# The whole gun discussion - gun laws, banning, shooting, etc.



## Annsni

OK - I admit that I'm pretty ignorant in the whole gun thing. I do agree that our Constitution provides protection for people to arm themselves but I also can see the argument of having gun control. I don't know. I obviously am hearing a TON from those who don't want anyone to have any sort of a gun - heck, they might even not want BB guns!!

But let me hear from you guys - the guys who actually have guns and use them. Should there be some regulation on assault weapons? What about the ability to shoot 100 rounds in 1.3 seconds (totally making that up but you know what I mean)? Someone said today that all these kids wouldn't be dead if the shooter didn't have the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly but I disagree with that and think that he could get a LOT of kids killed with even just a regular pistol.

So what say you on the matter? Educate me from the other side. I appreciate your opinion! Heaven knows I'm not going to get it from the liberal media and friends I have! Many of the conservative friends I have don't have guns so I need you to tell me stuff!


----------



## zant

1st...are you a logical,rational person that understands proper definitions...or are you an overemotional hairbrain that think words and definitions can be changed to suit whatever your political ambition is at the time....Important to know,,,saves typing...NO snarkiness involved with my question...I have explained firearms reality to people that listened and then spouted the usual libloon BS-they did'nt want reality-they wanted their stupidity reinforced...


----------



## Annsni

zant said:


> 1st...are you a logical,rational person that understands proper definitions...or are you an overemotional hairbrain that think words and definitions can be changed to suit whatever your political ambition is at the time....Important to know,,,saves typing...NO snarkiness involved with my question...I have explained firearms reality to people that listened and then spouted the usual libloon BS-they did'nt want reality-they wanted their stupidity reinforced...



No, seriously. I believe that we should have guns if we choose to in order to protect ourselves and our families. I am the child of a NYC cop - so I have no pipe dreams of not having guns. I haven't owned one but even was looking at a Daisy for my 12 year old to enjoy in the yard. 

It may help for you guys to explain a few things to me - the difference between types of guns and stuff. I'm really coming here for education because I think there's too much hysteria out there to really get any real info from other sources. Plus I'm not feeling well and honestly being a bit lazy by not doing research on my own. LOL


----------



## deaconjim

My first question to anyone who wants gun control is "Do you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or just ignore it?". Until they answer that question, there's not much room for discussion.

There are a number of reasons why gun control doesn't work, and is undesireable. The first reason is that the 2nd Amendment was ratified because our founding fathers understood that an armed we are citizens, and disarmed we are subjects. 

Another is that gun control simply won't accomplish what it is advertised to do. Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country, and also one of the highest incidences of gun crimes in the country. I feel much safer in a place where people can carry than in any of the places where they are disarmed.

Disarming the law abiding portion of the population makes us vulnerable to those who are not inclined to obey the laws. How can that possibly make us safer? 

Our rights, including the right to arm ourselves, do not come from government and cannot therefore be taken away by the government. The Constitution did not grant us the right to bear arms, it gave the government the responsibility of protecting our freedom to exercise the right to bear arms granted to us by our Creator. If the government becomes a threat to the very rights it was created to protect, it loses its legitimacy and its reason to exist.


----------



## vicker

I've owned guns, shot guns, hunted with guns and really liked guns all if my life. A lot of the stuff you are hearing about is against assault style weapons, which are basically the same thing as your regular sport style weapon, but the stock is different; and high capacity magazines. Personally, I'd rather have two ten round clips than a twenty round clip. They are just more dependable. I'm all about something working when you need it. So, as far as I am concerned, they can have all of the large capacity magazines. Banning the weapons is just stupid.


----------



## Annsni

Note: I'm not arguing this - just repeating what I've heard.

Some ask "Why do we need these high powered weapons that can shoot so many rounds without changing a clip?" or something like that. 

I can see guns but I kind of understand the argument against these big weapons.

But then again, I argued with one person "Why do want cars that can travel 200 mph? Because it's fun to play with." Not sure if that was a good argument but I can see why gun enthusiasts would enjoy shooting these guns.


----------



## deaconjim

This country needs government control, not gun control.


----------



## NicoleC

Annsni said:


> What about the ability to shoot 100 rounds in 1.3 seconds (totally making that up but you know what I mean)?


That kind of figure is total BS, unless someone has access to fully automatic weapons, and that's a *very* small group of people. When you hear the news talk about "automatic" weapons they are talking semi-automatic. You still have to pull the trigger for every shot, it just loads the next one for you. A semi-automatic pistol is a bit of a misnomer since a revolver does the same thing.



> Someone said today that all these kids wouldn't be dead if the shooter didn't have the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly but I disagree with that and think that he could get a LOT of kids killed with even just a regular pistol.


What he had was a high capacity magazine so he didn't have to stop and reload. For someone intent on massacring a bunch of people, not having a high capacity mag simply means they bring more weapons. Or they take a few seconds to switch mags. In one high-profile gun spree some time ago, the guy brought a *cart* loaded with guns. 

It is true, however, that a hunter that needs a high capacity magazine isn't much of a hunter. That isn't a good argument, IMO, for banning them.

Me, personally, I don't have a problem with the assault weapons ban, except that when we had one it wasn't effective in preventing these kinds of crimes... so why pass a useless law? I'm for closing the gun show loophole and depending on the proposal, would not mind seeing stronger background checks and even a proficiency exam as part of a license provided it didn't supersede local laws. (Not everyone here will agree with me.)

But the reality is we aren't going to see major changes in gun ownership in the country. As an Op-Ed in the Atlantic pointed out today, the country has already had long and deep conversations about gun ownership, and the population has come down strongly on the side of gun rights. We may see some window dressing and some may even be beneficial changes (IMO), but this country has almost 300 million guns in the hands of citizens. A few legal tweaks aren't going to really affect the availability of guns for those that want them. 

There are many peaceful countries with tough gun laws. Then there's Mexico. Tough gun laws aren't a panacea for anything. On the flip side, go look at the gun ownership percentage in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the media scarcely made a peep about the shooting with a compound bow a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## zant

1."Assault Rifle"-a real world definition used by all military organizations and armorers-a firearm that uses a magazine-sub .30cal-and capable of sustained fire with ONE pull of trigger.....If you have an AR for example that fires 1 bullet only with 1 pull of trigger-you have a selfloading or SEMIauto firearm...or if you have a Remington/Savage/Win,etc firearm that holds multiple rounds..the same...They are NOT automatic firearms.....

2.If you have a firearm that fires more than 1 round with 1 pull of trigger-You HAVE an automatic firearm-which has been regulated since NFA1934 Act-possession requires a $200tax stamp,multiple fingerprint cards,multiple passport size photos and ATF paperwork-these are registered,legal fullautos(2 have been used in non-injury crimes since 1934)
3.If you own a kalashnikov 74 or 47 or an AR that does not fire more than 1 rd per tigger pull-you have a"lookalike" which has same capabilities as any self loading rifle-It is NOT an assault weapon-the same as owning a 69 Dodge Charger in Petty Blue does not mean you have Richards race car.....
4.Sadly the American people have allowed themselves to be dumbed down so slimy politicians and their scummy supporters can change the true meaning of words and the idiots lap it up-Read 1984-exc examples in there....
5.Any firearm can be modified to hold more rounds....
6.CDNNsports.com always ahs hi-cap mags for very good prices....start buying and make a libleft loon wet their pants


----------



## Darren

Annsni said:


> Note: I'm not arguing this - just repeating what I've heard.
> 
> Some ask "Why do we need these high powered weapons that can shoot so many rounds without changing a clip?" or something like that.
> 
> I can see guns but I kind of understand the argument against these big weapons.
> 
> But then again, I argued with one person "Why do want cars that can travel 200 mph? Because it's fun to play with." Not sure if that was a good argument but I can see why gun enthusiasts would enjoy shooting these guns.


The term high power is somewhat confusing. Most hunters wouldn't consider the .223 rifle as high powered. The term "poodle shooter" came out of the Vietnam War after the military changed from a .308 rifle to the .223 which wasn't highly regarded.

Going out on a limb, I think the most popular and common rifle calibers would be the .30-06, .270 and .308 all of which pack much more power than the little .223. I personally don't consider those high powered. High powered to me means it kicks the  out of you when you fire it. Same goes for scoped rifles that give the uninitiated an eyebrow cut when fired.

Semi-automatic hunting rifles have been around since the early1900s. The military didn't adopt a semi-auto rifle until the late 1930s.


----------



## TNHermit

People keep talking about hunting and all that sproting crap. There in lies the problem. Nobody understands the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting,fishing target practice or buying and selling. Its all about defending not only your family but this country.. And since we have had a decent military that idea has been lost. but it has everything to do with defending from a totalitarian govt like were getting now... how will that single shot work for you then. Start talking about it tn the way it was inteneded and you will get the truth


----------



## Annsni

Darren said:


> The term high power is somewhat confusing. Most hunters wouldn't consider the .223 rifle as high powered. The term "poodle shooter" came out of the Vietnam War after the military changed from a .308 rifle to the .223 which wasn't highly regarded.


So would the .223 be able to do the damage that we saw at this school??

Thanks for being patient with me. I'm getting my education! 

I should just ask my son. He's 12 and saw a picture of my brother in Afghanistan. He knew just what my brother was carrying! LOL


----------



## Darren

From the reports a .223 was used by the killer. As far as killing even a .22 could have been used based on the 3 to 11 shots per person according to the medical examiner. With the amount of rage that was indicated, the killer could have been just as lethal with a knife or a hand axe. 

In two other instances recently the semi-autos used by the killers jammed. I'm wondering if that happened at Newtown. And that is when he killed himself with a handgun.That is one of the potential issues with a semi-auto. If it jams, you've got an expensive paperweight.


----------



## Black forest

Read about the Battle of Athens Tenn. McMinn county war. That is a good
example of why we have the second amendment. In todays enviroment if law enforcement has high cap assault weapons then civilians have to have the same to keep things balanced.


----------



## zant

MAGAZINE CAPACITY:always thrown around by enemedia....if you only have 10rd mags-you just LEARN to change mags faster....meaningless...What is the proper amount that a magazine should hold??????1,2,4,6rds???Someone that has PRACTICED(not hard-15min a night-1 month)with a bolt action can lay down firepower....Don't let the simplistic,infantile,wording of anti-gunners warp your mind,most are just unwitting lemmings parroting some emotional blather.Natural Laws are were written for mankind...not for men.


----------



## deaconjim

Magazine capacity wouldn't have made a difference. The guy was the only one in the building with a gun. He could have done just as much damage with a single shot pistol and a pocket full of shells.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

lets first discuss actions , common types of actions are 
break
bolt 
pump 
lever 
semi-auto 
revolver 

break- is limited to 1 round per barrel , often these guns have 2 barrels as in double barrel shot gun 

bolt - a bolt is manipulated to remove the spent cartridge from the chamber , and place a new round into battery making it ready to fire 

a pump is pumped with a sliding front stock , and a lever levered to place a new round into battery 

a revolver , rotates a cylinder with some varying number of chambers not just 6 , but 5 ,7,8, 9, 10 into allinment with the barrel each time the trigger is pulled firing a cartridge , the user then opens the cylinder and ejects the spent rounds and places in new rounds.
It should be noted that the fastest shooter in the wold set his record set with a revolver 

a semi auto , uses gas from the burning powder to eject the spend brass , then the energy of a spring compressed when the bolt moves back to force the bolt shut again 
yes it has an increased rate of potential fire , how ever controllable fire is only ever so slightly faster than a practiced person with another action type 

none of these things makes it an "assault weapon" the fear mongering of the media and politicians make it an assault weapon , see somthing with black plastic stocks , and a hand grip , fear it , add it to the list for the unknowing masses.

they are not looking at banning weapons based on how they function , but how they look , just when we though we could start looking past the color of ones skin , it is replaced by the color of ones gun. what is it about the color black that brings such fear to people.

now you should know that the north east united states has some of the toughest gun control in the country , magazine size limits , bands on guns based on look, registration knowing who has what gun at what time. it doesn't work , criminals and terrorists know they are safe to attack people who are unarmed. 

by the way people who perform school , theater or other types of shootings are terrorist , and can only be dealt with as such. 

