[justdoit]

Ok
Lets do this
There are arguments out there about gun rights, and who should own or not own them.
First, keep politics out I don't want the second amendment arguments here, theres a place for that, just not here. And I will ask in another question how we can keep some from owning weapons.
Tell me/us If you feel any weapon should be restricted and why.


As for me. Yes I own pistols/rifles/shotguns. So I'm not against Americans owning weapons.
But I do have a problem with Americans owning weapons thats only design is to kill people. That would be your basic AR15/AK47/ Tompson sub maschine gun ruger mini 14/ Mac 10/ uzi. You get the idea. A rifle with multi cartridge quick change clip, military sights. These weapons were designed for one purpose. To kill other humans quickly and efficiently. In that respect they work as advertized. Machine guns are outlawed for that reason, as are flame throwers and nuclear weapons.
I just don't see the need of a 10/20/30 round quick change clip for home defence. A three shot short barrel open choke shotgun is more than adiquate.
If ya wanna shoot a 20 round simi auto ar15, rent time at the range. Have at it have some fun.
After watching some dudes walk out of a gun show with half a dozen Mac 10's under their arms, wearing gang colors, I decided that was the tipping point for me. I sold my mini 14, and now own no assult rifles.
I have had enough and feel this country needs to step back and take a long hard look in the mirror as to what we have become as a country. A country that feels the need to be a leader in the industralized world. How can we demand other countries have a social conscience for it's citizens if we do not for ours.

[RealJustme]

But I do have a problem with Americans owning weapons thats only design is to kill people. That would be your basic AR15/AK47/ Tompson sub maschine gun ruger mini 14/ Mac 10/ uzi. You get the idea. A rifle with multi cartridge quick change clip, military sights. These weapons were designed for one purpose. To kill other humans quickly and efficiently.

I agree home owners don't need automatic weapons for hunting or protection so ban them and make them illegal for private citizens to own. Concerning quick change clips and military sights, I disagree, if I have to defend myself against another person with a gun I want those advantages.

Don't want to get political but we already have several gun laws on the book, but they are only being enforced on the legal gun owners. We need to remove the guns from felons and the guns out there that "are illegal" and we need do so very, very aggressively. Focus on the gun laws already being broken before we start adding new laws directed at good citizens who own guns legally.

[justdoit]

I worked night shift for many years and kept a gun handy for the wife, a .22. I always told her "if you hear a sound and feel the need to shoot, shoot the ceiling, shoot the floot. If you shoot at the bad guy it could be me coming home early". If the sound of a gun going off doesn't scare a bad guy off your fucked. I do feel the need of protection, and As I have said a 12 guage pump open choke #2 shot will do the job. If I can't get my point accross with three shots, not sure how 30 with the ability to load another 30 in a couple seconds is going to help. Thats spells spray and pray/not proper or safe defence.
As far as gun laws already on the books, agreed, but then again those guys I saw at the gun show bought those mac 10"s in a legal manor, so in my opinion there are reasons and justisacation for harsher and more restrictive laws. I can in my state go to the flea market and buy an ak47 (seen them there) with no proof of anything, just green cash and I own it. So do we as a country deny assult weapons or get into our forth amendment rights of privicy to try to find those unable to handle the responsibility to own said weapons. As for me, I would rather give up my right to own an assult weapon.

[RealJustme]

I can in my state go to the flea market and buy an ak47 (seen them there) with no proof of anything, just green cash and I own it.

Then the law is being broken. The solution is enforcing the laws already on the books, not passing new ones because the old ones aren't being enforced.

[justdoit]

Better check the law.
In my state
Individuals can and do sell firearms at flea markets all the time. If he/she is NOT a dealer, a background check is not necessary on the buyer, nore is a bill of sale required. Usually what is required is cash, as in if you have enough green you can own a gun.

[RealJustme]

Better check the law.
In my state
Individuals can and do sell firearms at flea markets all the time. If he/she is NOT a dealer, a background check is not necessary on the buyer, nore is a bill of sale required. Usually what is required is cash, as in if you have enough green you can own a gun.

State law can't over ride Federal laws (unless it's to allow illegal drugs like in CO and WA). Selling of a "real" AK-47 to private citizens is a Federal offense unless it's to someone with a class 3 license, which you and I aren't going to get. What you probably saw was the modified semi-automatic version of the AK-47 which looks mean but is no different or any more danagerous than any other semi-automatic rifle, you need to pull the trigger for each round.

