assault weapon ban again

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by esd10

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.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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]

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]

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?

[Shoele$$]

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]

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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]

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]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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]

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]

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]

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.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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!!!

[cammb]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

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.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

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]

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.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Ease

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.

Nice post Eric, thanks for that link.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cubsfan-budman]

that is not how it worked during the previous clinton-era assault weapons ban.

Originally Posted by ChiefBenderForever

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]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

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.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cammb

"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