*notice criminals/ terrorists always pick a place that prohibits good people from being armed and able to protect themselves. *

criminals don't follow laws any way or they wouldn't be criminals , why punish law abiding citizens by further removing their ability to defend themselves.

especial based on the color of their gun

early warning , control this , do that , report mental illness , take every threat seriously ect........ are like the spam filters of crime 
for those of you who may not be familiar with spam filers , they work on a set of filters , usually word filters every time something gets thru the administrator adds the new creative way to spell or break up the words to defeat the defenses to the filter. people want to work on this passive way to do everything , oh just filter out the bad and oh wait any one who has ever worked with a mail filter knows that often good mail gets blocked also , just try and get that email from your kids teacher saying they picked the scab from when they tripped and fell on the playground and now it is getting ***** so little Johny was sent to the nurses office or that big excel spread sheet from a client.

so there are 3 types of security 

passive , active , and reactive 

_passive_ often works on the proactive side , putting up barriers like bars on the windows , adding stickers to the windows to let everyone know the premise is protected by xyz security 

_active_ , think air port security , they say no weapons past point X and they mean it and they actually check you and there is always a deputy sheriff there to arrest you or stop you if you go any further.
another form of active security is a mother and father watching their kids play in a park while they carry their concealed weapons on them active is just that ,watching ready to assess and act if needed. if the whole wold had every one watching actively looking and ready to act the criminal might get a shot off before being gunned down by the active guard , they would likely turn to a safer means of crime.

_reactive_ , this is gathering reports , reviewing CCTV footage identifying and arresting the criminal.

cameras can be a passive means also , the point is people don't like getting caught , if they are terrorists they don's like failing so they avoid large amounts of active security.

setting up good barriers , doors , procedures to limit entry , these are all good but can only go so far , active security plays a role in protecting any high value thing or person.

what we need to do is shift peoples mind set , far far to many are lulled into a completely false sense of security they actually want to believe that a sticker on a window will protect them.

a good example is a pool , we have a life guard who is an active form of security , but who hasn't been to the pool and seen or been involved in something that the guard didn't see.

we recently had an incident at the pool during swimming lessons , a young girl had just had her one on one time with the instructor and was returned to the underwater platform that the kids wait on so that they can stand heads above water while the instructor works with each child , the child slipped off and into water over her head sputtering and trying to keep her head up she was going under the main guard watching the pool didn't see the 5 swim instructors also life guards didn't see , but a mother watching from the bleachers did and yelled enough to get the closest guards attention and the girl was shaken but ok after spitting up some of the water she took on.it only takes seconds 

more eyes are better , in the past the parents had to watch swim lessons from a small window that looked onto the pool , or wait in another room so clearly having more eyes on the pool is better 

what might be better yet , spread the parents out around the pool area , and have plenty of throw able flotation rings and long poles placed around the pool area in close reach , having trained everyone in the use of these live saving devices.

so we see there are several levels to pool safety 
-no one around at all parent or guard- trouble is free to happen- and how most children drown
-guard on duty but can't see everything 
-guard with parents trapped behind a window where they can only see some but can only bang on the window to try and get a guards attention 
-guard on duty , with parents there that are also eyes on the pool and can yell or act using poles , or throw-able life saving devises , or if need be jump in 

what about the scenario left out , in thousands and thousands of pools all over the country every day people swim and watch their kids and look out for each other , with poles and throw-able devices near by.

nothing in this world is free , your time or your money , sure you could hire 4 guards for every pool but the price of swimming lesson would triple

the next dilemma , all to often life guards are low paid , low end jobs , often filled by teens so we can't trust them to drive with more than one other person in the car with them or after 10pm but you put them in charge of your child's life in one of the most dangerous environments around most young kids.

back to security , think about how you can apply the pool model to security , 

-nothing at all , ripe for trouble 
- cameras so you can discourage , and track down the offender after the fact 
-you can have people who can alert and hope that police can respond in time , but who are otherwise nearly helpless to stop anything.
- you can have a guard close by 
- you can gave guards all around 
-or you can have some guards , some cameras, and a hole lot of law abiding people who are not helpless to alert or act .


2 countries that have lots of guns and little gun violence are Switzerland and Israel
Switzerland has very few police and little crime people watch out for each other , it is easier to own a howitzer in Switzerland than a pistol in New York.
Israel has dealt with school shootings and countless acts of terror by extremist terrorist groups they are surrounded by them , then the act started it was quickly ended often by a citizen who was just in the right place at the right time , they have guards at the schools who look like and are often grandma and grandpa out for their morning walk around the school grounds for exercise but don't let looks deceive they are trained and carrying side arms. 

time to open your eyes see that what you saw as safety is a false sense of security a lie to yourself and others , deceit so that we don't have to talk or worry about such unpleasant things 

people think they can tell who is carrying , even a trained police officer can't spot more than a few people carrying , understand that if the person next to you isn't naked they could easily be carrying 
if building or business doesn't allow you to carry on their premises and they don't have court house or airport type security with metal detectors , then their security is a lie to keep up appearances. they are only creating a safe haven for criminals and terrorists.

criminals and terrorists do not follow laws , so new laws only serve to weaken their victims further , only the law abiding follow laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> they are not looking at banning weapons based on how they function , but how they look


In the last Assault Weapons Bill. one of these was banned and the other was not.
They are both 223 Gas Operated Semi Auto's capable of accepting detachable magazines:


----------



## Jpchar

This is the best way I have heard it described.
http://thestarlitecafe.com/poems/105/poem_91104784.html


----------



## meddac

I have many guns to include 6 AR15's and lots of army mags back before I retired. That said I'm not that hyped on high capacity magazines but I fear the slippery slope. Today it's magazines that hold more than ten rds....then "assault rifles" then semiauto pistols then revolvers etc. Next thing you know we are like Australia and only criminals have guns. No thanks. The only way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is have a good guy with a gun. 80 million people own 300 million guns in the US and just because some crackpot goes off now we need to punish law abiding citizens? Tim McVeigh killed way more to include 19 kids under the age of six with fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a truck...I don't see those banned.


----------



## dkhern

i can speak for all gun owners we donot wand any mentally ill person to heve access to any gun be it a duck gun a biird gun a deer rifle a competive pistol therefore using buzz words like assalt weapon is mute and is used only for its emotinal value. second point we want the murder of the first child prevented. if this is ackomplished we will never have another massacur. pro gun and anti gun are in total agreement on these points. question is how to ackomplish. thats where the debate should focus not on the tools used in these murders. for what its worth i dont want the mentally ill to have access to large knives.


----------



## TNHermit

Bearfootfarm said:


> In the last Assault Weapons Bill. one of these was banned and the other was not.
> They are both 223 Gas Operated Semi Auto's capable of accepting detachable magazines:


I just built one like on the bottom...........Out of wood.. for a toy. Hope I don't get in trouble


----------



## simi-steading

I heard someone say a while back that we the people should be able to own any type of weapon the government owns... Because the reason for us having weapons is to protect our selves from that same government.. or governments of another country... I personally believe this way too.. 

The second amendment allows for a well maintained militia... Well us going up against a government that has tanks, using our little single shot bolt .22's isn't going to do us much good... 

I love my guns, and while many may not think there is a need for a black ugly gun that holds a lot of "bullets" I believe we are all entitled to be able to own what we want without being told what we can or can't own.. .

I have to really wonder why it's called a free country... That may have been originally based on religion, but it was guns that earned us the freedom of religion...


----------



## Darren

simi-steading said:


> I heard someone say a while back that we the people should be able to own any type of weapon the government owns... Because the reason for us having weapons is to protect our selves from that same government.. or governments of another country... I personally believe this way too..
> 
> The second amendment allows for a well maintained militia... Well us going up against a government that has tanks, using our little single shot bolt .22's isn't going to do us much good...
> 
> I love my guns, and while many may not think there is a need for a black ugly gun that holds a lot of "bullets" I believe we are all entitled to be able to own what we want without being told what we can or can't own.. .
> 
> I have to really wonder why it's called a free country... That may have been originally based on religion, but it was guns that earned us the freedom of religion...


I agree. I don't think I can afford an Abrams though.


----------



## Tubby

zant said:


> 1."Assault Rifle"-a real world definition used by all military organizations and armorers-a firearm that uses a magazine-sub .30cal-and capable of sustained fire with ONE pull of trigger


Correct. Assault rifle is a very specific definition. Assault weapon is a media term based on fear mongering. There are assault rifles, but no such thing as as assault weapon. 



> 2.If you have a firearm that fires more than 1 round with 1 pull of trigger-You HAVE an automatic firearm-which has been regulated since NFA1934 Act-possession requires a $200tax stamp,multiple fingerprint cards,multiple passport size photos and ATF paperwork-these are registered,legal fullautos(*2 have been used in non-injury crimes since 1934*)


In 1934 a police officer came home to find his wife in bed with her lover, and he used the department issued Thompson SMG to murder them.

Regardless, gun bans do not work. For the past 18 years, CT has had an "AWB" and you can see the results of it with this tragedy. It did nothing to prevent this crime from happening. The Federal "AWB" also did nothing. Antigun organizations did a study to find any perception of success of the law, because they wanted to take that evidence and use it to make the ban permanent. They found no evidence that their ban worked as intended. 

For those of you saying large capacity magazines have no place in hunting, you haven't been groundhog or prairie dog shooting. Crow hunting with an AR15 is a high volume affair. Lay down in a field with a thermos of iced tea in the summer time and a handful of 20rd magazines under a shade tree. Toss a carcass of a recently slaughtered animal in the field and let the crows come in. I'm lazy and don't like to change magazines often. If I had to do that every 5 rounds I'd be missing the opportunity to kill more birds.


----------



## Nimrod

The reason most gun owners are so adament that there be no gun control is because the antigun folks have adopted the strategy that they will keep picking at our rights until they have totally banned all guns. They say ban assualt rifles and many people get duped into believing that that is reasonable so it may come to pass. Once they have won that battle they will try to ban something else until they have won completly. 

They use all kinds of false and misleading statements to get their way. Just yesterday Michael Bloomberg said, "No other industralised country has massacres like this" in reference to the grade schoole massacre. Um, what about the island camp massacre in Norway and others. 

Banning guns will not stop these massacres. The knee jerk reaction is to ban guns but the real answer is way harder. You have to get the loonies help before they go nuts and commit these massacres.

The media is slanted toward gun control. Every massacre involving guns is covered for weeks and old ones are brought up all the time. Massacres that don't involve guns are buried like the Casper WY college massacre with a bow and arrow. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-in-wyo-slayings-had-relationship-say-police/
I guess those people don't rate much coverage. Maybe they are not as dead as the grade school kids?


----------



## edcopp

Annsni said:


> OK - I admit that I'm pretty ignorant in the whole gun thing. I do agree that our Constitution provides protection for people to arm themselves but I also can see the argument of having gun control. I don't know. I obviously am hearing a TON from those who don't want anyone to have any sort of a gun - heck, they might even not want BB guns!!
> 
> But let me hear from you guys - the guys who actually have guns and use them. Should there be some regulation on assault weapons? What about the ability to shoot 100 rounds in 1.3 seconds (totally making that up but you know what I mean)? Someone said today that all these kids wouldn't be dead if the shooter didn't have the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly but I disagree with that and think that he could get a LOT of kids killed with even just a regular pistol.
> 
> So what say you on the matter? Educate me from the other side. I appreciate your opinion! Heaven knows I'm not going to get it from the liberal media and friends I have! Many of the conservative friends I have don't have guns so I need you to tell me stuff!


What exactly is an Assault Weapon? 

The term "Assault Weapon" is no more than two "Buzz Words" nailed together. The term has no logical meaning since it is completely distorted. The definition of Assault is a threat.

One would need to completely uninformed to think that a wartime type rifle is a threat, and a 12 gauge shotgun is not.

It is completely ignorant, and trickery to the enth degree to allow such "buzz" wording to be written into law.


----------



## Steve L.

Annsni said:


> Some ask "Why do we need these high powered weapons that can shoot so many rounds without changing a clip?" or something like that.
> 
> I can see guns but I kind of understand the argument against these big weapons.





Annsni said:


> So would the .223 be able to do the damage that we saw at this school??


Like another poster mentioned, the .223 in not 'high powered'.

It's actually pretty low powered, (especially for a modern military cartridge) but it's considered to be (barely) adequate for taking white tailed deer out to about 100 yards, so, yeah, it would "be able to do the damage that we saw at this school".

Here's a list of some cartridges, arranged from low to high power. Common WWII loads are in red, 'assault' rifle loads in *green*, and 'high power' (i.e. dangerous game) loads in blue. You'll notice the 'assault' loading are _low_, not high power.

The highest powered one(about _10 times_ as powerful), the .50 BMG, is currently being used by the US military as a sniper rifle round.