[justdoit]

I have no doubt it was a simi automatic ak 47. One pull one bullet. If its called something other than a Ak47, my bad.
But that does little to hide the fact that anyone is able to buy an assult weapon (simi automatic) with no background check. And if thats possible and legal what is the use of background checks. And I can legally buy a book which shows the way to convert a simi auto to full auto on several simi auto guns. One I know of you just replace one part, and selling of that part by itself is legal. So I guess its that line thats so easily crossed that loophole that needs to be closed.
And as yet I have yet to hear a real reason of why anyone needs an assult weapon for personal use. Can't be for accurate target practice. Can't figure out why anyone would need a 30 round clip for home protection. There are better weapons for that. I just don't think playing Al Pacino in Scarface is being protected, "want to meeet my little friend"?
I have gun ranges where I can shoot simiautomatic assult rifles, they will even let you shoot full automatic weapons.
So tell me whats the big deal over private ownership?

[RealJustme]

One I know of you just replace one part, and selling of that part by itself is legal. So I guess its that line thats so easily crossed that loophole that needs to be closed.

I agree if there are loopholes out there to get around current gun laws they need to be aggresively closed and violators charged with felond charges so they can no longer have guns. I for one am tired of nothing being done to enforce our gun laws while talking of adding new ones. Kind of like wanting to reduce the debt by raising taxes instead of controlling spending.

[justdoit]

"Nothing being done"
Nothing is a pretty big word. I just gave you two examples of how to go around the legal parameters so I guess there needs to be some new laws put inplace. Enforcing present ones is a givin. Now we just need to pay for those pesky things. But thats for another discussion.
But lets go back, why do you or why do you feel the general public "Needs" assult weapons?

[RealJustme]

But lets go back, why do you or why do you feel the general public "Needs" assult weapons?

I've already said I don't feel private citizens should have fully automatic weapons. We have to get away from this silly talk of "assault weapons" since it means different things to different people. A fork could be an assault weapon if you assault someone with it.

[elklindo69]

handguns - yes - home defense, legitimate businesses, jewelers, check cashing, bodegas...etc

rifles - yes - single shot manual bolt action for hunting

military style assault rifles - not for public use

[elklindo69]

But lets go back, why do you or why do you feel the general public "Needs" assult weapons?

I've already said I don't feel private citizens should have fully automatic weapons. We have to get away from this silly talk of "assault weapons" since it means different things to different people. A fork could be an assault weapon if you assault someone with it.

It's not silly talk to categorize military type firearms as "assault weapons." They are aptly named because they are designed to be used in combat situations, i.e. Iraq/Afghanistan.

So if you were an infantryman in Iraq or Afganistan, what would you use? An M-16 or a Remington 22?

And the bushmaster 223 is essentially an M-16. Even though it is not fully automatic, it really does not matter since soldiers in combat rarely shoot fully automatic because 1. you waste all of your ammo and 2. after your first shot you are off target anyway...

[RealJustme]

So if you were an infantryman in Iraq or Afganistan, what would you use? An M-16 or a Remington 22?

Keeping it real I would use the weapon the military issued me which hopefully be a full automatic to send as much lead towards the enemy in as short of period as possible. But as a civilian I can't buy a M16 so I'm not sure why your question is relevant.

[justdoit]

I guess the argument to me is
What is the purpose of lets say an AR15 (or assult weapon if you will, and I will) that is designed to fire in excess of 30 rounds in 20 seconds or less (simi auto, not full auto) with the ability to reload in 2 seconds or less another 30 rounds, built to be reliable over accurate (which means sloppy tolerances), light in weight which decreases accuracy , wide open sights which decreases accuracy, why is this weapon avilable to the general public? I mean other than profits to the manufacture.
Can anyone tell me how this weapon is concidered anything other than a rifle built with but one job. And that job is to kill other humans. In that respect it is wonderfully thought out, designed, and built. And in that respect it should be left in the hands of professionals for its use, not for sale to the general public.
And please don't anyone insult me or others reading this that a fork in the wrong hands is also a weapon of mass destruction (unless its used by those eating my cooking, then all bets are off).

[elklindo69]

So if you were an infantryman in Iraq or Afganistan, what would you use? An M-16 or a Remington 22?

Keeping it real I would use the weapon the military issued me which hopefully be a full automatic to send as much lead towards the enemy in as short of period as possible. But as a civilian I can't buy a M16 so I'm not sure why your question is relevant.

The Bushmaster 223 is the equivalent to an M16 rifle.

And anybody on this board who has served in the army or marines knows that you don't fire fully automatic, you just won't hit anybody, or if you do it's by sheer luck...

just saying...

