves in one. I'm sure there are plenty of better reasons.

Just an opinion.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 12:04 PM
Okay, I understand that the IRS can raid a church, and there are several reasonable reasons to do so, but that does not explain why you would want to carry a firearm into said church.
If I was minding my own business on a Sunday morning at mass and the FBI came in to arrest my priest - I'm not going to open fire on them, would you? Probably not. Would anyone? I hope not. Just because the IRS may raid a church does not explain why someone would want to arm themselves in one. I'm sure there are plenty of better reasons.

Just an opinion.

Re-read my last post. I wouldn't carry a gun into church whether is was legal or not. Scott asked me a question as to why somebody would want to and I speculated as to why. Are there other reasons as well? Sure. But that came to mind because that raid happened recently just down the interstate from me, about an hour's drive.

Edited to add: You can't understand why one would want to carry a gun into church. I can't understand why the IRS needs thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo. Which makes less sense, the IRS needing that much ammo or carrying a gun into church?

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 12:17 PM
Re-read my last post. I wouldn't carry a gun into church whether is was legal or not. Scott asked me a question as to why somebody would want to and I speculated as to why. Are there other reasons as well? Sure. But that came to mind because that raid happened recently just down the interstate from me, about an hour's drive.

I apologize, when I said "you" I meant it in a broader sense; "anybody" would have been more appropriate.

It's one theory, but I guess we're getting a bit off topic. I was concerned whether it was a good idea to broaden the concealed carrying laws.

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 12:25 PM
Edited to add: You can't understand why one would want to carry a gun into church. I can't understand why the IRS needs thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo. Which makes less sense, the IRS needing that much ammo or carrying a gun into church?

The IRS has a Criminal Investigation Division with almost 200 armed personnel. They have had these officers for decades (have you ever seen the movie "The Untouchables"?). Between the 200 officers, the IRS purchased 174,000 rounds (or less than 1,000 rounds per officer). Now, I've been to a range (and I'm assuming you have to). I sure as heck will go through 1,000 rounds of ammunition during the year!

Hopefully these officers are frequently training and, if they are, 174,000 is nothing.

I would find it much more bizarre if I saw a man carry a gun into a church.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 12:30 PM
Now, I've been to a range (and I'm assuming you have to).

Since you've been to a range, answer me this question. All 174,000 rounds they purchased were jacketed hollow points. Tell me, when you go to a range, do you shoot hollow points or do you shoot the cheap stuff? Hollow points are made for one reason and one reason only. Come on!

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 12:44 PM
Since you've been to a range, answer me this question. All 174,000 rounds they purchased were jacketed hollow points. Tell me, when you go to a range, do you shoot hollow points or do you shoot the cheap stuff? Hollow points are made for one reason and one reason only. Come on!

Personally, I shoot the cheap stuff, but local, state and federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the NRA. The NRA came out to strongly defend the government's purchase of ammo! NRA Official Press Release (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/federal-law-enforcement-agencies-buy-ammunition.aspx)

They warn that it is not safe for members to work themselves up over this purchase. They state, "As most gun owners will agree, skepticism of government is healthy. But today, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners busy."

Runscott
05-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

David, no 'big boy pants' comments? Come on, if you are going to insult someone for not agreeing with you, you can do better than the old 'took his ball and went home' comments.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 12:58 PM
Personally, I shoot the cheap stuff, but local, state and federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the NRA. The NRA came out to strongly defend the government's purchase of ammo! NRA Official Press Release (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/federal-law-enforcement-agencies-buy-ammunition.aspx)

They warn that it is not safe for members to work themselves up over this purchase. They state, "As most gun owners will agree, skepticism of government is healthy. But today, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners busy."

When I'm at the range I shoot the cheap stuff too. I keep hollow points for home defense. Again, there is only one purpose for hollow points.

Likewise, if you won't listen to me, listen to the GAO (Government Accountability Office) who is investigating why the feds need to purchase so much ammo...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/04/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases

At least somebody in Washington is questioning it.

I'm not worked up about it. But I am being reaslitic why government agencies like the Department of Education, NOAA and the US Post Office need to purchase any ammo, let alone hollow points.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 01:01 PM
David, no 'big boy pants' comments? Come on, if you are going to insult someone for not agreeing with you, you can do better than the old 'took his ball and went home' comments.