(Sorry about the formatting, I hope you can make sense out of it.)


 Cartridge ME (ft lb)
 Hunting .22 Hornet (45 Sp) 723
 Hunting .218 Bee (46 HP) 778
 Hunting .17 Rem. (25 SpHP) 906
 Hunting .223 Rem. (55 Sp) 1282
* Military* *.223 Rem. (64 Sp)* *1357*
 Military 6.5x50 Jap. (156 Sp) 1480
* Military* *7.62x39 (125 Sp) * *1552*
 Military 6.5x52 Carcano (156 Sp) 2043
 Hunting .45-70 (300 HP) 2182
 Military 7x57 Mauser (140 Sp)  2200
 Military 6.5x55 SE (140 SP) 2333
 Military 7.62x54R (150 SP)  2428
 Military .308 Win. (150 Sp)  2648
 Hunting .308 Win. (180 Sp) 2743
 Military .30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp)  2820
 Hunting .30-06 Spfd. (165 PSP) 2872
 Hunting .30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2913
Hunting .375 H&H Mag. (270 Sp) 4340
 Hunting .458 Win. Mag. (500 RN) 4850
 Hunting .458 Lott (500 RN) 5872
 Military .50 BMG (750 SpBT) 12592


----------



## simi-steading

To answer the question...


Originally Posted by Annsni 
So would the .223 be able to do the damage that we saw at this school??

Yes, It would do what happened... It is a very efficient killing round... Part of the reasons it was chosen for the M16 and use in Vietnam... Light, small, easy to carry, easy to stack in a magazine, and very accurate with enough hitting power to remove a combatant from the fight... 

If you stand 3 or 4 people in front to back line, it will take all of them out with a single shot, and maybe a couple more depending on how thick they are..


----------



## Bob Huntress

Annsni, sure I can see reasons to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, just like I can see good reasons to impose religious test of those seeking to hold office, a poll tax and thousands of other possible violations of the US Constitution. Hitler had valid reasons to invade Poland. He had reports of Pols firing on Germans at the border. For any violation of any authoritive law, there are good reasons, yet when we start to minimize the authority of our final word on law in America, the Constitution, we begin the road to anarchy, which is paved with well intended reasons (excuses). Those who feel that militas in Idaho with semi automatic rifles will bring anarchy, they need to look no further than Washington DC and their ever growing dismissive attitude toward the finality of our Constitution. As our government errodes the credibility of our Constitution with constant emotionally justified exemptions to the rights it provides, it errodes the public's regard for law. I don't think we should allow Muslims to join the military, but, the Constitution says in language as plain as the second amendment, that no test of religion can be used to test one for public trust, and because I am an American faithfull, I have no option, but to respect that! Those who advocate that because the news has them spun into a freightfull frenzy that we should bypass or ignore the second amendment, are a greater source of anarchy than a hundred militias with chain fed machine guns and Cruise missles. We have a Constitution, and we must follow it or allow civilization to slip into anarchy.


----------



## Txsteader

The imminent threat to liberty is not anarchy, it's tyranny. Tyranny is why the 2nd Amendment exists.

Want to know what tyranny looks like? Look at Syria today.


----------



## Tubby

simi-steading said:


> To answer the question...
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Annsni
> So would the .223 be able to do the damage that we saw at this school??
> 
> 
> 
> If you stand 3 or 4 people in front to back line, it will take all of them out with a single shot, and maybe a couple more depending on how thick they are..


That is a gross exaggeration of the terminal ballistics capability of the .223/5.56. If the bullet doesn't fragment inside the first person, it's unlikely to pass through the second person.


----------



## Ohio dreamer

I grew up in a no gun home. Guns were bad and the people that had them were bad. The exception was hunting. If someone was a hunter then having *a* gun to go out once a year to shoot one round out of to get one deer was okay. LOL....well as an adult I now know that is ludicrous.

I too am new-ish to gun. Like many have said, gun ownership was seen by our Founding Fathers as a God Given Right, no man on earth has the right to "over rule God". My biggest problem with assault weapon bans is one is attempting to "over rule God". We need to have the ability to keep up with the man-made government's abilities. 

Remember our history, America was founded in order to get away for Tyranny....our Constitution reflects that. As our government leans more toward Tyranny, they work hard at chipping away at those "rights" listed in our Constitution. The government has a huge payroll, they have no trouble finding some of the best PR professions and lawyer that know how to twist and spin words to the point that it sounds like they have our best interest at heart (and can even make it sound like it was our idea....not theirs). They can spin anything to make it sound like a good idea. They have many News outlets drooling over their every word. They have slowly trained us to no longer take care of ourselves, look to the "powers that be" for help and enlightenment....they are there, after all, to help us, and we put them in that position by voting for them. We no longer need to think for ourselves, just open the newspaper and read what the opinion of the day is. Don't look at the hard facts for yourself, just listen to what we say after we tossed them in a blender mixed them up added a few other things and pour them out. Your neighbor believes us, what's wrong with you that your don't think we are telling you the "gods" honest truth? 

I have gotten spitting mad at the news the past few days, the "fact" they are saying about crime are burning me up. If they even looked at the hard fact (sorry, I don't have any link's to substantiate this at the moment) they would see the conclusions they are coming to don't add up as neatly as they claim.


----------



## unioncreek

TNHermit said:


> People keep talking about hunting and all that sproting crap. There in lies the problem. Nobody understands the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting,fishing target practice or buying and selling. Its all about defending not only your family but this country.. And since we have had a decent military that idea has been lost. but it has everything to do with defending from a totalitarian govt like were getting now... how will that single shot work for you then. Start talking about it tn the way it was inteneded and you will get the truth


TNHermit,

You've hot the nail on the head. I even heard one congressman state that guns were for hunting and a cultural thing. I don't think he had a clue of what the second amendment is about. Obama has already said the more laws will not change a thing and it will happen gain. But, they'll pass kore gun laws that restricts the lawabiding citizen.

Bbg


----------



## Tubby

TNHermit said:


> People keep talking about hunting and all that sproting crap. There in lies the problem. Nobody understands the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting,fishing target practice or buying and selling. Its all about defending not only your family but this country.. And since we have had a decent military that idea has been lost. but it has everything to do with defending from a totalitarian govt like were getting now... how will that single shot work for you then. Start talking about it tn the way it was inteneded and you will get the truth


Here's my take on it:

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, self defense, or sporting purposes. The intent of the Second Amendment is to give the citizens of the country the means to protect themselves against tyranny so they may live their lives in the fullest sense of freedom. Tyranny could come in two forms, domestic tyranny from its own government and foreign tyranny from a foreign government, ie war. This gave the provision to protect against any future invaders or foreigners wishing to change the American culture, ie exact tyrannical controls and policies on Americans. This is why the Constitution forbids a standing army. A standing army is a threat of tyranny. Protection of the republic (we are NOT a democracy) is to be done by the able citizenry at large. Congress has to vote to fund a land based military force every two years. The only standing military force authorized by the Constitution is the navy. Furthermore, there is a hint of of implication philosophically with regard to self defense. A secure state cannot be obtained without secure individuals. Armed individuals provide their own security and collectively we provide for a secure state, ie nation.


----------



## Txsteader

Very good point, Tubby. Because we do have a standing army is precisely why the population should be well armed....at the very _minimum_, as well equipped as the average soldier.


----------



## Tubby

No, we don't have a standing army. A standing army doesn't need to be authorized every couple years. Ours does.


----------



## MichaelK!

Being a gun owner I have ambivelent feelings about what course of action this country should take. I have friends that will look me in the eye and demand that I justify why I should be able to own a gun. In the past my response was usually something like "_For the same reason you have the right to ask me that question_!".

When people in the past have said tragedies like Columbine wouldn't have happened, I reminded them that on the very same week that two people with guns killed 13 students at Columbine, a lone Japanese man wielding a knife slashed 12 students to death in a Japanese school. Outlawing guns will not stop the insane from killing! Unfortunately, the body count of more resent tragedies is higher.

When they ask why do I need an assalt weapon, I say that it's the perfect gun for killing gophers (actually ground squirrels) on my property that damage my fruit trees. When they ask why should I be able to buy armor piercing bullets, I tell them it was miltary overruns that were on sale cheap. The gophers don't complain to me about what bullet I shoot at them.

You can argue up and down how your gun is not an assalt weapon, or that it functions exactly the same as a "hunting" rifle, or the the second ammendment isn't about duck hunting. The problem for gun owners now is we are facing a tsunamii of resentment right now and it's something we'll have to deal with. A tsunamii doesn't care if you only hunt with your rifle, it doesn't care if the second ammendment allows you to be on the beach, a tsunamii doesn't care if your rifle only has two out of three characteristics of an assalt rifle. It is still going to wash over all of us!

Being here in California, I've learned to live with the restrictions we have on rifles compared to other states, and I have to say it really isn't too bad. For the AR's I own, I've installed bullet buttons I bought from MidwayUSA for 18$ each. It converts my "bad assalt rifle" into a fixed magazine gun which is less threatening to law enforcement. I've also stocked up on 10 round magazines to replace 20's and 30's. An important point to these alterations is that they are reversable, so if I move somewhere else, and can still remove the bullet button, or buy a bigger magazine. The point is that they work, and would go far to quiet the histerical rants of antigunners.

Yes, you are right in saying that gun control is incremental, with total prohabition being the ultimate goal, but at least that's better than total prohabition RIGHT NOW. I think what we need right now is a lot more reasonable discussion about how are we going to protect public safety, AND protect the rights of gun owners.


----------



## Annsni

MichaelK! said:


> When people in the past have said tragedies like Columbine wouldn't have happened, I reminded them that on the very same week that two people with guns killed 13 students at Columbine, a lone Japanese man wielding a knife slashed 12 students to death in a Japanese school. Outlawing guns will not stop the insane from killing! Unfortunately, the body count of more resent tragedies is higher.


Wow!! I didn't know about that tragedy and just looked it up. SO sad!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tubby said:


> No, we don't have a standing army. A standing army doesn't need to be authorized every couple years. Ours does.


Only their FUNDING has to be authorized.
We have an unconstitutional army



> A *standing army* is a *professional permanent* army. It is composed of full-time career soldiers and is* not disbanded during times of peace*.


----------



## Txsteader

MichaelK! said:


> When people in the past have said tragedies like Columbine wouldn't have happened, I reminded them that on the very same week that two people with guns killed 13 students at Columbine, a lone Japanese man wielding a knife slashed 12 students to death in a Japanese school. Outlawing guns will not stop the insane from killing! Unfortunately, the body count of more resent tragedies is higher.


Remarkably, a similar incident happened in China the same day (or day after?) Sandy Hook. A man slashed 22 elementary school children. I haven't read if there were any deaths from the attack.

Kind of a weird coincidence, huh?


----------



## NicoleC

Txsteader said:


> Remarkably, a similar incident happened in China the same day (or day after?) Sandy Hook. A man slashed 22 elementary school children. I haven't read if there were any deaths from the attack.
> 
> Kind of a weird coincidence, huh?


I heard that there were no deaths in that attack.


----------



## Danaus29

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/
No, no deaths in the attack.


----------



## CaliannG

I am a Libleft Loon. I want to get that right out of the way right now. I am so lefty, I make Obama look like a Tea Partier.

If I could wave a magic wand and every single gun or more devastating-that-a-firearm in the world would disappear, I would do so and not even think twice about it.

UNTIL AND UNLESS *ALL* weapons can be gotten rid of, en masse, then it will remain necessary for good people to own and use firearms, else only bad people will have them. That is plain and simple fact.

This is why I own firearms. 

However, I do NOT agree that all military grade weapons should be open to civilians, and I don't care what your interpretation of the Constitution might happen to be. We have enough problems with crazies getting hold of our firearms and committing mayhem (As in the Sandy Hook incident.) What more damage could that man have done if, say, instead of Glocks and .223's, his Mom kept an M203 in her closet? I know from first hand experience that those things are pretty easy to load and fire quickly.... so what would the body count be up to if he had had access to one of those?

So, no on the "all civilians should be able to own military hardware". Screw ya'll, I don't want to see the kind of bloodbaths that would come out of that. And I think you hold those opinion mainly because your gonads really, REALLY want you to be able to play regularly with a belt-fed .50. (Yeah, it IS fun, I know!! But can you imagine your drunken neighbor with one?)