[elklindo69]

I guess the argument to me is
What is the purpose of lets say an AR15 (or assult weapon if you will, and I will) that is designed to fire in excess of 30 rounds in 20 seconds or less (simi auto, not full auto) with the ability to reload in 2 seconds or less another 30 rounds, built to be reliable over accurate (which means sloppy tolerances), light in weight which decreases accuracy , wide open sights which decreases accuracy, why is this weapon avilable to the general public? I mean other than profits to the manufacture.
Can anyone tell me how this weapon is concidered anything other than a rifle built with but one job. And that job is to kill other humans. In that respect it is wonderfully thought out, designed, and built. And in that respect it should be left in the hands of professionals for its use, not for sale to the general public.
And please don't anyone insult me or others reading this that a fork in the wrong hands is also a weapon of mass destruction (unless its used by those eating my cooking, then all bets are off).

You hit the nail right on the head.

Rifles used by the military are designed to kill the enemy most efficiently. Gun manufacturers spent years in designing those weapons.

Hunting rifles are designed to shoot game, such as deer, wild boar, etc.

Soldiers don't go into battle with hunting rifles (except for snipers). It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

[RealJustme]

OK, since you guys want to go there, those in the know will tell you an M16 is much more efficient against zombies than a Bushmaster 22. The problem is that it's a bear getting your hands on an M16.

As far as a fully automatic having no military use :lol: :lol: :lol:

[justdoit]

I just get the feeling their (assult weapons "Yes there are simi auto assult weapons") are out there for sale to the general public for some to live out cynically disseminated adolescent fantasies such as those involving the repeated predictions of inpending invasion by nonexisting armies. Or are they sold as simplestic excuses by right wing hacks to be required as a deterrent to evil Socialist takeovers by certain hated presidents. But then again, maybe just maybe their sold for massive profits to the unwashed masses using a certain amendment interpretation at the expence of life of the innocent.

[2X8]

...the unwashed masses using a certain amendment interpretation at the expence of life of the innocent.

justdoit

Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:48 pm

Really? The Supreme Court of the United States is part of the 'unwashed masses'? Who knew?

[DarknLadyJedi]

First off, "what is an assault weapon". This is the definition according to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.



Full text of which can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3355.ENR:

You will have to search for it because with the exception of the Title XI Subtitle A I think you will find that most gun rights people are in favor of this bill.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Now, for those of you who might be paying attention, that entire definition block is based on looks.

That's it. It is a ban on how a gun looks. Not how it works, not it's function.

Currently I own mostly pistols, 2 shotguns, and a couple of regular rifles.

My next purchase is going to be an "assault rifle". Specifically a Rock River Arms PDS carbine. It is an assault rifle because it has a detachable magazine, a folding stock, and a flash suppressor, and a pistol grip.

These are the same features on a Ruger 10/22 in case you were wondering.

Do I need my rifles, or my shotgun? No. I no longer hunt and haven't for years. I prefer doing that with my camera now.

My pistols all serve different uses, and I mainly use them for personal and home defense.

[DarknLadyJedi]

First, keep politics out I don't want the second amendment arguments here, theres a place for that, just not here. And I will ask in another question how we can keep some from owning weapons.
Tell me/us If you feel any weapon should be restricted and why.

Restriction of firearms ownership is needed in general. We already do that when we refuse to allow convicted felons from possessing firearms. We also have laws against ownership by mentally ill persons.

What I would like to see would be a mandatory training class, with set minimum standards, established that would be required before purchase of a firearm. This would be a one time class requirement based around safe handling and storage. This would also allow the elimination of the 3 day waiting period as you would have to take the class before your first purchase anyway.

Mandatory safety class for all children/adults living in a household with firearms. Obviously we would need to make the children a certain age.

Any firearm stored in a household with children below a certain age/training must be secured at all times. With today's electronic and biometric safes there is no "defense" reason this can't be done.

No firearms in households containing mentally unfit individuals, this would be an extension of the current rule on felons.

No private transfer of firearms. All transfers required to go through a FFL dealer and a background check required. This would allow ease of holding people responsible for straw man purchases.

Current laws on Class 2 and 3 weapons are fine for limiting ownership but I would like to see the ban on new manufacture of fully automatic weapons lifted. These weapons have never been an issue when legally owned due to their cost and the required permitting.

ALL carry concealed permits should require a set minimum standard for training and a minimum required standard for qualification. Qualification should be required at each renewal.

[elklindo69]

Now, for those of you who might be paying attention, that entire definition block is based on looks.

That's it. It is a ban on how a gun looks. Not how it works, not it's function.

That's not true. Not within an earshot.

It's clear that, as defined, assault weapons are designated as such because the design is for military/law enforcement uses. That is infantry soldiers, swat teams, etc.

As I have been previously said, would infantry soldiers use hunting rifles in combat?

[DarknLadyJedi]

The Mosin-Nagant is a hunting rifle, it was originally designed for the Russian Empire. It has also proven to be, bar none, the most deadly rifle in the hands of a trained individual in history.


