quote:

Any talk of legislation aimed at reducing the numbers of guns or limiting the types of guns....morphs immediately into a gun banning conversation.

quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

People who are too far to the right or the left on this issue make my head spin.

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

Second, given the statistics of violent crimes commited with illegial arms, the relative easy it is for people with the right connections to get an illegial arm, the long response time regarding police answering 911 calls, and the fact that banning narcotics didn't make narcotics go away, the idea that banning all guns will improve things rather than make them worse is silly.

The end result will be the people who were going to do bad things with guns are going to still have guns and the people who were responsibly going to use them for home defense and hunting won't have anything, leaving them to hope they don't get shot in the 10 minutes it takes the police to arrive in response to a burglery call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

People who are too far to the right or the left on this issue make my head spin.

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

Second, given the statistics of violent crimes commited with illegial arms, the relative easy it is for people with the right connections to get an illegial arm, the long response time regarding police answering 911 calls, and the fact that banning narcotics didn't make narcotics go away, the idea that banning all guns will improve things rather than make them worse is silly.

The end result will be the people who were going to do bad things with guns are going to still have guns and the people who were responsibly going to use them for home defense and hunting won't have anything, leaving them to hope they don't get shot in the 10 minutes it takes the police to arrive in response to a burglery call.

MadRabbit,if I'm reading this post right,you are suggesting*gasp* that there might in fact be a sane ,workable middle-ground here.Careful with that sort of radical thinking Rabbit....it could get you in hot waters in these parts,there ae those that claim ,much like children do, that simply because they want it ,is justification enough for their access to assault weapons.

quote:

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

People who are too far to the right or the left on this issue make my head spin.

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

Second, given the statistics of violent crimes commited with illegial arms, the relative easy it is for people with the right connections to get an illegial arm, the long response time regarding police answering 911 calls, and the fact that banning narcotics didn't make narcotics go away, the idea that banning all guns will improve things rather than make them worse is silly.

The end result will be the people who were going to do bad things with guns are going to still have guns and the people who were responsibly going to use them for home defense and hunting won't have anything, leaving them to hope they don't get shot in the 10 minutes it takes the police to arrive in response to a burglery call.

MadRabbit,if I'm reading this post right,you are suggesting*gasp* that there might in fact be a sane ,workable middle-ground here.Careful with that sort of radical thinking Rabbit....it could get you in hot waters in these parts,there ae those that claim ,much like children do, that simply because they want it ,is justification enough for their access to assault weapons.

I think the guns that are allowed should be suited towards realistic contexts.

I don't think burglers will be robbing my house with tanks or bombers so someone will have a hard time convincing me why private citizens need anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)

I don't think the number of burglers will exceed in one or two people in a realistic scenario so why I need to buy a gun that can kill 30 people in 30 seconds is beyond me.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)


Seeing as how I don't want to destroy my living room to stop a burgler, I don't see a reason why I should buy a hand grenade.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)


But Archer does make a good point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, because I see those who constantly preach a "middle ground" are using that as a cover to slowly chip away at the gun listings.

quote:

CL enunciates quite nicely the NRA's stance on this issue and has sold this bill of goods to many of you...

quote:

Actually, my stance is derived from this quaint little document known as the Constitution, with all its amendments. Perhaps you've heard of it?

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so damn hard to grasp?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

People who are too far to the right or the left on this issue make my head spin.

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

Second, given the statistics of violent crimes commited with illegial arms, the relative easy it is for people with the right connections to get an illegial arm, the long response time regarding police answering 911 calls, and the fact that banning narcotics didn't make narcotics go away, the idea that banning all guns will improve things rather than make them worse is silly.

The end result will be the people who were going to do bad things with guns are going to still have guns and the people who were responsibly going to use them for home defense and hunting won't have anything, leaving them to hope they don't get shot in the 10 minutes it takes the police to arrive in response to a burglery call.