HOWEVER, if everyone with good citizenship standing were permitted to carry personal firearms openly, would Sandy Hook have even happened? I'm not speaking of CCWs, I am speaking of holster on the hip, or other variant, viewable by anyone who cast an eye upon you? If every teacher, every janitor, every adult in that school was visibly armed, would we even have these sorts of massacres?

So, I am of the all or nothing point of view: Either get rid of personal firearms COMPLETELY (yeah, right, THAT'S gonna happen), or arm everyone that is a legal adult in good standing.

It's this middle-of-the-road crap that ends up with scenarios like we have been seeing.


----------



## jaredI

CaliannG said:


> I am a Libleft Loon. I want to get that right out of the way right now. I am so lefty, I make Obama look like a Tea Partier.
> 
> If I could wave a magic wand and every single gun or more devastating-that-a-firearm in the world would disappear, I would do so and not even think twice about it.
> 
> UNTIL AND UNLESS *ALL* weapons can be gotten rid of, en masse, then it will remain necessary for good people to own and use firearms, else only bad people will have them. That is plain and simple fact.
> 
> This is why I own firearms.
> 
> However, I do NOT agree that all military grade weapons should be open to civilians, and I don't care what your interpretation of the Constitution might happen to be. We have enough problems with crazies getting hold of our firearms and committing mayhem (As in the Sandy Hook incident.) What more damage could that man have done if, say, instead of Glocks and .223's, his Mom kept an M203 in her closet? I know from first hand experience that those things are pretty easy to load and fire quickly.... so what would the body count be up to if he had had access to one of those?
> 
> So, no on the "all civilians should be able to own military hardware". Screw ya'll, I don't want to see the kind of bloodbaths that would come out of that. And I think you hold those opinion mainly because your gonads really, REALLY want you to be able to play regularly with a belt-fed .50. (Yeah, it IS fun, I know!! But can you imagine your drunken neighbor with one?)
> 
> HOWEVER, if everyone with good citizenship standing were permitted to carry personal firearms openly, would Sandy Hook have even happened? I'm not speaking of CCWs, I am speaking of holster on the hip, or other variant, viewable by anyone who cast an eye upon you? If every teacher, every janitor, every adult in that school was visibly armed, would we even have these sorts of massacres?
> 
> So, I am of the all or nothing point of view: Either get rid of personal firearms COMPLETELY (yeah, right, THAT'S gonna happen), or arm everyone that is a legal adult in good standing.
> 
> It's this middle-of-the-road crap that ends up with scenarios like we have been seeing.


 I have to say, you are the first left wing person I have heard, who I think I could sit down and have a great discussion with. I am happy to hear your point of view, and I agree with you in some regards, yet disagree with you in others. I would debate some of the finer points with you. However, you definitely seem like a *real person who can reason things out*. Yes I think a good discussion with you would be a whole lot of fun.


----------



## CesumPec

CaliannG said:


> So, I am of the all or nothing point of view: Either get rid of personal firearms COMPLETELY (yeah, right, THAT'S gonna happen), or arm everyone that is a legal adult in good standing.
> .


The closest I've ever been to being a victim of a gun crime is when a drunk tried to make me kiss the muzzle of his shotgun. I was young enough and strong enough and stupid enough to disarm him and throw him to the ground. He was way bigger than me but drunks are slow. Thirty years after that, I don't mind admitting that there are plenty of bigger, meaner, tougher, stronger guys out there that can out fight me any day of the week. Depending on them to be drunk is not exactly a good plan. 

Not that I really expect I'll ever need a gun to protect myself or family, but I carry one all the time today. If you took away all guns, how would you propose I defend myself when the bad guy is carrying a club or knife or just fast, strong fists? What about in another 20 years?


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> I am a Libleft Loon. I want to get that right out of the way right now. I am so lefty, I make Obama look like a Tea Partier.
> 
> If I could wave a magic wand and every single gun or more devastating-that-a-firearm in the world would disappear, I would do so and not even think twice about it.
> 
> UNTIL AND UNLESS *ALL* weapons can be gotten rid of, en masse, then it will remain necessary for good people to own and use firearms, else only bad people will have them. That is plain and simple fact.
> 
> This is why I own firearms.
> 
> However, I do NOT agree that all military grade weapons should be open to civilians, and I don't care what your interpretation of the Constitution might happen to be. We have enough problems with crazies getting hold of our firearms and committing mayhem (As in the Sandy Hook incident.) What more damage could that man have done if, say, instead of Glocks and .223's, his Mom kept an M203 in her closet? I know from first hand experience that those things are pretty easy to load and fire quickly.... so what would the body count be up to if he had had access to one of those?
> 
> So, no on the "all civilians should be able to own military hardware". Screw ya'll, I don't want to see the kind of bloodbaths that would come out of that. And I think you hold those opinion mainly because your gonads really, REALLY want you to be able to play regularly with a belt-fed .50. (Yeah, it IS fun, I know!! But can you imagine your drunken neighbor with one?)
> 
> HOWEVER, if everyone with good citizenship standing were permitted to carry personal firearms openly, would Sandy Hook have even happened? I'm not speaking of CCWs, I am speaking of holster on the hip, or other variant, viewable by anyone who cast an eye upon you? If every teacher, every janitor, every adult in that school was visibly armed, would we even have these sorts of massacres?
> 
> So, I am of the all or nothing point of view: Either get rid of personal firearms COMPLETELY (yeah, right, THAT'S gonna happen), or arm everyone that is a legal adult in good standing.
> 
> It's this middle-of-the-road crap that ends up with scenarios like we have been seeing.


I don't like the idea of everyone being able to own every type of military hardware out there, but what I like even less is turning a blind eye to our government passing laws that exceed their Constitutional authority. Government unrestrained by the Constitution is more dangerous than anyone with military weapons. The Constitution does not allow for any type of restriction on what arms people can have.

I think a case could be made for a Constitutional amendment to correct that situation, but the only way people would be willing to go along with it is if it was worded in such a way that it was very clear and specific as to what it would and would not do. The problem is that, although the concept of people owning military hardware is troubling, it has not been a problem up 'till now and trying to make the case that we need to change the Constitution won't be easy nor, in my opinion, would it be worth doing. If people do believe it is worth doing, then they should get busy and make their case rather than demanding we ignore the Constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, no on the "all civilians should be able to own military hardware".


It's legal to own machine guns now, yet no one is mowing people down with them.
You're just caught up in the *emotional hysteria*


----------



## CaliannG

jaredI said:


> I have to say, you are the first left wing person I have heard, who I think I could sit down and have a great discussion with. I am happy to hear your point of view, and I agree with you in some regards, yet disagree with you in others. I would debate some of the finer points with you. However, you definitely seem like a real person who can reason things out. Yes I think a good discussion with you would be a whole lot of fun.


I'll get the rum, you bring the scotch, and I'll throw meat on the grill.



CesumPec said:


> If you took away all guns, how would you propose I defend myself when the bad guy is carrying a club or knife or just fast, strong fists? What about in another 20 years?


I would expect you to get a club, or a knife, or learn how to use your fists. What were you planning to do if, in 20 years, your eyesight was poor and you couldn't aim? Fire randomly until something said "Ow!"? What if you came down with Parkison's and could not reliably handle a firearm, what did you plan to do then to protect yourself? As the infirmities of age creep upon us, there will come a time when we still cannot depend upon ourselves to use them.

My mother still has her service revolver, more out of habit than protection. She knows darn good and well that she is practically night bind and, even with light, she can't see a dang thing without her glasses. She invested in a good security system. Told me herself that she would reach for her panic button before she'd reach for her firearm because if anyone threatened her in her home at night, she'd have better luck throwing quilts at them than trying to shoot them.



deaconjim said:


> If people do believe it is worth doing, then they should get busy and make their case rather than demanding we ignore the Constitution. *and other Constitutional stuff*


I am not a big Constitutionalist. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years to reflect changing values, and the only reason he didn't insist on a sunset clause in the Constitution was that neither him, nor anyone else, believed that our country would remain unchanged, as per government, for a full 20 years. After all, no one ELSE'S country was managing any long-term, government stability. Upheaval and war had been a constant for generations, and no one could see an end to it.

And besides, why should I respect a document that the very writers and Founders didn't respect? The ink was barely dry from the signatures before the Founders passed the Sedition Acts. So much for those First Amendment rights!

So, in that case, Constitutionalism is a poor argument to use on me, although I do understand your feelings. I, myself, rather believe that drunken neighbor with an M203 trumps Founding Fathers who would not have even been able to envision an M203.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just caught up in the *emotional hysteria*


Really? Seriously? THAT'S your play? THAT'S all you've got? THAT'S it? Really? 

(I have been dying to use that line for months now. Thank you for providing me with the perfect opportunity to do so.)


----------



## CaliannG

Oh, CesumPec, thought of something else for you.  If, for some reason, I am granted the power to wave a wand and make all firearms, or things deadlier than firearms, disappear from the face of the planet, then after I do so, I will immediately send you a package.

In the interests of your personal safety, to protect you from drunkards armed with clubs and knives, I will gift you with a crossbow. :spinsmiley:


----------



## wogglebug

To those who think firearms should be outlawed: 

The firearm is no more evil than an axe, a hammer, a motor vehicle, or medication. Firearms are tools, power tools. They perform a necessary function, which is to make things - often many things - dead at a distance. 

Anyone who is stupid or vicious enough to try to ban forearms should be immediately convicted, ipso facto, of conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals. Any legislative bill to ban firearms should be relabelled "A Bill to Enforce Cruelty to Animals". 

Why? Because it is. 

Farmers and graziers/ranchers need to be able to put down ill or injured animals in a humane manner. They need to be able to control animals eating crops, and they need to be able to control predators attacking their livestock. You haven't had an education until you've dealt with the aftermath when a group of uncontrolled town dogs have "packed up" at night, loped ten or fiteen miles in the moonlight, and attacked a flock of sheep. You'd be lucky (or have had a small flock) if the casualties only measured a couple of dozen. It's not just the dead, it's the living with half their intestines a quarter of a mile away, or the side of their face torn off. Or again, lets picture foxes, dogs, coyotes, wolves eating lamb- or calf- or foal- or kid-and-mother when they catch her in the process of giving birth. In some cases, the mother may not die outright, but it's unlikely she should be required to live. Not only do the injured have to be put down, but the predators have to be stopped - forever - when they come back - as they will. 

If you haven't even thought about something as basic as that, then you have no business promoting your cruelty. 
There are other reasons why firearms should not be banned. There are sport users, for starters. There are people who need them for personal protection, say against bears, pumas, rabid animals, goblins. There's also the primary fact, in the USA, that banning them would be not just illegal but unconstitutional. If you are so evil that you insist on promoting cruelty, then campaign against your constitution first, then when you've got that out of the way you can go on to you primary aim.


----------



## CaliannG

Sorry, I'm not buying it wogglebug. Not that I would ban firearms, as I would not, for my reasons stated above. And since I am not Saint, it is highly improbable that I am going to be given some magic or divine ability to wave a want and make the boomy things go bye-bye.

But your argument holds no merit. I butcher my own livestock, and sometimes it is big livestock. I use a very sharp knife, as in the kosher/halil methods _ as scientific studies have shown that that is the MOST humane way to slaughter an animal._ I *HAVE* a .22 rifle that is very functional for putting down livestock or getting rid of varmits... so far, the only thing I have used it for it target practice.

I kill my own meat. I hunt. Sometimes I hunt things like coyote (thin the population going after my goats, and hey, there is a nice pelt market). It has been many years since I have used a firearm...my bow works just fine, is easy to get ammunition for (make my own), doesn't scare off the game for miles around whenever I shoot it, and is overall a very nice weapon if one wants to make a clean kill.

So I fear that your argument of "cruelty against animals" doesn't hold water.

MY argument of "as long as bad folks have them, good folks should have them to protect themselves against bad folks" is, however, still very valid.


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> I am not a big Constitutionalist. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years to reflect changing values, and the only reason he didn't insist on a sunset clause in the Constitution was that neither him, nor anyone else, believed that our country would remain unchanged, as per government, for a full 20 years. After all, no one ELSE'S country was managing any long-term, government stability. Upheaval and war had been a constant for generations, and no one could see an end to it.
> 
> And besides, why should I respect a document that the very writers and Founders didn't respect? The ink was barely dry from the signatures before the Founders passed the Sedition Acts. So much for those First Amendment rights!
> 
> So, in that case, Constitutionalism is a poor argument to use on me, although I do understand your feelings. I, myself, rather believe that drunken neighbor with an M203 trumps Founding Fathers who would not have even been able to envision an M203.