There are many rifles that were made for military use that have become hunting rifles. Technology has advanced, as has the ability to make things more comfortable to use. And the forefront of advancement has almost always been our military. So to say that something made for military use is not for regular people is absurd.

A pistol grip, allows for more natural holding keeping the wrist at the angle you were born with it.
Folding stock, many people shoot from prone position, this stabilizes the weapon. Esp at long ranges.
Bayonet mount, I have no idea why someone would want this. But when was the last time a killer had a bayonet attached?
Flash suppressor, cuts down on the flash of the gun, still makes you visible.
Grenade launcher, a waste of weight to me, and when was one used in a crime?

So, looks. Not function.

If I take this gun:
http://www.ruger.com/products/1022/index.html

And I exchange the stock for this:
http://www.agparms.com/agp-folding-stock-blem/

I have created an assault weapon. Without changing a single thing about how the gun actually functions.

[justdoit]

Jedi
First I agree with you on what should be required to own a gun, any gun.
My problem with your argument though is in semantics. That arguement of what is or isn't an "aussalt weapon". My use of the word is indeed overly simplistic. What I want to eliminate are those weapons that are built for the purpose of killing other human beings in a very effenct mannor. You/I/we all know what I'm talking about here. An AR15 is, a ruger 1022 is not. Pistol grips/ flash suppresser/ bayonett mount/quick change clip, whatever. I mean a Springfield from the civil war has a bayonet attachment, and was built to kill humans in the civil war. But it is not a weapon of mass destructionn. A uzi might not have said mount but is ment to kill quickly and efficiently.
What I'm trying to say every gun is diff, and each needs to be defined in its own way and a desision made as to its purpose and effect that its ownership has on society. A ruger 1022 can have many characteristics of an assult weapon but is not.
We as a people should have more integrity than to get bogged down over a few words. Lets not play the Clinton game of "define sex", we all know what sex is and we all know what an assult weapon is. I looked up the rifle your planing on buying, the Rock River PDS carbine. I would call it an "Assult weapon" and if it were up to me, it would be on the banned list.
I will shortly be selling my "colt 1911 match" pistol as I have a problem with those, myself included talking the talk and not willing to walk the walk. I will keep my ruger mark 2, and ruger 1022 though. And I do shoot a lot of black powder, so that will be my target shooting of choice, I enjoy it.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Just, the problem is that when it comes to law definitions matter.

I agree, the RRA-PDS carbine is a classic example of an assault rifle. But it is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, or a pistol. Why do I want it? Because it is very similar in style to an AR platform, which is what I, as a former member of our armed forces, enjoy shooting. But it has many advancements and improvements. And that is what happens. We create a gun for the military, and then, as people get used to using it in the military and get out, they want what they are used to. Why do I like pistol grips? Because they are more natural and more comfortable to me as a shooter and as a result give me much better control over the rifle. Every gun ever designed for the military was designed for the purpose of killing people. As I pointed out the Mosin-Nagant was designed for that very job, and did it so well that 1 person was able to kill well over 500 people within 100 days. Yet no one would call it an assault rifle by today's standards because it doesn't "look" like an assault rifle. Same goes for the M1 Garand. Time marches forward, like everything else guns improve with technology. Simple because we can now make a gun that is more comfortable, more stable, lighter, and easier to use does not mean that that gun should be vilified.

Do we see mass spree murders going on in Israel, or Switzerland? No. Why not, more military guns in households over there than there are here. It's not the inanimate object that is causing the problem.

Most spree killers are not insane maniacs. They are calculated killers looking to do the most damage and create the biggest name for themselves. This is why they very specifically choose their targets, primarily places that do not allow guns.

[RealJustme]

The most dangerous place in the world is also the safest from mass shootings...Israel, why because they are also the best armed population in the world. Any of of you who have been to Israel will notice hot babes in civilian clothes with a full automatic rifles strapped over their should with their purses, they're in the military reserves, they take their weapons home with them. 80% of adults have assault weapons in their homes. Every time a wacko has opened fire on a crowd of people in Israel the crowd fired back limiting innocent deaths. There are hundreds of terrorists attempts to attack public areas in Israel every year and the terrorist are taken out every time. There were 4 attempts on schools by terrorists, all 4 times armed teachers took the bad guy out before they could harm the children.

Israel is surrounded by wacko muslim terrorists who want them dead, the only way they survive is protecting themselves with guns, lots and lots of guns. A child in Chicago is 100 times more likely to get shot than a child in Israel, so don't tell me the solution is to take guns from the good guys.