MadRabbit,if I'm reading this post right,you are suggesting*gasp* that there might in fact be a sane ,workable middle-ground here.Careful with that sort of radical thinking Rabbit....it could get you in hot waters in these parts,there ae those that claim ,much like children do, that simply because they want it ,is justification enough for their access to assault weapons.

I think the guns that are allowed should be suited towards realistic contexts.

I don't think burglers will be robbing my house with tanks or bombers so someone will have a hard time convincing me why private citizens need anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)

I don't think the number of burglers will exceed in one or two people in a realistic scenario so why I need to buy a gun that can kill 30 people in 30 seconds is beyond me.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)


Seeing as how I don't want to destroy my living room to stop a burgler, I don't see a reason why I should buy a hand grenade.

Already banned from civilian ownership since before 1969 (unless you get special government permission)


But Archer does make a good point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, because I see those who constantly preach a "middle ground" are using that as a cover to slowly chip away at the gun listings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

First, given the huge imbalance that exists between the Armed Forces and an American militia, short of owning tanks, bombers, and SUVs, the idea that we need automatic rifles to protect ourselves from the government if they so happened to turn on us is the equivalent of paying one dollar towards the national debt.

Hardly.  Just ask the ATF about their little misadventure in Waco some years back.

Tanks and bombers are powerful weapons, but with limited applicability and a whole host of vulnerabilities of their own.

As General Pershing once observed, "The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle!"  Granted, not all who own weapons have served in the Marines, but the analogy still holds.  One free man in rightful possession of both his faculties and his weapons is ever a force to make governments tremble.

quote:

Actually it isn't hard to grasp, but anti-gunners want to ban guns so badly that they cannot understand why they should be stopped by a quaint document from the 1790s. Even if it is the law of the land.

quote:

Your entitled to your opinion, but I am hard pressed to believe that in the highly theoretical event that the government were to employ the Armed Forces against the people of this country (and assuming that the Armed Forces went along with such an attack against their own people) that the American people would win even if we were equipped with weaponry that has absolutely no realistic usage in day to day life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

"Bump firing" still requires a pull on the trigger for each round expended.

You don't know the firing sequence of a semiautomatic weapon, do you?  All eight cycles of functioning occur every time a round is fired, regardless of whether the trigger is pulled or not.

No trigger pulls are necessary for "bump firing".  It's one reason marksmanship instructors are pretty fanatic about gun safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Your entitled to your opinion, but I am hard pressed to believe that in the highly theoretical event that the government were to employ the Armed Forces against the people of this country (and assuming that the Armed Forces went along with such an attack against their own people) that the American people would win even if we were equipped with weaponry that has absolutely no realistic usage in day to day life.

Actually, neither the event nor the outcome is "theoretical".  History provides an excellent example of "the people" prevailing against a presumably superior and better armed military force.  Exactly that happened during the Battle Lexington and Concord in 1775.
What happened at Lexington is the colonials got their asses handed to them by a superior force of British regulars.
At Concord the colonials were reinforced and outnumbered the British by better than two to one.  Numbers carried the day and the colonials chased the British back to Boston.



Also, the Branch Davidians prevailed when the ATF raided the compound prior to the FBI's massacre of the group's members.
When the FBI came with the national guard with tanks it was pretty clear that the Branch Dravidian's were in an "ass kicking" contest without their boots on.

Vietnam is another stark lesson in how effective an inferior but better motivated force can be.
I spent a couple of years in country and I never noticed the "short people" as being inferior either tactically or strategically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I think the guns that are allowed should be suited towards realistic contexts.

quote:

I don't think burglers will be robbing my house with tanks or bombers so someone will have a hard time convincing me why private citizens need anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

quote:

I don't think the number of burglers will exceed in one or two people in a realistic scenario so why I need to buy a gun that can kill 30 people in 30 seconds is beyond me.

quote:

Seeing as how I don't want to destroy my living room to stop a burgler, I don't see a reason why I should buy a hand grenade.

quote:

But Archer does make a good point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, because I see those who constantly preach a "middle ground" are using that as a cover to slowly chip away at the gun listings.