Just for clarity then, you're suggesting that we should simply ignore the Constitution because it was written a long time ago? Do you have some alternative way to determine the authority and powers of the federal government, or do you want to simply let it do whatever it feels like doing today? Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to allow a government to function without limits? 

I'm sorry, but insanity is a poor argument to use on me.


----------



## CesumPec

CaliannG said:


> I would expect you to get a club, or a knife, or learn how to use your fists. What were you planning to do if, in 20 years, your eyesight was poor and you couldn't aim? Fire randomly until something said "Ow!"? What if you came down with Parkison's and could not reliably handle a firearm, what did you plan to do then to protect yourself? As the infirmities of age creep upon us, there will come a time when we still cannot depend upon ourselves to use them.
> 
> I am not a big Constitutionalist.
> 
> And besides, why should I respect a document that the very writers and Founders didn't respect?


If you read any of several gun rights magazines, you'll see news snipets of everyday citizens defending themselves, others, and their homes with guns. Many times those are senior citizens who even if trained to be ninjas, would have long since passed the time when they could physically overcome a 20 something street thug similarly armed with clubs or knives. It's nice to know you're a liberal who is willing to throw the old folks under the bus just because they can't beat up an NFL lineman. 

As to not being a constitutionalist, neither was I until I realized that the CONS and a willingness to more or less live by it, is what really separates us from other countries. When you see how many times the Supremes have had to tell the gov't to back away from law or policy, imagine what are country would be like without the CONS.


----------



## Annsni

CesumPec said:


> If you read any of several gun rights magazines, you'll see news snipets of everyday citizens defending themselves, others, and their homes with guns. Many times those are senior citizens who even if trained to be ninjas, would have long since passed the time when they could physically overcome a 20 something street thug similarly armed with clubs or knives.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4020052892030&set=vb.140211482669395&type=2&theater

Let me know if that works.


----------



## MichaelK!

I do have ranching neighbors that have had to shoot dog packs that killed their cattle. I do know women personally that have used a handgun to prevent a rapist from trying to violate them. I myself, and other neighbors have used guns to put food on the table, to feed their(my) families.

Suppose we do start outlawing guns starting tomorrow. How many more women will be attacked, raped, or murdered tomorrow because they could no longer protect themselves. How many ranchers would go out of business because they could no longer protect their animals. How many children in this country would go hungry tonight because mom or dad couldn't put any meat on the table.

The truth is, there are or would be victims on either side of the pendulum swing. Being an experienced gun owner, I swing to the personal protection side of the argument rather than the protection of society. Maybe one thing that's different in my experience is that I have a foreign borne wife, and spend signification amounts of time in a completely different society overseas where gun ownership is totally unheard of. I can tell you from experience that being in a totally gun-free environment is not going to make you any safer.

Let me expand on this a little further. In this foreign country, street crime is very high. It is a daily occurance that women on the streets get assaulted by thugs on motor bikes. They pick a target, race up to them on the bike, and either snatch their purse, or do whatever else they please. They're gone a second later, darting their bikes down an alley, not to be seen again. Another common tactic is to pull up to a car stopped at a red light. You smash in the window with a hammer, snatch what's sitting in the passager's seat, then are off a second later, weaving the bike through stalled traffic.

Another type of crime common there that's almost unheard of in the US is home invasions, where thugs break into the house, beat, tie up, and torture homeowners to find money or jewelry. They can do this with impunity because they know the typical homeowner doesn't have anything bigger than a bread knife to defend themselves with. This happened to my sister-inlaw's neighbor just a few weeks ago, even though their community has a security roadblock. In the US, most burgularies happen during the day when no-one is home. That's only because American theives know that after crawling through a window they might come face to face with the barrel of a gun.

This is the kind of arguments that have to be presented to hysterical antigunners, the argument that in many cases American firearms do keep us safer. They really have to be clueless to think otherwise, and in some cases that's really true. A lot of the hysteria over the latest Sandy Hook shootings might be because suddenly the pampered upper middle class has had the real world thrust into their la-la land. Not to say that this tragedy is any less horrible than it truely is, but I have a nagging suspision in the back of my head that most of these people expected their money to protect them from this sort of thing. Still, children are children and it was monsterous no matter who they were. We're really going to have to think long and hard about what is really the right course of action.


----------



## CaliannG

deaconjim said:


> Just for clarity then, you're suggesting that we should simply ignore the Constitution because it was written a long time ago? Do you have some alternative way to determine the authority and powers of the federal government, or do you want to simply let it do whatever it feels like doing today? Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to allow a government to function without limits?


~smiles~ When quoting you, I deleted the implied insult. Try to keep this nice, deaconjim. 

The original document of the Constitution is what outlines the powers of government, how officials were elected, how they served, and what the powers of each of the branches of government are, etc. There is very little difference between it and a document of Corporate Statutes that a company uses to govern itself. Every governing entity, regardless of whether it is governing people, land, business, etc., needs a document of this type to line our who is responsible for what. 

What we are discussing here is not the original Constitution, with its direction on when Congress was to convene, how many votes a bill must have to be passed into law, how many justices are on the Supreme Court and how they are appointed; what we are discussing here is the Bill of Rights.

Interpretation of the second amendment has been divided since the Jacksonian era. Kentucky went the route of "it is an individual right" in a famous case involving a concealed sword in a cane (Yes, a SWORD, not a firearm!) while Arkansas went the route of it was a political right, and that the very mention of State militias and common defense meant that it was a political right, not an individual right, and therefore was subject to legislative control. Both of these cases were in response to challenges of State laws prohibiting *concealed* weapons.

But all of that ignores whether or not Article 2 of the Bill of Rights is even law. The Constitution itself requires a 3/4 majority of the States to ratify an amendment before it can actually be law. Tell me, deaconjim, which Articles of the Bill of Rights are actually law, and when did they get the 3/4 State ratification to actually become so? I think the answer might surprise you, and I think that some things which you have always thought were inalienable individual rights are actually not enforceable at all because they are not yet true amendments to the Constitution.

It is far more complicated than you make it out to be.

And that, my friend, is why I think the whole dang thing should be scrapped, and something better written and passed to take its place.


----------



## CaliannG

CesumPec said:


> If you read any of several gun rights magazines, you'll see news snipets of everyday citizens defending themselves, others, and their homes with guns. Many times those are senior citizens who even if trained to be ninjas, would have long since passed the time when they could physically overcome a 20 something street thug similarly armed with clubs or knives.
> 
> As to not being a constitutionalist, neither was I until I realized that the CONS and a willingness to more or less live by it, is what really separates us from other countries. When you see how many times the Supremes have had to tell the gov't to back away from law or policy, imagine what are country would be like without the CONS.


Again, I removed the sentence that was an insult, not even implied in your case. As with deaconjim, try to keep this discussion *nice*, will you.

As I said previously, I will defend the right of citizens to own firearms for personal protection for just as long as criminals are able to access firearms to commit their nefarious acts. Do you see any day in the next several centuries when criminals will NOT be able to access firearms through theft or black market? Do you think that ANY legislation will be able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of those who would intend to do harm with them? Do you honestly think that some deity or fairy is going to pop up and give me the magic wand that I can wave and make all the boomy things, from a .22 revolver to a Tomahawk missile, disappear? Really? If you do not believe that one or all of these things will ever happen, then why are you tossing insults at me when I have already stated that that is what it would take for me to support limiting citizens from owning firearms for their personal protection? 

~smiles and shakes her head~ You are attempting to verbally beat up someone who is actually _on your side_. 

Rethink your arguments, and your insults. Because this line of discussion is like telling someone who says, "When the Kingdom of God descends to the Earth and Jesus reigns here eternally, we will do away with Capitalism as God will take care of us." that the benefits of Capitalism will still be necessary in a Jesus-run and God-delivered society, and the person saying it must be a commie idiot for even thinking along those lines. Really?

Now....to the second paragraph of your post, which is a bit less inflammatory and another topic:

The Constitution does NOT separate us from other countries. Germany has a Constitution. France has a Constitution. The U.K. has a Constitution. Norway has a Constitution. I could go on and on. EVERY country that has any form of semi-democratic government has a Constitution, whether that be a Parliamentary government, a Representative Republic (like ours), a Constitutional Monarchy (like Belgium), etc., etc. We weren't even the FIRST country to have a Constitution. The Athenians had one in 550 B.C. that outlined their rights and governance in their Direct Democracy. They beat us to it by 2,300 years. 

And when it came to individual rights, theirs wasn't nearly as vague and ambiguous as ours is.

I am certainly not saying that we should live in an anarchy...one look at Somolia should convince the most die-hard anarchist that THAT is a bad idea. Nor am I saying that government (or whatever person or body runs the government) should have unlimited power. One look at North Korea should give anyone thinking along those line a really serious other think.

But if the citizens of our country are confused about their rights because those rights are ambiguous and subject to interpretation, or so cloaked in legalese that they need to hire a translator (lawyer) to interpret for them, then the whole thing needs to be tossed out, and re-done, so that the average citizens knows where he or she stands in relation to his or her government and his or her individual rights.


----------



## CaliannG

CesumPec said:


> Many times those are senior citizens who *even if trained to be ninjas*, would have long since passed the time when they could physically overcome a 20 something street thug similarly armed with clubs or knives.


For some reason, I had to address this. It is totally off-topic, but hey, why not?

We have tons of people "trained to be ninjas", many of them senior citizens. They either currently work, or retired from, places like the FBI, the CIA, etc. All ninjas were, were spies. They had the same martial arts training as samurai, and practiced the same style. The difference between their training and that of the standard samurai, were that they were also trained in survival techniques, disguise, distraction, several different trades so that they could pass as members of that trade, etc. 

But when it comes to physical fighting ability, the difference between a ninja (shinobi) and a samurai, was that a ninja would cut your throat while you were asleep, (and you died for political, rather than personal, reasons) while a samurai would wake you up and issue a challenge.

As for seniors being able to defend themselves, physically, in hand to hand combat with someone much younger and stronger than they are, it depends. I know one old guy in his early 80's, who weighs *maaaaybe* 110lb soak and wet, if I cram my sister's biscuits in his pockets, and I wouldn't want to take him. My 6'+, 23 year old son wouldn't want to take him, even if the guy was blindfolded. That guy would take a small group of 20-something thugs and wipe the floor with them, and when he was done, they would be crying for their mommies.

Oh course, he still teaches Aikijujutsu.

Then again, I don't think a senior really needs to have years of martial arts behind them:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/dec/15/71-year-old-hutchinson-woman-knocks-attacker-uncon/

Maybe her gun was in her nightstand?


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> ~smiles~ When quoting you, I deleted the implied insult. Try to keep this nice, deaconjim.
> 
> The original document of the Constitution is what outlines the powers of government, how officials were elected, how they served, and what the powers of each of the branches of government are, etc. There is very little difference between it and a document of Corporate Statutes that a company uses to govern itself. Every governing entity, regardless of whether it is governing people, land, business, etc., needs a document of this type to line our who is responsible for what.
> 
> What we are discussing here is not the original Constitution, with its direction on when Congress was to convene, how many votes a bill must have to be passed into law, how many justices are on the Supreme Court and how they are appointed; what we are discussing here is the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Interpretation of the second amendment has been divided since the Jacksonian era. Kentucky went the route of "it is an individual right" in a famous case involving a concealed sword in a cane (Yes, a SWORD, not a firearm!) while Arkansas went the route of it was a political right, and that the very mention of State militias and common defense meant that it was a political right, not an individual right, and therefore was subject to legislative control. Both of these cases were in response to challenges of State laws prohibiting *concealed* weapons.
> 
> But all of that ignores whether or not Article 2 of the Bill of Rights is even law. The Constitution itself requires a 3/4 majority of the States to ratify an amendment before it can actually be law. Tell me, deaconjim, which Articles of the Bill of Rights are actually law, and when did they get the 3/4 State ratification to actually become so? I think the answer might surprise you, and I think that some things which you have always thought were inalienable individual rights are actually not enforceable at all because they are not yet true amendments to the Constitution.
> 
> It is far more complicated than you make it out to be.
> 
> And that, my friend, is why I think the whole dang thing should be scrapped, and something better written and passed to take its place.


If I had wanted to be insulting, I would have used my first choice, but I changed it. I used the word "insanity" because it was accurate. Would you no agree that a desire to allow the government to operate without the Constitution would be insane?

If you want to scrap the whole thing, you need to get started on your effort now because I don't think it will be easy to convince people to go along with you.