[justdoit]

Hmmmm
Well I guess if Israel is used as an example
Gun rights are not a right, it is a privilege in Israel, in fact just over 2% of the civilian pop owns guns as compared with over 46% in the USA. "ABC news 12/18/2012".
Those young people you see and read about that are packing in the public view? All young adults are drafted into the mili at 18. And do in fact carry weapons in public. As trained professionals, not just individuals wishing to carry and getting a permit, as in this country.
So if you lived in Israel and wanted to own a weapon you would either
1 be in the military
2 be in the 2 or so percent that can show a need and recieve a permit, along with the ability to own a max of 50 rounds of ammo with their one weapon.

Does the fact that military carry weapons in public slow crime in Israel? Stats show it does. But again they are trained professionals not your everyday Joe.

[justdoit]

Justme
Not sure where you got your 80% if the civilian population in Israel owns guns. Again "ABC News 12/18/2010 3:57 pm"
Aprox 10,000 apply for ownership of a weapon each year and aprox 20% are accepted. There are around 170,000 guns registerd in Israel out of a pop of around 8 mil civilians, or around 2% give or take. Not including Military.
Where did you get your 80%
Just wondering?

[justdoit]

Jedi
Why in your opinion did the US outlaw fully automatic weapons. except with permit. And do you feel it, that law should be repealed to give the general pop the right to own a fully automatic rifle or pistol?
Personaly I like that law and would like to see assult weapons included in that ban. It would be hard to define just what constitutes an Assult weapon, mistakes will be made but in the long run the law will help the majority of people in this country.
My opinion

[RealJustme]

TEL AVIV (JTA) -- First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.

But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.
Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted. Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks.

Both Israel and Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence. Ergo, gun control is not the answer.

Commentator Thomas Sowell used this trusty comparison again today when decrying the "shrill ignorance of ‘gun control' advocates." "Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates," he wrote, going on to name Israel as another country with "high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates."

[snakeoil]

As you drive into Virginia there are signs that tell you that if you bring a handgun into the state it's an automatic five year jail sentence.

If handguns or assault rifles are bought for protection of your home and family, I can buy that. But, leave those guns in the house. I would support a law making it a mandatory one in jail if you are caught with that handgun or assault rifle on the street, sidewalk or other area open to the general public. If you carry a handgun or assault rifle into a school or other public (government) building it should be an automatic five years in jail. If I am carrying a handgun on a public sidewalk it can be assumed that I am up to no good.

[justdoit]

Justme
Yep thats the one, thats the artical. Did ya catch the part where it said only about 2% of the general population were issued permits to own firearms? The part where it said only military , as in trained professionals had the privilage to own assult rifles? Compare that to around 46% of americans own weapons. Its interesting you used Israel as an example of a safe place to live. You couldn't own a gun there unless you were in the military, are you? just wondering.

[RealJustme]

You couldn't own a gun there unless you were in the military

Not true, unless you have mental issues or have a bad background, or can't pass the interview process you can own a gun in Israel, to own a fully automatic you either have to be in the military or "show a need" that a review board considers. The background is extensive plus you have have to have Israeli citizenship for a period of time. There is also a psychological screening, followed by an interview as to "why" you might want to own a fire arm. If you meet certain criterea regarding where you live, what profession you might be in and your need for a weapon, you can be issued an owners permit. Of course the screening process would rule out 98% of liberals from owning a gun, wish we had it in the United States.

[justdoit]

In such a "safe" place in the world I wonder why only 2% own firearms in Israel. I wouldn't thinks its because their all crazy. Your opinion? You think their 98% liberal?Yeks!!

[RealJustme]

80% of Israeli's admitted they have guns according to a poll taken by the Jerusalem Post.

You can continue to google all the statistics you want and it won't change that fact. In fact by googling obtaining a gun in Israel you probably already have someone monitering your internet activities, they take that stuff serious. But by all means continue to google how to obtain weapons in Israel, try different wordings and weapons. If you notice you're internet is slowing down that because your computer is busy doing what they want it to do.

[justdoit]

Fuck meeee
Does this mean I got to get off my camel when I go online?? That abc news is some kind of terrible!!!

[sillydaddy]

Might be worth looking into. The Jews never pay retail for anything. I bet they know where to get some real batgains

[sillydaddy]

bargains that is !!!

[WickedWonder]

I have to chime in on this debate.

I own a few long guns as well as pistols. One being a semi-automatic pistol with a 13 round magazine. Why do I need a 13 round? I don't, it is what came with it. I guess if I had to defend myself, I figure if I can't do it with just a couple of rounds, I would probably be dead anyway. So my needs for high capacity are null to none.

However, Is it our right or our government's right to force our opinion upon others?

Do some of us have the freedom of choice and others don't?

I look at the news media as tyrants not only against guns but most problems in our country. How else would people know about such things that destroy without the constant reporting of these situations by the news media? How many times has the news media constantly reported about the good in this country?