I didn't ask you to agree with me, Scott. I asked you for your opinion, just like you asked me for mine. I gave you my opinion, but when you were asked for yours, all of a sudden it was time to end the converstation. I understand, Scott. I wouldn't expect anything less of you.

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 01:24 PM
I'm not worked up about it. But I am being reaslitic why government agencies like the Department of Education, NOAA and the US Post Office need to purchase any ammo, let alone hollow points.

Because they all have armed officers on staff in one regard or another (mostly police forces) and I would hope these agencies aren't giving men guns without bullets.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 01:33 PM
I would hope these agencies aren't giving men guns without bullets.



2.5 Billion bullets???

Ummm, how many bullets do they need?

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 01:44 PM
2.5 Billion bullets???

Ummm, how many bullets do they need?

Between the entire DHS, DOJ and the other mentioned agencies; the amount of bullets purchased is underwhelming. Especially taking into account most of the agencies are purchasing bullets for the next four years (anticipating the rise in cost of ammunition) and the fact that most agencies are seeing a decline in per officer ammunition/year. It's more like business as usual.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 01:52 PM
Especially taking into account most of the agencies are purchasing bullets for the next four years (anticipating the rise in cost of ammunition)

You said earlier that the reason why they're target shooting with hollow points instead of the cheap stuff was "federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I." Now you're saying that they want to eliminate their wasteful ways and stockpile ammo anticipating a rise in cost? So before they weren't concerned with cost, but now they are? Well, since you've explained it all to me, I guess there's no more need to carry on the conversation. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 02:00 PM
You said earlier that the reason why they're target shooting with hollow points instead of the cheap stuff was "federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I." Now you're saying that they want to eliminate their wasteful ways and stockpile ammo anticipating a rise in cost? So before they weren't concerned with cost, but now they are? Well, since you've explained it all to me, I guess there's no more need to carry on the conversation. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

I don't think either of us will argue that the government isn't wasteful, but every once in a while they do make an informed decision. I never said they're "eliminating" their wasteful ways. I said they purchased ammunition for the next four years. This thing happened in 2012; we haven't seen unusual purchasing patterns since.

You know, I have explained the reasons for the purchases and my opinions on the matter, but I have yet to hear your opinion. Why do you believe the government purchased so much ammunition?

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 02:34 PM
You know, I have explained the reasons for the purchases and my opinions on the matter, but I have yet to hear your opinion. Why do you believe the government purchased so much ammunition?

Yes, sir, you did and I appreciate that. Thank you for doing what Scott wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion (after all, when has the government ever been conscientiousness about spending tax-payer dollars?), but I do respect it. I'm about to step into a meeting, but I'll give you my opinion later.

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 02:58 PM
Yes, sir, you did and I appreciate that. Thank you for doing what Scott wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion (after all, when has the government ever been conscientiousness about spending tax-payer dollars?), but I do respect it. I'm about to step into a meeting, but I'll give you my opinion later.

I look forward to it! It'll make for a much more interesting conversation.

I know several theories that have been shared by relatives and co-workers spanning from an impending civil unrest to controlling the ammunition markets, but I feel most of them to be farfetched.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 03:53 PM
I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?

Here are some numbers for you:

DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.


Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).


Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).


FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)


But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 04:01 PM
Oh, and by the way, there are seven targets in the series: Pregnant Woman, Older Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl and Little Brother.

Knowing how conscientiousness our government is about saying tax payers money (they do buy ammo in bulk after all), maybe these just happen to be "on sale" and were less expensive than a regular target.

Here are 5 of the images:

jhs5120
05-02-2014, 04:20 PM
I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?


Personally, I find it more far-fetched that there is a mass government conspiracy to control ammunition sales. The proof against that theory is that since the mass purchase of ammo there has been NO regulation or attempt to limit the amount of ammo obtained by the average citizen. There was a shortage of ammo shortly after Sandy Hook, but a study conducted by the NRA showed that this was caused by citizens, not the government. Today, all of this ammo is readily available.

I would like to follow my explanation with a question: what's the motive? This was two years ago. There is no shortage today. Obviously, if they were going to create a short-term mass ammo shortage they would've done something while ammo supplies were short, right?



Here are some numbers for you:

DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.


Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).


Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).


FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)



Remember, you need to divide most of these numbers by four (since the ammo purchase was for over four years).