Any study of our history will show that our founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment was to apply to all citizens. It is a silly notion to suggest that the Constitution, which gave the government the authority to wage war and provide for armed forces, needed an amendment to guarantee those forces the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written to restrict the power of government, not to restrict the freedom of people. It is simply not credible to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to do anything but prevent the government from disarming the citizens. 

Neither the Constitution nor the amendments are law, they are the framework upon which laws are passed. No law is valid that does not abide by the limitations place on government by the Constitution. 

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that enough people were convinced to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it was done away with. Does that mean we no longer have the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely not! Our rights exist because we are human, and government exists to protect those rights. Since government did not give us our rights, in cannot take them away. When it becomes a threat to our freedom to exercise our God given rights, the govenment is no longer legitimate and free men are obliged to destroy it.

You are welcome to your opinions, but your opinions do not take precedence over the rights of others. There are many in this country who are quite willing to throw our freedoms away for the illusion of security, but the only way they can do that is to ignore or scrap the Constition altogether. I, along with a lot of other people, took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So far, I have not been relieved of that obligation. Those who do not support our Constitution may well be surprised when they discover exactly how many people there are who believe as I do.


----------



## simi-steading

deaconjim said:


> If I had wanted to be insulting, I would have used my first choice, but I changed it. I used the word "insanity" because it was accurate. Would you no agree that a desire to allow the government to operate without the Constitution would be insane?
> 
> If you want to scrap the whole thing, you need to get started on your effort now because I don't think it will be easy to convince people to go along with you.
> 
> Any study of our history will show that our founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment was to apply to all citizens. It is a silly notion to suggest that the Constitution, which gave the government the authority to wage war and provide for armed forces, needed an amendment to guarantee those forces the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written to restrict the power of government, not to restrict the freedom of people. It is simply not credible to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to do anything but prevent the government from disarming the citizens.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor the amendments are law, they are the framework upon which laws are passed. No law is valid that does not abide by the limitations place on government by the Constitution.
> 
> Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that enough people were convinced to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it was done away with. Does that mean we no longer have the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely not! Our rights exist because we are human, and government exists to protect those rights. Since government did not give us our rights, in cannot take them away. When it becomes a threat to our freedom to exercise our God given rights, the govenment is no longer legitimate and free men are obliged to destroy it.
> 
> You are welcome to your opinions, but your opinions do not take precedence over the rights of others. There are many in this country who are quite willing to throw our freedoms away for the illusion of security, but the only way they can do that is to ignore or scrap the Constition altogether. I, along with a lot of other people, took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So far, I have not been relieved of that obligation. Those who do not support our Constitution may well be surprised when they discover exactly how many people there are who believe as I do.


I wanna know what it's going to take for the people to finally decide our government is a domestic enemy destroying out constitution, and stealing our rights?


----------



## Tubby

deaconjim said:


> When it becomes a threat to our freedom to exercise our God given rights, the govenment is no longer legitimate and free men are obliged to destroy it.


God doesn't give rights, people give rights to themselves.


----------



## simi-steading

...and once they give it, they better not be so quick to take it.. It tends to upset people more than needed..


----------



## deaconjim

Tubby said:


> God doesn't give rights, people give rights to themselves.


I'm inclined to side with the the authors of our Declaration of Independence, who said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You are welcome to decide for yourself who qualifies as your creator, after all, your freedom to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.


----------



## deaconjim

simi-steading said:


> I wanna know what it's going to take for the people to finally decide our government is a domestic enemy destroying out constitution, and stealing our rights?


That determination was made in the late 1700's. We have a number of options available to keep the government from succeeding in its efforts, and I suspect we are closer than ever to finding more extreme measure necessary.


----------



## CesumPec

Annsni said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4020052892030&set=vb.140211482669395&type=2&theater
> 
> Let me know if that works.


YES! Perfect. An an excellent piece to show that the senior wasn't going to be able to do much armed with fists, even if the thugs had no guns. 

But the senior shot too many times and he's lucky he didn't kill the fleeing felons.


----------



## simi-steading

I gotta commend the guy for running up to the first guy before he shot him... Gramps ain't got no fear... 

I would have sat back and done it... Why waste time and take a risk getting close when you can use the time to aim while they aren't noticing?


----------



## CesumPec

CaliannG said:


> Again, I removed the sentence that was an insult, not even implied in your case. As with deaconjim, try to keep this discussion *nice*, will you.
> 
> As I said previously, I will defend the right of citizens to own firearms for personal protection for just as long as criminals are able to access firearms to commit their nefarious acts. Do you see any day in the next several centuries when criminals will NOT be able to access firearms through theft or black market? Do you think that ANY legislation will be able to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of those who would intend to do harm with them? Do you honestly think that some deity or fairy is going to pop up and give me the magic wand that I can wave and make all the boomy things, from a .22 revolver to a Tomahawk missile, disappear? Really? If you do not believe that one or all of these things will ever happen, then why are you tossing insults at me when I have already stated that that is what it would take for me to support limiting citizens from owning firearms for their personal protection?
> 
> ~smiles and shakes her head~ You are attempting to verbally beat up someone who is actually _on your side_.
> 
> Rethink your arguments, and your insults. Because this line of discussion is like telling someone who says, "When the Kingdom of God descends to the Earth and Jesus reigns here eternally, we will do away with Capitalism as God will take care of us." that the benefits of Capitalism will still be necessary in a Jesus-run and God-delivered society, and the person saying it must be a commie idiot for even thinking along those lines. Really?
> 
> Now....to the second paragraph of your post, which is a bit less inflammatory and another topic:
> 
> The Constitution does NOT separate us from other countries. Germany has a Constitution. France has a Constitution. The U.K. has a Constitution. Norway has a Constitution. I could go on and on. EVERY country that has any form of semi-democratic government has a Constitution, whether that be a Parliamentary government, a Representative Republic (like ours), a Constitutional Monarchy (like Belgium), etc., etc. We weren't even the FIRST country to have a Constitution. The Athenians had one in 550 B.C. that outlined their rights and governance in their Direct Democracy. They beat us to it by 2,300 years.
> 
> And when it came to individual rights, theirs wasn't nearly as vague and ambiguous as ours is.
> 
> I am certainly not saying that we should live in an anarchy...one look at Somolia should convince the most die-hard anarchist that THAT is a bad idea. Nor am I saying that government (or whatever person or body runs the government) should have unlimited power. One look at North Korea should give anyone thinking along those line a really serious other think.
> 
> But if the citizens of our country are confused about their rights because those rights are ambiguous and subject to interpretation, or so cloaked in legalese that they need to hire a translator (lawyer) to interpret for them, then the whole thing needs to be tossed out, and re-done, so that the average citizens knows where he or she stands in relation to his or her government and his or her individual rights.


I will call you a liberal as long as you espouse liberal ideas, specifically arguing against a fundamental individual freedom. You are not on my side when you advocate a policy that would leave the weak and old defenseless, even if you admit you have no way to implement your vision. 

Let me be more specific about what was implied, but you sophomorically ignored. The *US* CONS and the gov't's willingness to more or less follow it is what sets us apart. 

Your comments on the validity of the Bill of Rights is moot. A. Hamilton: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

The *US* CONS, were it followed as written, has no need for 1st or 2nd amendments because the gov't has no authorized power to regulate speech or guns. Fortunately, founding fathers recognized that all gov'ts try to expand power and ours would need to be reminded of those powers it did not hold. You could void the 2nd amendment in its entirety but that alone would not give the gov't the legal authority to take away our guns.

As to confusion as to what the rights mean, maybe. Mostly the seeming disagreement is nothing more than a desire by some to alter, ignore, or take away a fundamental right out of an emotional, but not logical, response to live without fear. 

In the greater scheme of things, guns haven't been around all that long and tyrants managed to abuse power and people long before guns came along. To argue for the removal of guns demonstrates B Franklin's wisdom when he said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


----------



## CaliannG

CesumPec, your insult was not in identifying me as a liberal (although I have an etymological argument against the word "liberal", but that is for another day and place, and likely other people), it was in stating that my wish is to throw old people under buses, which is just plain nasty of you.

As for the rest of your post, what POLICY am I advocating that would leave the weak and the old defenseless? The POLICY that I support, and even give my time and money in supporting, that all citizens of good standing should be able to possess and own firearms as personal protection at any and every time and place? I am a rather vocal advocate of OPEN carry, as I firmly believe that no rapist in the history of mankind looked at a woman with a .45 strapped to her hip and said to himself, "Oh yeah, that's the victim for me."

And you know, there are a LOT of folks that have a "vision" of a world where there is no need of weapons, where there will be no violence, and no-one will be subject to attack or harm...and that "vision" is God's Kingdom descending to the Earth as the New Jerusalem. Are THOSE people "advocating a policy" that will leave old people weak and defenseless, even though they, personally, have no way to implement their vision? Really?

So, since I have stated numerous times in the 7 years I have been a member of this board that I am FOR every citizen being openly and personally armed for the purpose of defending themselves, and since you have stated that I am NOT on the same side as you are, that must mean that you want everyone disarmed and you don't believe in people defending themselves, right? Oh, you think that is twisting your words and position on the subject? And you think that is wrong? Well, that is EXACTLY what you have been doing to me, so if you believe it is wrong, then you need to scold yourself first.

Envisioning a world of peace, where there are no nasty weapons, and folks could live in safety and harmony is NOT "advocating a policy" that leaves folks helpless....it is called "being a decent human being and hoping that, someday in the future, for whatever reason, humans might get things right." I believe that anyone, especially at this time of the year when "Peace on Earth, good will to men" is ringing over anything that might possibly carry music, who DOESN'T wish, hope, and envision a better world where folks could live in safety and harmony, at peace with one another, has something seriously wrong with their head.

I have never once argued for the removal of firearms. Not one time. I have never once supported gun control laws...not even for a second. So where the heck are you getting off, CesumPec? Am I the enemy because I would really like the human race to move beyond the need for violence and crime, as impossible and wishful a thought that is? (I am not holding my breath on that.) Are you the kind of person who LIKES violence, and WANTS it to continue, forever and ever, amen? If you are, don't worry, you are probably going to get that want fulfilled to your utter bliss, as I don't see humanity changing any time soon.


----------



## CaliannG

deaconjim said:


> If I had wanted to be insulting, I would have used my first choice, but I changed it. I used the word "insanity" because it was accurate. Would you no agree that a desire to allow the government to operate without the Constitution would be insane?
> 
> If you want to scrap the whole thing, you need to get started on your effort now because I don't think it will be easy to convince people to go along with you.
> 
> Any study of our history will show that our founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment was to apply to all citizens. It is a silly notion to suggest that the Constitution, which gave the government the authority to wage war and provide for armed forces, needed an amendment to guarantee those forces the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written to restrict the power of government, not to restrict the freedom of people. It is simply not credible to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to do anything but prevent the government from disarming the citizens.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor the amendments are law, they are the framework upon which laws are passed. No law is valid that does not abide by the limitations place on government by the Constitution.
> 
> Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that enough people were convinced to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it was done away with. Does that mean we no longer have the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely not! Our rights exist because we are human, and government exists to protect those rights. Since government did not give us our rights, in cannot take them away. When it becomes a threat to our freedom to exercise our God given rights, the govenment is no longer legitimate and free men are obliged to destroy it.
> 
> You are welcome to your opinions, but your opinions do not take precedence over the rights of others. There are many in this country who are quite willing to throw our freedoms away for the illusion of security, but the only way they can do that is to ignore or scrap the Constition altogether. I, along with a lot of other people, took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So far, I have not been relieved of that obligation. Those who do not support our Constitution may well be surprised when they discover exactly how many people there are who believe as I do.


My actual words were "implied insult". 

I agree that any entity, be it a government, a corporation, a Church, or a P.T.A., attempting to operate without a set of standards, bylaws, and rules, is rather insane. I am not an anarchist. I do not believe that entities can function without rules.

And I am NOT for scrapping the Second Amendment, either. I don't know where ya'll get that I would support citizens having their firearms taken away from them. As long as there are criminals with firearms, there should be an armed citizenry. 

I too, am a Veteran, and as long as the Constitution is in place, I will give my life defending it. That's the way it is. That does NOT mean that I could not wish for the dang thing to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, re-vamped and re-written to be a modern document, easily interpreted by any dolt on the street, with no ambiguity. And IF said Constitution WAS re-vamped and re-written (like our Founders thought it would be, to keep up with the times), I would NOT support the new Constitution prohibiting citizens from arming and defending themselves.