Another thing I look at, What about all the other situations of mass killings in our country? The automobile is the most sought after weapon of mass destruction! How many have been killed in automobile accidents? How many people have died from Cancer? How many people die from drug abuses? How many people commit suicide.

I lost my son in Desert Storm. Not because of being shot by a gun or blown up by a bomb. He died from a truck running over him accidentally while he struggled to repair it along side of the road because his team was in danger of being killed. So is my opinion is that of trucks are killers? In this case, lets ban them all. My real opinion is our government put him there and for that, I am pissed.

There is NO answer because no one person thinks like any other. When we force our opinions onto the lives of others, it offends the others and they defend themselves.

No we don't need guns at all! We can hunt with sticks and clubs. Just like they did in prehistoric times. Oh I can kill others with sticks and stones just like prehistoric times. I can ram my auto into a crowd of people and kill them. Drive the wrong way down a highway and kill a family with their kids by hitting them head on. Stab someone to death with a stick because their opinion offended me. Throw a rock and break open someones skull.

I think we all need to wipe our own butts first before judging others.

My opinion only and with due respect to all of you!

[justdoit]

WickedWonder
First thanks for your answer, logical, well reasoned and presented.
And sorry to read of the loss of your son. Sometimes its so hard to justisfy the cost . I never lost a son or daughter so have way to really try to fully understand your loss.

If you have read my past posts you know I also own guns, pistols and rifles, single shot, revovlers, and simiautomatics.

That being said, I do not own a machine gun,ie. fully automatic weapon. I don't miss owning one and understand the thoughts behind our govt banning them to the general public. I feel (just my opinion) that assult type weapons fit in the same mold as maching guns. Not going into the argument of what is and what is not an assult weapon, I use that term for expediency of writing. Their just to effient, and in the wrong hands the damage they have the ability to produce overrides the argument of our 2nd amendment, as do machine guns.

There just comes a time when we must deside what is best for the common good. We are a society of people, and as such we must do what best for the common good of the people. It might infringe on some, seat belt laws, speed limits, you get the idea, and I feel a restriction on some types of firearms fits that idea. I know 99.9% of the population do not abuse nor would abuse the the use of assult type weapons, but the damage done by that less than .01% is enough of a cause to justify the ban. If they (assult type weapons) served a purpose or use in this socity I would agree with you, but other than just fun to shoot they really serve no purpose. But to a few, the mentally disturbed they do indeed serve a purpose. We being humans are not flawless not perfect nor are our laws. We just at this time are unable to find, diagnose, nor cure all mental illness. It would be an infringment of our personal freedoms to find or remove from our socity all mental ilness, or what we feel is mental illness.

As to the Press. The press is what we let them be. They are here to inform as a secondary outcome of profit. And if their reporting on those looking for their 15 minutes of fame gains the most profit, well we have the Kardashians, and Trumps.... You can say with justifacation the press is in a frenzy over gun control and I can agree, but the backlash is 30 round clips are sold out at the gun stores. So that frenzy works both ways. If you have a problem with the press, what would be your answer? Again to please some would infringe on others. Where is the line drawn?

[WickedWonder]

Justdoit,

I totally agree with you. The problem I have with the news media is their willingness to false report instead of waiting for factual material.

I have always considered the news media as an educator. They bring supportable facts to our televisions, radios and news papers to educate everyone of daily events. Just as our schools bring education to our children. When they educate us with news of non-factual propaganda, they install opinions in our minds that their non-factual broadcast are indeed the facts. If you know what I am trying to say.

I watched and listened to the reporting of the Sandy Hook shooting reports the day it happened. Reporters were speculating and broadcasting what they considered facts that where no where near facts. At first I believed, as I expect to, the reports. I was also in shock. Despite Police telling reporters, they could not release any information until they investigated, the news media utilized rumor, nonfactual hearsay to escalate our panic. Even the news media's own annalists made many comments about how the news media was using speculation and not reporting factual reports.

Even today, I have read and heard so many reports by the news media that are speculation and not factual about the investigations. An example is I just read from what I considered a major news publishing media, that the actual gun used in the shooting was in fact a "Shotgun" So what is the truth? Shotgun or AR15?

I don't know what the answer is. I know I have turned off most of the news on television, canceled my daily news paper for their support to publish rumors and I am trying my best to avoid making any mind altering decisions for myself until I get facts and not rumors. I believe our president and society needs facts before making any judgments.

It is so easy to form an opinion from non factual hearsay. A factual Red Crayon can be deceived as ones opinion of being Yellow and when an educator of society (the news media)portrays it as being Yellow. People begin to believe it is actually Yellow.

Is there a way to rate the reporting of the news media? Can we rate different news medias as to their nonfactual reporting. We now can look for reviews for products we purchase before wasting our money on poorly rated materials. Maybe we need a standard guide lines for news media. I know we have rating for these news medias. But seriously, who pays any attention to them? Maybe report cards?