But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

These pregnant women, children and old people are all pointing guns at you! The purpose of a "no hesitation" target is to train yourself not to hesitate when your life is on the line. It's no some dark conspiracy to train super soldiers to kill children.

vintagetoppsguy
05-02-2014, 04:30 PM
Today, all of this ammo is readily available.

Clearly you haven't been shopping for ammo in a while. I did just Wednesday. I found bare shelves.

These pregnant women, children and old people are all pointing guns at you! The purpose of a "no hesitation" target is to train yourself not to hesitate when your life is on the line. It's no some dark conspiracy to train super soldiers to kill children.

So, it's ok to put any image on a target as long as they're holding a gun? Umm, ok. On that note, I'm done with the conversation. Have a good evening.

Runscott
05-02-2014, 07:14 PM
David, you have won all the discussions - congratulations.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-04-2014, 06:09 PM
You mean to tell me that the government had the nerve to buy ammo and train the employees that handle firearms?!?!?

zachtruitt
05-05-2014, 11:21 AM
How dare you use logic IOnlySmoke4theCards?? There is no room for logic when it comes to the internet.

vintagetoppsguy
05-05-2014, 12:36 PM
Instead of snide comments, how about an intellectual one? If large ammo purchases are just "business as usual" for the government, why would the GOA launch an investigation on the matter?

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investigation-napolitano-645/

From the article: "DHS claims that it is buying ammo in bulk to save money, but experts have pointed out that hollow point bullets cost nearly twice as much as full metal jacket rounds. They also explode on impact for maximum damage, which has caused some Americans to wonder what purpose they would serve the DHS domestically. Purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War. Members of Congress say the DHS has repeatedly refused to tell them the purpose of procuring such large amounts of ammo."

Furthermore, why would lawmakers introduce a Bill, HR 1764 Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (the AMMO Act), that would limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal agencies (with the exception of the DOD) for a 6-month period?

jhs5120
05-05-2014, 12:55 PM
Instead of snide comments, how about an intellectual one? If large ammo purchases are just "business as usual" for the government, why would the GOA launch an investigation on the matter?

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investigation-napolitano-645/

From the article: "DHS claims that it is buying ammo in bulk to save money, but experts have pointed out that hollow point bullets cost nearly twice as much as full metal jacket rounds. They also explode on impact for maximum damage, which has caused some Americans to wonder what purpose they would serve the DHS domestically. Purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War. Members of Congress say the DHS has repeatedly refused to tell them the purpose of procuring such large amounts of ammo."

Furthermore, why would lawmakers introduce a Bill, HR 1764 Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (the AMMO Act), that would limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal agencies (with the exception of the DOD) for a 6-month period?

The NRA published a report claiming citizens are the cause of ammo shortages, not the government.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/17/the-nra-reveals-whos-to-blame-for-ammo-shortage-yo.aspx

The reason this is being investigated is because buying hollow point bullets is a waste of money. Why else?

zachtruitt
05-05-2014, 01:14 PM
I think it comes down to the government bought a lot of ammo. They bought four years worth according to the article. I don't think they are stockpiling to "invade" churches or anything like that. I think they bought ammo in case they need to kill people. Seems pretty simple.

vintagetoppsguy
05-05-2014, 01:16 PM
The NRA published a report claiming citizens are the cause of ammo shortages, not the government.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/17/the-nra-reveals-whos-to-blame-for-ammo-shortage-yo.aspx

That's not an NRA report. That is some article written by a guy named Rich Smith who, from my knowledge, has no affiliation with the NRA. If the NRA Report was linked somewhere in the article, then I missed it, but what you linked is definitely not written by the NRA.

The reason this is being investigated is because buying hollow point bullets is a waste of money. Why else?

That is one reason why the GOA is investigating it. The quantity purchased is another. I was really concenred with the quantity part, that's why I mentioned HR 1764.

Thanks!

jhs5120
05-05-2014, 01:26 PM
That's not an NRA report. That is some article written by a guy named Rich Smith who, from my knowledge, has no affiliation with the NRA. If the NRA Report was linked somewhere in the article, then I missed it, but what you linked is definitely not written by the NRA.

If you read the article it referenced this article (http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/why-weve-had-ammunition-shortage) written in American Rifleman, which is a magazine affiliated to the NRA. They explain why there is an ammo shortage, and it's not the because of government hoarding.


That is one reason why the GOA is investigating it. The quantity purchased is another. I was really concenred with the quantity part, that's why I mentioned HR 1764.