~smiles~ The original government was NOT permitted to keep a standing Army...that came well after the Bill of Rights was written. States were allowed to have militias, but unless there was a declaration of war, were not allowed to outfit them. The second amendment was actually so that the individual, rather than the state or federal government, could and would outfit himself in the necessary weaponry and gear needed to go to war if such were called of him. This kept both state and federal government from having to bear the cost of keeping a standing Army, while still ensuring that men, already outfitted with equipment, were available if needed.

Of course, this backfired. When the choice came to buying a musket, or buying a cow, men bought a cow as that would worked more for their family. When it came to spending time training in a militia, or spending time working their farm or business, they picked the one they felt would benefit them immediately. Many states passed laws that FORCED men to join and keep with a militia, and have arms, but those were shot down as UnConstitutional. Eventually, the government gave up on the idea and just kept a standing Army.

So yes, the ORIGINAL intent of the Second Amendment WAS for the individual to outfit himself for military service, as that saved the government from having to do so. But that became unnecessary when the government finally gave in and authorized the keeping of a Federal standing Army, as well at the State's National Guards.

You see what I mean? We need all of this re-written, so that it reflects what is current TODAY, and so that the average citizen doesn't have to become a history buff just to understand his or her rights and why they came into existence.

And might I reiterate AGAIN, for the elucidation of some of the harder heads here, that I do NOT support banning firearms for personal use by citizens? EVEN THOUGH the modern idea of non-military citizens who likely will never serve in any military combat, keeping arms was not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind?

Just because it wasn't the original intent does NOT mean that it isn't the best idea.


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> My actual words were "implied insult".
> 
> I agree that any entity, be it a government, a corporation, a Church, or a P.T.A., attempting to operate without a set of standards, bylaws, and rules, is rather insane. I am not an anarchist. I do not believe that entities can function without rules.
> 
> And I am NOT for scrapping the Second Amendment, either. I don't know where ya'll get that I would support citizens having their firearms taken away from them. As long as there are criminals with firearms, there should be an armed citizenry.
> 
> I too, am a Veteran, and as long as the Constitution is in place, I will give my life defending it. That's the way it is. That does NOT mean that I could not wish for the dang thing to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, re-vamped and re-written to be a modern document, easily interpreted by any dolt on the street, with no ambiguity. And IF said Constitution WAS re-vamped and re-written (like our Founders thought it would be, to keep up with the times), I would NOT support the new Constitution prohibiting citizens from arming and defending themselves.
> 
> ~smiles~ The original government was NOT permitted to keep a standing Army...that came well after the Bill of Rights was written. States were allowed to have militias, but unless there was a declaration of war, were not allowed to outfit them. The second amendment was actually so that the individual, rather than the state or federal government, could and would outfit himself in the necessary weaponry and gear needed to go to war if such were called of him. This kept both state and federal government from having to bear the cost of keeping a standing Army, while still ensuring that men, already outfitted with equipment, were available if needed.
> 
> Of course, this backfired. When the choice came to buying a musket, or buying a cow, men bought a cow as that would worked more for their family. When it came to spending time training in a militia, or spending time working their farm or business, they picked the one they felt would benefit them immediately. Many states passed laws that FORCED men to join and keep with a militia, and have arms, but those were shot down as UnConstitutional. Eventually, the government gave up on the idea and just kept a standing Army.
> 
> So yes, the ORIGINAL intent of the Second Amendment WAS for the individual to outfit himself for military service, as that saved the government from having to do so. But that became unnecessary when the government finally gave in and authorized the keeping of a Federal standing Army, as well at the State's National Guards.
> 
> You see what I mean? We need all of this re-written, so that it reflects what is current TODAY, and so that the average citizen doesn't have to become a history buff just to understand his or her rights and why they came into existence.
> 
> And might I reiterate AGAIN, for the elucidation of some of the harder heads here, that I do NOT support banning firearms for personal use by citizens? EVEN THOUGH the modern idea of non-military citizens who likely will never serve in any military combat, keeping arms was not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind?
> 
> Just because it wasn't the original intent does NOT mean that it isn't the best idea.


The fact that we now have a standing army is all the more reason why we need to have an armed citizen militia. Even those who have had no military experience (if we had no standing army, that would be most of the country) should own and be proficient in the use of their firearms. While I don't believe we should have mandatory training to accomplish that proficiency, I do believe it is a duty of responsible citizenship.

As for changing the Constitution, our founding fathers gave us a mechanism by which it can be changed, so those who want it changed should make the required effort. It would seem that most of the gun grabbers are content to just ignore it.


----------



## Danaus29

The US Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. They can take mine when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

I have used my firearms to protect my crops (shot raccoons, groundhogs and squirrel), feed my family (squirrel, not brave enough yet to try ghog or ****) and protect my livestock (raccoons, dogs and cats). I have also used my firearms to protect my property (dogs, cats and raccoons). I have not, fortunately, had to protect myself or my loved ones from a drug crazed doper or some pos determined to rape and/or kill. But should the need arise I have that right and ability to protect myself or my loved ones.


----------



## Tubby

deaconjim said:


> I'm inclined to side with the the authors of our Declaration of Independence, who said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> You are welcome to decide for yourself who qualifies as your creator, after all, your freedom to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.


You do know there were atheists among the founding fathers, right? So if God gave all humans the same rights, why don't other Christian nations with Constitutions have the same exact rights as we have? If everyone is equal and God gave rights to all his followers, why would there be differences? I don't see any mention of rights in the Bible that God allegedly gave to us.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It says the rights which the government cannot violate. 

Remind me again who authored the US Constitution? Was it God or was it a person? If God had influenced the content based on the religion of the founding fathers, why were there such conflict of disagreement throughout the entire process?


----------



## deaconjim

Tubby said:


> You do know there were atheists among the founding fathers, right? So if God gave all humans the same rights, why don't other Christian nations with Constitutions have the same exact rights as we have? If everyone is equal and God gave rights to all his followers, why would there be differences? I don't see any mention of rights in the Bible that God allegedly gave to us.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It says the rights which the government cannot violate.
> 
> Remind me again who authored the US Constitution? Was it God or was it a person? If God had influenced the content based on the religion of the founding fathers, why were there such conflict of disagreement throughout the entire process?


The Declaration used the term "by our Creator". It is up to the individual to decide for himself who or what his creator is. The meaning however, is that people have rights because they are human, not because they were granted by government.

Our government was created for the purpose of protecting our freedom to exercise the rights given to us by our creator.


----------



## CesumPec

Tubby said:


> You do know there were atheists among the founding fathers, right? So if God gave all humans the same rights, why don't other Christian nations with Constitutions have the same exact rights as we have? If everyone is equal and God gave rights to all his followers, why would there be differences? I don't see any mention of rights in the Bible that God allegedly gave to us.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It says the rights which the government cannot violate.
> 
> Remind me again who authored the US Constitution? Was it God or was it a person? If God had influenced the content based on the religion of the founding fathers, why were there such conflict of disagreement throughout the entire process?


Irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is that we agree that the gov't does not give us rights as listed in the US CONS. We the people give the gov't certain powers in the US CONS and we the people list certain rights the gov't can not take away from we the people. 

My complaint with the CONS is that it does not have a viable enforcement, prosecution, and penalty procedure in light of the two party system. Repubs rarely prosecute their own and Dems do so even more infrequently. Politicians that violate the CONS with criminal deed, or passing unconstitutional legislation should be banned from holding ANY office.


----------



## CaliannG

deaconjim said:


> The fact that we now have a standing army is all the more reason why we need to have an armed citizen militia. Even those who have had no military experience (if we had no standing army, that would be most of the country) should own and be proficient in the use of their firearms. While I don't believe we should have mandatory training to accomplish that proficiency, I do believe it is a duty of responsible citizenship.
> 
> As for changing the Constitution, our founding fathers gave us a mechanism by which it can be changed, so those who want it changed should make the required effort. It would seem that most of the gun grabbers are content to just ignore it.


~chuckles~ Oddly, here we differ. I am very Heinleinian in my thoughts, and I think it would be a fine thing if every able-bodied man and woman served in the military for a stint, and the non-able-bodied served in civil service for a stint, in order to EARN the right to vote. I think if voting was something that was earned, a lot more people would be using it. I also think that some sort of stint in national service instills a sense of ownership and duty towards one's nation.

And if someone is too mentally ill to serve in either the military or civil service, one shouldn't be voting anyway.

Of course, such a system would have to be phased in, as it would be a bad thing to disenfranchise the older folks....but still, I do think it would be a good idea, and it would give a rather large percentage of our population training in firearms and UCT.

~smiles~ And it is not just gun-grabbers who are happy to ignore the Constitution. You have to admit that ALL sides in the politicos have been more than happy, throughout history, to batter that document. Again, see the Sedition Acts, passed by the Founders. First Amendment? What First Amendment? It has gotten worse ever since.

Oh, and I *do* contribute my effort and money into a Constitutional re-write. I am not the only one who feels that way. Saddling an already burdensome legal system with amendments that just lead to more and varied interpretations, and therefore more laws, is not the answer. Making it all clear and concise, without room for ambiguity, is a better answer. After all, if you take the case here, if the Founders had spelled it out completely EXACTLY what they meant, and said something like "The right of the common citizen to keep and bear any weapon he chooses at any time or place, for the purpose of gaining proficiency with that weapon in the case he finds himself defending his country, and for the purpose of defending himself and others from harm at the hands of his fellow citizen, shall not be infringed upon.", would we even be having this discussion?

If they had added, "Except in the case of cannon, Gatling guns, and explosives, which are instruments for the destruction of villages, and not those of personal defense.", would we be mulling over whether the neighbors should be allowed to buy Tomahawks?

That's what I mean.


----------



## CesumPec

CaliannG said:


> ~chuckles~ Oddly, here we differ. I am very Heinleinian in my thoughts, and I think it would be a fine thing if every able-bodied man and woman served in the military for a stint, and the non-able-bodied served in civil service for a stint, in order to EARN the right to vote. I think if voting was something that was earned, a lot more people would be using it. I also think that some sort of stint in national service instills a sense of ownership and duty towards one's nation.
> 
> And if someone is too mentally ill to serve in either the military or civil service, one shouldn't be voting anyway.


And on that, we agree. 

It is too bad the movie versions made Starship Troopers into such a Nazi-like world. the book did not have those implications, just that voting was a privilege to be earned.


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> ~chuckles~ Oddly, here we differ. I am very Heinleinian in my thoughts, and I think it would be a fine thing if every able-bodied man and woman served in the military for a stint, and the non-able-bodied served in civil service for a stint, in order to EARN the right to vote. I think if voting was something that was earned, a lot more people would be using it. I also think that some sort of stint in national service instills a sense of ownership and duty towards one's nation.
> 
> And if someone is too mentally ill to serve in either the military or civil service, one shouldn't be voting anyway.
> 
> Of course, such a system would have to be phased in, as it would be a bad thing to disenfranchise the older folks....but still, I do think it would be a good idea, and it would give a rather large percentage of our population training in firearms and UCT.
> 
> ~smiles~ And it is not just gun-grabbers who are happy to ignore the Constitution. You have to admit that ALL sides in the politicos have been more than happy, throughout history, to batter that document. Again, see the Sedition Acts, passed by the Founders. First Amendment? What First Amendment? It has gotten worse ever since.
> 
> Oh, and I *do* contribute my effort and money into a Constitutional re-write. I am not the only one who feels that way. Saddling an already burdensome legal system with amendments that just lead to more and varied interpretations, and therefore more laws, is not the answer. Making it all clear and concise, without room for ambiguity, is a better answer. After all, if you take the case here, if the Founders had spelled it out completely EXACTLY what they meant, and said something like "The right of the common citizen to keep and bear any weapon he chooses at any time or place, for the purpose of gaining proficiency with that weapon in the case he finds himself defending his country, and for the purpose of defending himself and others from harm at the hands of his fellow citizen, shall not be infringed upon.", would we even be having this discussion?
> 
> If they had added, "Except in the case of cannon, Gatling guns, and explosives, which are instruments for the destruction of villages, and not those of personal defense.", would we be mulling over whether the neighbors should be allowed to buy Tomahawks?
> 
> That's what I mean.


You ascribe your views upon the founding fathers, assuming you know more about what they meant than they did. The Constitution was not the only place where they expressed their intentions for the 2nd Amendment, and having studied their writings, I'm pretty convinced that they quite clearly expressed those intentions. 

If, as you say, amending the Constitution through the established process isn't the answer, perhaps you could enlighten us on the process you believe is the answer.


