assault weapon ban again

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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]

Originally Posted by Leon

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?

[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

[drc]

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]

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]

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]

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.