I don't know.All I know is when I watch the news, I often get ideas and opinions stuck in my mind that stays for some time.

Anyway, Your right, there is no real solution. As there has never been one in the past million years.

[Leroy]

But I do have a problem with Americans owning weapons thats only design is to kill people. That would be your basic AR15/AK47/ Tompson sub maschine gun ruger mini 14/ Mac 10/ uzi. You get the idea. A rifle with multi cartridge quick change clip, military sights. These weapons were designed for one purpose. To kill other humans quickly and efficiently. In that respect they work as advertized. Machine guns are outlawed for that reason, as are flame throwers and nuclear weapons.

You are completely misguided appear to not understand firearms at all. You can't own a Automatic weapon without special consideration and approval, and it has to be made before 1985, and you need approval. Look it up, you can't (as a non-Law Enforcement type) buy automatic weapons made after 1985.

Second, ALL GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL, that includes your shotgun, your pistol, your "hunting" rifles, etc...

The sights don't make one bit of difference, almost every mass killing was done at close range - the Sandy killing was done with handguns only, no sights even needed.

And you mention the AR/AK, etc... My 7mm Rem Mag has far more killing power and at far longer distances than those guns, and a 12g shutgun with slugs will kill anyone at close range, vest or not - as it will cave in their chest and crush their organs - watch a demo of a 12g Slug against a Vest sometime. Most of my "Hunting" guns are far more dangerous than my AR and other "Military LOOKING" weapons, but you don't hear about that because the "Assault" weapon lie is about getting weapons out of your hands, to protect the Government from you - that's how it's worked through all of history.

The real problem is not the guns, it's society not holding parents responsible for raising their children properly - when we were kids we took guns to school and never had an incident, ever, but, that was a time when parents raised their kids and were not afraid to teach them about guns - today all people do is remove responsibility, vilify gun owners, and vilify gun training.

[Leroy]

Justme
Yep thats the one, thats the artical. Did ya catch the part where it said only about 2% of the general population were issued permits to own firearms? The part where it said only military , as in trained professionals had the privilage to own assult rifles? Compare that to around 46% of americans own weapons. Its interesting you used Israel as an example of a safe place to live. You couldn't own a gun there unless you were in the military, are you? just wondering.

Americans don't own "Assault" weapons, they own "Military LOOKING" weapons. An Assault weapon would be selectable or Fully Automatic. The weapons Americans own are "Semi-Automatic", Civilianized, and can't be turned into "Automatic" weapons without breaking the law or without a special permit/tax stamp.

Again, as I wrote in another thread, the failure of society is the failure to hold parents responsible for raising their children properly and for the liberal/progressive anti-everything tactic. Strange that liberals/progressives, like the NY New Agency that listed names and addresses of gun permit holders, are the first to jump for protection with guns when they feel threatened.

[justdoit]

WickedWonder
I understand your frustrarion with the Media. And, as you I don't think there is a right answer.
One problem I think we get caught in is now in this information age there are many many more ways to get the news. So to be at the top of the ratings heap our 24/7 news cycle just has to produce a product, then hope it's the truth. I laugh when during a presidrntial election a network would call a state with 8% of the precincts in!! WTF?? But they were first to call that state!
That being said the news has always kinda played loose with the facts to a point. I mean William Hurst bragged how he could direct or aim a country through his newspaper. He once said something to the effect of " you wanna war I can give you a war". He and his paper was largly responible for the Spainish American war through his inflamatory reporting the "facts". And don't forget how we reported on "them injuns" . So in my opinion the news has always been biased and full of falsehoods, it just been till now, the information age, we have the ability to better check on the trufullness of said news.

Leroy

Yes I know the laws of simi automatic rifles and full auto. My point was, and still is using your term of a "military LOOKING". Exactly what purpose do they serve in the general population? The "open sights" refrence you used reinforces my point, what good are they. Do you plan on getting in close to the prairie dogs before shooting? I mean what is the good in our society of a rifle that can shoot 30 rounds then another 30 rounds quickly (yes even simi auto can be shot pretty quickly) with sights that are made for only close shooting, aiming really, why do we need them?
I know a shotgun can kill a person, but looking at the last 10-15 mass shootings worldwide what kind of weapons were used. Thats my argument.
I understand your frustration with parents not taking responibility. My problem is thats its kinda taking the monday morning quarterback approch. Sure we can blame the parents, but the damage has been done.
What would be your approch to that problem, how would you make parents accountable to a situation before it happens in this free society where one is able to have that freedom to live their life as they choose and raise their children as they choose?

[RealJustme]

The "open sights" refrence you used reinforces my point, what good are they. Do you plan on getting in close to the prairie dogs before shooting?