If the government is conspiring to hoard ammo why would they propose a bill to limit their ability to hoard ammo?

vintagetoppsguy
05-05-2014, 01:39 PM
If the government is conspiring to hoard ammo why would they propose a bill to limit their ability to hoard ammo?

Our filters at work block out the article you linked. I'll check it out once I get home. Regarding your question I quoted above, couldn't the opposite argument be made as well?

If the government was buying in bulk just to save money, why would they propese a bill to limit their ability to purchase in bulk?

IMO, the reason for the investigation is because enough people questioned it so they had to launch an investigation.

steve B
05-05-2014, 04:31 PM
And the reason they train with the same ammo they have when working is the same reason you won't see MLB teams practice with whiffleballs or softballs. Each sort reacts differently, and if you might ever need to be precise, (Longer range, partially screened, through various things like glass or wood. ) You need to practice with the exact same round.

An acquaintance in LE a few years ago said they always finished with the hearing protection off. The noise is substantially louder, and many people drop the gun the first time they hear it without hearing protection.

Steve B

teetwoohsix
05-06-2014, 09:47 AM
I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?

Here are some numbers for you:

DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.


Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).


Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).


FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)


But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

Those "no hesitation" targets are extremely disturbing to me. Also, it is insane that the DHS would "need" that much ammo-are they planning for a decade long war? They are a "domestic" agency for God's sake. They don't even fight foreign wars-in fact, they don't even protect our borders, so I think even their title doesn't make any sense.And, maybe it was already stated, but aren't those rounds banned in war by the Geneva Convention? If that's true, should we not be concerned that a domestic agency is buying these up? WHAT or WHO are they for exactly?

Just look at those numbers David posted. That's insane, and unjustifiable in my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
05-06-2014, 10:17 AM
Those "no hesitation" targets are extremely disturbing to me.

I guess you and I are the only ones.

I bet if our military trained with "no hesitation" targets that depicted images of Afghan and/or Iraqi women, children and elderly people, it would cause an outrage in the media.

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 12:10 PM
I bet if our military trained with "no hesitation" targets that depicted images of Afghan and/or Iraqi women, children and elderly people, it would cause an outrage in the media.

Maybe unarmed Iraqi women with their hands in the air, sure. I doubt anyone would give a crap if our soldiers were shooting at targets of Iraqi women pointing a rifle at them.

What about all the unarmed civilian targets that they're trained NOT to shoot? This is a two way street.

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 12:13 PM
WHO are they for exactly?

Obviously unarmed American civilians.


Just look at those numbers David posted. That's insane, and unjustifiable in my opinion.

As previously established, the numbers are underwhelming and completely justifiable. David forgot to divide those numbers by four (since this purchase is for over the next four years).

vintagetoppsguy
05-06-2014, 12:29 PM
As previously established, the numbers are underwhelming and completely justifiable. David forgot to divide those numbers by four (since this purchase is for over the next four years).

Ahh, got it. So those 11,000 rounds for each DHS agent should be divided by 4 years. That makes sense. So each agent only needs 2,750 rounds per year. :D

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 12:50 PM
Ahh, got it. So those 11,000 rounds for each DHS agent should be divided by 4 years. That makes sense. So each agent only needs 2,750 rounds per year. :D

Honestly, you would think they get more.

vintagetoppsguy
05-06-2014, 02:32 PM
Honestly, you would think they get more.

What makes you think that?

DHS agents are required to quilify with their weapon 4 times a year. I really don't think it would take more than 2 50 round boxes of shells to qualify each time. That's 400 rounds a year. So, 4 months out of the year they're qualifying.

Now, let's say they go to the range another 8 times a year - the months that they're not qualifying - just to target practice. Let's also say they use another 2 50 round boxes each time they go. That's another 800 rounds a year.

That comes to 1200 rounds a year. What about the other 1,550 rounds? I think my numbers are a very fair estimate. I don't ever go through more than 2 boxes of shells at the range (at least not for one particular gun). But who knows, maybe my numbers are way off? But at least I'm trying to put into perspective how many rounds they need.

How do you justify 2750 rounds a year?

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 02:48 PM
What makes you think that?

DHS agents are required to quilify with their weapon 4 times a year. I really don't think it would take more than 2 50 round boxes of shells to qualify each time. That's 400 rounds a year. So, 4 months out of the year they're qualifying.