Most home owners defending their families with guns usually engage the bad guy with in 10 feet or less, they don't need (or want) a scope getting in the way of their aim, open sights, whether blade and post, aperture or peep, foot the bill for home protection and most hunting needs. Now if you're planning on becoming a D.C. type sniper, or long range killings of bambi, then get a scope. I don't need no stinking scope.

[justdoit]

So from what I read, you feel you need a simi auto weapon that is able to shoot how many times (spray and pray) aim, shooting through how many walls, how many times? Thats your weapon of choice for home defence of your family?
Ok
What is the gun of choice for hunting? Which game is best hunted with a .223 thirty round rifle. Just thinking, I can't come up with any I would want to eat. When I went deer and elk hunting I used a bolt action with just a bit more ft/lbs of energy. And it was kind of regulated how many rounds the rifle could hold, as was my shotgun when I went hunting them geese.

[RealJustme]

Which game is best hunted with a .223 thirty round rifle.

I bet the victims of these animals wished they had a .223 rifle. I say it's great for terminating these game:

http://www.google.com/search?q=picture+ ... 24&bih=599" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Leroy]

Justdoit:

1) Game with 223/556 - ANY game deer size or smaller. Since it's one of the most common rounds available, there is a good chance that when the public assistance people stop getting tax payer money and turn into the zombie hoards killing, that I'll be able to find 223/556 ammo more places than anywhere else. As for game, again, deer and smaller - and when the law fails, I'll be using a rifle to take that game to feed my family.

2) Sights - Iron sights are great for anything under 300 yards or when there is movement more than a walk - it's fast acquisition and they work in the darker light where a scope fails. A scope can break, cross hairs fail, get knocked out of adjustment, but iron sights normally just keep working. You seem to have missed that Iron Sights are great for close in hunting, small game, or for defense, and good hunters learn to use Iron Sights out past 600 yards.

You have a very narrow view of what guns can do, hunting or defense, but, while you don't want to discuss it, the fact is that Guns in this country, that the public has them legally as intended by the founding fathers, is to control government, like was done before.

I can take small game with a .22LR, but if I was going after small deer or other animals that size, I don't see any reason to take out the 7mm Rem Mag when a .223 will more than handle a deer without excessive damage to the meat, and my .22LR won't do anything justice Deer Size.

3) 30 round magazines - don't see the issue. Most people don't fire 30 shots at Deer, but I don't see any reason to restrict them, in fact, I wish I had the 100 round drum magazines for my AR - it's fun, it's enjoyable, and it's nothing like Spray and Pray that you suggest - it's still 1 round per 1 pull of the trigger. I look at it like this - I want more rounds available when I have to exercise my rights, when I have to defend myself or family, or when I have to control the government as a last resort.

10 round magazines would not have changed ANY of these mass killings, nor would 5 round magazines. Even a revolver would not have change the number of dead - now you're going to want to ban speed loaders, then you'll want all pistols to be single shot break action, then shotguns to only hold one round... why not just take us back to Black Powder and Flint to save lives because you want to feel better?

4) Parents - it's not about the kids now, the deranged adults, it's about fixing the mindset today, to change going forward, to stop denying that parents are not raising their kids properly.

We had just as many loaded guns available, more even, to kids in the old days, yet we didn't see this type of thing - explain that, in honest terms, then you'll know the real problem - it's not "Gun Banning/Control".

[justdoit]

Leroy
I pretty much know what a gun can do while hunting. You have no idea what I shoot, can shoot, so keep the personal attacks out of it. Don't tell me I don't want to dicuss "it", I have been dicussing "it".

If you have read some of my past posts you will know I have been against (assult type weapons) for quite some time, years in fact. You know, I know, we all know what they (assult type weapons) are, so lets not waste time playing games on woodsmith here. I owned and then sold my mini 14, .223 maybe 20 years age. I thought it was worthless. Cheap stamped parts, loose fittings. Not terribly accurate at range, so other than kinda fun to shoot at a 50-100 yard target quickly I couldn't find a use for it. I had much more accurate rifles for that kind of shooting. You come out west and go after a mule deer with a .223 and you would be laughed out of my state. Don't believe me, try it. This weekend I am selling my 1911 .45 match. I am pretty much over the whole thing. Will now just shoot black powder. When you can hit at 200 yards with a muzzle loader open fixed sights, thats a challenge.

I have no plans on going after the unwashed masses when the end comes. I guess I just have a more positive outlook on life. But then again thats my view, your welcone to yours.

During the civil war it was estimated that over 500 shots were fired for each casualty, Viet nam over 500,00 per casualty. And these are concertive figures. So much for those accurate sites in battle, its spray and pray, except for the movies then the enemy always misses and the good guy never.