Now, let's say they go to the range another 8 times a year - the months that they're not qualifying - just to target practice. Let's also say they use another 2 50 round boxes each time they go. That's another 800 rounds a year.

That comes to 1200 rounds a year. What about the other 1,550 rounds? I think my numbers are a very fair estimate. I don't ever go through more than 2 boxes of shells at the range (at least not for one particular gun). But who knows, maybe my numbers are way off? But at least I'm trying to put into perspective how many rounds they need.

How do you justify 2750 rounds a year?

I think you're underestimating the amount of bullets they go through. Also, I believe the majority of these bullets are going to training facilities run by the DHS (but not solely used by DHS agents).

Also, I would like to apologize, I got one of my facts wrong. The bullets are meant to last 5 years, not 4.

I found this blurb (which appears to be largely sourced from this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/) article). I think it is very interesting:

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department's umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.

The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government's second largest criminal investigative agency.

[DHS Secretary Janet] Napolitano said the numbers have been exaggerated. She said the contracts that have been reported represent an option to buy up to a certain limit over five years, and are not a one-time mass purchase.

She said buying that way allows the department to save as much as 80 percent on the cost of each round.

She also said itís not surprising the number of rounds per law enforcement agent in her department may be high because some of them have to re-qualify with their weapons several times a year.

teetwoohsix
05-06-2014, 03:25 PM
[QUOTE=jhs5120;1273184]Obviously unarmed American civilians.


Armed and unarmed. Tell me, what are the MRAP's for, and the bulletproof checkpoint booths? Why are they militarizing local police forces? And, why isn't DHS protecting our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 04:04 PM
Armed and unarmed. Tell me, what are the MRAP's for, and the bulletproof checkpoint booths?

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles? I'm assuming they are used to eliminate the American population and bulletproof checkpoints as well..

Honestly, what do you think they're for? Have the local police been going on rampages with their MRAP's in South Florida?

Why are they militarizing local police forces?

Who are "they"? Are we talking about local governments, the local police force, the NRA, Aliens? I want to know who the mastermind behind the upcoming mass-murder of the entire United States population will be.

teetwoohsix
05-06-2014, 04:27 PM
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles? I'm assuming they are used to eliminate the American population and bulletproof checkpoints as well..

Honestly, what do you think they're for? Have the local police been going on rampages with their MRAP's in South Florida?



Who are "they"? Are we talking about local governments, the local police force, the NRA, Aliens? I want to know who the mastermind behind the upcoming mass-murder of the entire United States population will be.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you don't need to put words in my mouth.

I never said anything about an upcoming mass murder of the entire United States population.

"They" would be the Federal Government. They are the ones providing the local police agencies with MRAP vehicles. They are the ones providing the militarized gear that looks like it belongs in a war zone.

Have you not noticed the rash of unarmed civilians being killed by police lately? Could it have something to do with the "militarization" of local police forces?

And, why is an agency called "The Department of Homeland Security" not protecting our borders at all??????

Anyhow, you can believe there is nothing strange about all of this, reply with sarcastic remarks, and justify all of this nonsense- but keep in mind, all it takes is for good people to remain silent.

Sincerely, Clayton

jhs5120
05-06-2014, 04:41 PM
I know you are being sarcastic, but you don't need to put words in my mouth.

I never said anything about an upcoming mass murder of the entire United States population.

"They" would be the Federal Government. They are the ones providing the local police agencies with MRAP vehicles. They are the ones providing the militarized gear that looks like it belongs in a war zone.

Have you not noticed the rash of unarmed civilians being killed by police lately? Could it have something to do with the "militarization" of local police forces?

And, why is an agency called "The Department of Homeland Security" not protecting our borders at all??????

Anyhow, you can believe there is nothing strange about all of this, reply with sarcastic remarks, and justify all of this nonsense- but keep in mind, all it takes is for good people to remain silent.

Sincerely, Clayton

I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you're connecting a government conspiracy to arm police officers with the "rash of unarmed civilians being killed" - then that is mass murder. You are telling me that the federal government is purposefully arming police officers to murder civilians.

What's the motive? Obviously someone has a reason to kill us all off..

Also, you say "the federal government" as if it is one entity. Is this coming all the way from the top? Is Obama trying to arm the police to kill us all? And if so, does that mean we're in the clear in 2 more years? Or if [insert generic Democrat] is elected we have 4 more years to live in fear. No sarcasm - I'm genuinely curious now.

On a side note, I don't think the Federal Government plays much of a role in local police budgetary spending.

teetwoohsix
05-06-2014, 04:43 PM
I guess this is nothing to be alarmed about either, right?:

http://benswann.com/supreme-court-denies-ndaa-lawsuit/

How much does it take for someone to see that something is seriously wrong with this picture? When will you be convinced? Those "no hesitation" targets should be enough to raise an eyebrow, no? Small children, pregnant women? WTF?

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
05-06-2014, 04:56 PM
I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you're connecting a government conspiracy to arm police officers with the "rash of unarmed civilians being killed" - then that is mass murder. You are telling me that the federal government is purposefully arming police officers to murder civilians.

What's the motive? Obviously someone has a reason to kill us all off..

Also, you say "the federal government" as if it is one entity. Is this coming all the way from the top? Is Obama trying to arm the police to kill us all? And if so, does that mean we're in the clear in 2 more years? Or if [insert generic Democrat] is elected we have 4 more years to live in fear. No sarcasm - I'm genuinely curious now.

On a side note, I don't think the Federal Government plays much of a role in local police budgetary spending.


You keep saying things like "kill us all off" and "kill us all" like I said that. Still putting words in my mouth. Now you bring Obama into it........geez, that was predictable.

Before you hit me with your barrage of sarcastic questions- try answering one of mine- why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-07-2014, 07:00 AM
I don't think the government bought ammo to create a shortage. My father is a huge NRA supporter but even he agrees.

If the government wanted to do that there are other ways to do it. My first thought would be to do inspections of manufacturing plants and temporarily all shut down all of the ones with violations. By doing this they would create a temporary shortage.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-07-2014, 07:02 AM
You keep saying things like "kill us all off" and "kill us all" like I said that. Still putting words in my mouth. Now you bring Obama into it........geez, that was predictable.



Before you hit me with your barrage of sarcastic questions- try answering one of mine- why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?



Sincerely, Clayton


Clayton,

Homeland Security does guard the border. Customs and Border Patrol falls under that agency.

vintagetoppsguy
05-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Nevermind. Mis-read the post.

vintagetoppsguy
05-07-2014, 08:17 AM
Clayton,

Homeland Security does guard the border. Customs and Border Patrol falls under that agency.

I think when Clayton asks, "why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?" he means why aren't they doing their job. In other words, why are their so many illegal border crossings?

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-07-2014, 10:30 AM
I think when Clayton asks, "why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?" he means why aren't they doing their job. In other words, why are their so many illegal border crossings?


There have been illegal crossings for years. I know that the number of prosecutions and people being caught has increased over the years. However I am unsure if this is because more people are crossing or if law enforcement is just catching a higher percentage.

nolemmings
05-07-2014, 11:40 AM
Some would say they're doing their job just fine. "CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politics/fact-check-immigration/

vintagetoppsguy
05-07-2014, 12:12 PM
Some would say they're doing their job just fine. "CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politics/fact-check-immigration/

Tell me, how do they estimate fewer border crossings? Do they have a meter or turnstile that measures incoming illegal immigrants? Seriouly though, they only compare the number of apprehensions from previous years (which is definitely lower - no argument there) and assume that equates to fewer crossings. There is truly no way to measure illegal border crossings, they can only measure apprehensions.

Besides, that article was written last year with data up to 2011. Sure there were few border crossings in 2011, there were fewer jobs to cross over for. In fact, many illegal immigrants were going back home at that time because they couldn't find work over here.

vintage954
05-07-2014, 07:48 PM
This thread is hilarious....

Paul S
05-07-2014, 08:25 PM
This thread is hilarious....

So true. It almost makes me want to shoot myself;)

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-07-2014, 09:26 PM
So true. It almost makes me want to shoot myself;)


If only the government hadn't bought all that ammo that they are going to destroy. LOL

vintagetoppsguy
05-08-2014, 06:07 AM
If only the government hadn't bought all that ammo that they are going to destroy. LOL

Yup, going to destroy over a BILLION dollars worth of ammo. Kind of kills the whole "buying in bulk to save money" argument.

vintage954
05-08-2014, 06:07 AM
I don't understand why people piss and moan about gun ownership? It's not going anywhere so get over it. I don't understand why people complain about how much ammo the gov't buys. Get over it. Just because an agent only needs 100 rounds to qualify in "your" mind, doesn't mean that the agent doesn't wanna practice beyond that. People complain about the dumbest shit