----------



## kendall j

I have a question regarding these "assault weapons". Is there any tactical advantage to the AR type guns? I know they are semi-auto like a whole lot of other rifles on the market. The reason I am asking is that I don't own one, but I'm thinking about getting one as my own form of protest over this stupidity being belched forth by the left. However, they are pretty pricey. Is there an inherent advantage to them at all? Is their accuracy better or worse than a sport model? Just wondering.


----------



## CaliannG

They tend to be a bit lighter, not having the bling like birds eye maplewood stocks and such. 

I have a 7.62 Mossberg hunting rifle all blinged out, from the 60's or 70's (inherited it). While it is heavier, I prefer it to the AR-104A. 

Different strokes for different folks. Truthfully, for Zombie Apocalypse scenarios, most tactical folks prefer the lighter, easier to handle, "assault" type rifles. Me, if I have to cart my rifle over miles of terrain, my knees are going to give out no matter how light my rifle is, so I don't take that into account.

If I run out of ammo, I'll club the zombies with it.


----------



## Tubby

It's more accurate than some, pretty darn reliable, easy to use, and easy to work on. The main thing it has going for it is popularity. Aftermarket support is also second to none. 

Not sure what you mean by a "sport model".


----------



## CaliannG

Tubby has it for you, kendall.

Field stripping, cleaning, etc., the assault styles are a much simpler exercise than doing the same thing with a hunting rifle.

Tubby, "sport" means "hunting", basically.


----------



## Tubby

Not sure the distinction between an AR15 and any other rifle used for hunting. All rifles can be used for hunting and neither is "sport". I hunt with my AR15 which is the same weapon I use for defense.


----------



## CaliannG

~smiles~ What's the difference between a sports car and a muscle car, since both of them can be used to drive to the grocery store?


----------



## kendall j

Thanks to both of you. So I hear a lot about Bushmaster and DPMS. From what I can tell, they seem like decent quality, but something that isn't going to break the bank, I've seen models for under $1000. Are there any others besides these two that I could consider? I would really like something for less than $800 if I can find it that is going to be fairly decent.


----------



## Tubby

CaliannG said:


> ~smiles~ What's the difference between a sports car and a muscle car, since both of them can be used to drive to the grocery store?


A car is a car.


kendall j said:


> Thanks to both of you. So I hear a lot about Bushmaster and DPMS. From what I can tell, they seem like decent quality, but something that isn't going to break the bank, I've seen models for under $1000. Are there any others besides these two that I could consider? I would really like something for less than $800 if I can find it that is going to be fairly decent.


Bad time to buy an AR15 right now. Panic prices are in effect. ARs are selling on Gunbroker for $2,000-3,500.


----------



## CaliannG

CesumPec said:


> And on that, we agree.
> 
> It is too bad the movie versions made Starship Troopers into such a Nazi-like world. the book did not have those implications, just that voting was a privilege to be earned.


They MURDERED the book in the movie. I mean, poor Flores got a sex change! But, I guess that is better than dying.

The concept is something he touches upon in many of his other books, also. IIRC, he also touched upon it in "Methusalah's Children", and "Friday".


----------



## CaliannG

deaconjim said:


> You ascribe your views upon the founding fathers, assuming you know more about what they meant than they did. The Constitution was not the only place where they expressed their intentions for the 2nd Amendment, and having studied their writings, I'm pretty convinced that they quite clearly expressed those intentions.
> 
> If, as you say, amending the Constitution through the established process isn't the answer, perhaps you could enlighten us on the process you believe is the answer.


~sighs~ I was using those words as an EXAMPLE. IF the Founders had said such-n-so, would we be having this discussion? When using the word "IF", one implies a hypothetical situation. Therefore, do NOT ascribe intentions or assumptions to me when there was a clear indication in the language I used that I was speaking of a *hypothetical* situation. Jeez! Why do you have to DO things like that? It is just that sort of assumption and twisting that makes putting some truth in government so darn difficult!

I have read the Jefferson letters, the writings of Hamilton, Washington, and Adams, etc. I am aware of their intentions. I am also aware of their intentions when it came to the establishment of religion. 

As for the process of re-writing the Constitution, it is pretty simple, in fact fairly similar to writing the old one:

1. Vote for "Constitutional Committee". This would be a POPULAR vote. Have them research, etc., and write a new Constitution. 

2. Send it to Congress. Have them vote on it by line. Whatever parts fail get sent back to the committee for re-write.

3. Committee re-writes the parts that have failed. Sends it back to Congress.

4. Repeat until all parts pass. Give Congress and Committee a deadline or else they will hash it out forever.

5. When you have a fully passed, re-written, and ratified Constitution, replace the old one.

6. Done!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I would really like something *for less than $800* if I can find it that is going to be fairly decent.


LOL
2 weeks ago there were LOTS of those.
Now, not so many.
Good luck on finding one for less than $1000 if you buy a new one from a dealer (IF you can even find one)

I heard Brownells sold* 3 YEARS worth* of inventory in the last *72 HOURS,* and they just sell parts an accessories


----------



## deaconjim

CaliannG said:


> ~sighs~ I was using those words as an EXAMPLE. IF the Founders had said such-n-so, would we be having this discussion? When using the word "IF", one implies a hypothetical situation. Therefore, do NOT ascribe intentions or assumptions to me when there was a clear indication in the language I used that I was speaking of a *hypothetical* situation. Jeez! Why do you have to DO things like that? It is just that sort of assumption and twisting that makes putting some truth in government so darn difficult!
> 
> I have read the Jefferson letters, the writings of Hamilton, Washington, and Adams, etc. I am aware of their intentions. I am also aware of their intentions when it came to the establishment of religion.
> 
> As for the process of re-writing the Constitution, it is pretty simple, in fact fairly similar to writing the old one:
> 
> 1. Vote for "Constitutional Committee". This would be a POPULAR vote. Have them research, etc., and write a new Constitution.
> 
> 2. Send it to Congress. Have them vote on it by line. Whatever parts fail get sent back to the committee for re-write.
> 
> 3. Committee re-writes the parts that have failed. Sends it back to Congress.
> 
> 4. Repeat until all parts pass. Give Congress and Committee a deadline or else they will hash it out forever.
> 
> 5. When you have a fully passed, re-written, and ratified Constitution, replace the old one.
> 
> 6. Done!


Yes, I am aware of the legal process by which the Constitution can be changed, but that is step 2. Step 1 is to make the case to the American people to re-write the Constitution, and I'm curious to know how you plan to do that. 

Since you have not yet done that however, the 2nd Amendment is still in place and must not be violated.


----------



## simi-steading

kendall j said:


> Thanks to both of you. So I hear a lot about Bushmaster and DPMS. From what I can tell, they seem like decent quality, but something that isn't going to break the bank, I've seen models for under $1000. Are there any others besides these two that I could consider? I would really like something for less than $800 if I can find it that is going to be fairly decent.


Honestly, AR's are way over rated in my book... They can be good guns with a lot of work, but they still have their flaws. They tend to like to jam if you don't keep them pretty clean as an example... To me they just aren't as reliable and are more finicky than weapons such as AK, SKS, FN/FAL, SG-550, M1, etc.. .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Vote for "Constitutional* Committee*".


It's "Constitutional CONVENTION"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_meeting)



> A *constitutional convention* is now a gathering for the purpose of writing a new constitution or revising an existing constitution.
> 
> A *general constitutional convention* is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution.
> 
> An *unlimited constitutional convention* is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a _limited constitutional convention_ is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's _call_, the legal mandate establishing the convention


It's NOT something we should do


----------



## TNHermit




----------



## Annsni

I was talking to my 12 year old gun loving son (we don't have guns but he's been studying on them) and we were talking about the semi-auto thing. We were both wondering if a pistol would be considered semi-auto since it will automatically load the next bullet and it's a one-pull shoot.


----------



## CaliannG

Annsni, you are speaking of a double-action revolver, correct?

Semiautomatic pistols are considered...ummm...semiautomatics because they automatically load the bullet and, upon firing, eject the shell and load the next bullet with a single trigger pull. They are recoil operated, meaning the recoil of the previous shot is used to eject the shell and load the next shot..."automatically", without anything done by the creature operating it.

Double action revolvers are not considered semiautomatic because the is a weight difference in trigger pull when firing them without cocking, compared to cocking first and then firing. While one can technically consider the action to be automatic, the DA revolver is still not classed as a semiautomatic weapon due to the weight difference in trigger pull and the fact that the cycles or cocking, firing, and rotating the chamber to the next shell is achieve through the actions of the operator.

There IS such a thing as a "Semiautomatic Revolver" though. Webley-Fosbery made a revolver that was recoil-operated. I don't remember what caliber it came it, as that was a long time ago. They are probably quite the collection item now.


----------



## Annsni

CaliannG said:


> Annsni, you are speaking of a double-action revolver, correct?
> 
> Semiautomatic pistols are considered...ummm...semiautomatics because they automatically load the bullet and, upon firing, eject the shell and load the next bullet with a single trigger pull. They are recoil operated, meaning the recoil of the previous shot is used to eject the shell and load the next shot..."automatically", without anything done by the creature operating it.
> 
> Double action revolvers are not considered semiautomatic because the is a weight difference in trigger pull when firing them without cocking, compared to cocking first and then firing. While one can technically consider the action to be automatic, the DA revolver is still not classed as a semiautomatic weapon due to the weight difference in trigger pull and the fact that the cycles or cocking, firing, and rotating the chamber to the next shell is achieve through the actions of the operator.
> 
> There IS such a thing as a "Semiautomatic Revolver" though. Webley-Fosbery made a revolver that was recoil-operated. I don't remember what caliber it came it, as that was a long time ago. They are probably quite the collection item now.


Again - I know really nothing about guns - no more than the play guns we used to have. 

So, let's say the gun my dad had as a cop in NYC. He retired in the '80s - NO idea what it is but it's what he carried with him all the time and he still has. I remember him loading bullets into the chambers (or whatever they are called) and then shutting the gun. I knew there was a safety but that was about all I knew about it. I never saw him shoot it.  But I believe that he could pull the trigger and then pull the trigger again without doing anything - being able to shoot another bullet.

So, would that be considered a DA or a semi-auto?

I appreciate the patience you guys have with the questions. I'm just trying to form a valid argument in my head and thinking some of these things through when I really know nothing about it.


----------



## deaconjim

Your dad was using a double-action revolver.


----------



## Annsni

deaconjim said:


> Your dad was using a double-action revolver.


OK - Thanks.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

it used to be that semi autos were semi autos , but slick willy got the laws re written , for a slight change in definition

a semi auto is now anything that produces a shot each time the trigger is pulled till the gun is empty or all cartridges are spent , so now even a double barrel shot gun with a single trigger that allows you to fire 2 barrels is a semi auto , not really but that's the new definition.

yeah you want to believe that wasn't totally intentional , the definitions man hims self , what is the definition of (IS) , the setup and the punch comes later 

if you want to see some of the things that bad laws have created to make guns still obtainable in some places , look no further than Taurus's circuit judge lever http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/04/20/rossi-circuit-judge-lever-action-410-45/

because just pulling the trigger on the next round or only cocking the hammer was not enough, you had to actuate a lever , people in the know are rarely a part of the decision making on any gun control measure , cause they wouldn't make the laws.


----------



## paul98604

In 2010 there were 211 children that were killed in drunk driving accidents. That's about ten times as many as the Sandy Hook shooting. In 2011 one person dies every 53 seconds from a drunk driving related fatality. Should we ban cars, alcohol, fuel, drive cars that only go five mph? Where is the news media? The publicity? Not dramatic or political enough? Drunk driving is apparently boring news. As a disclaimer I'm not downplaying the shootings it's just a thought I had the other day when I was hearing the cries to ban guns. I don't think guns are the problem...just as cars aren't the problem with drunk drivers. I heard someone say a long time ago...spoons don't make people fat!


----------



## kkbinco

Some revolvers, notably the S&W line, have a key operated safety for storage purposes. Widely panned my most folks as a useless feature.


----------



## Annsni

I could have been mistaken because I was young when I used to see Dad's gun. I actually have only seen the box in the last few years because he keeps telling me where it is so when he passes away, I know what to do with it.


----------



## MichaelK!

Wind in Her Hair said:


> a manual safety? like on a 1911? or a "mechanical safety"- the transfer bar preventing the firing pin from striking if dropped
> 
> To my knowledge, *there is no such thing as a safety on a revolver*.??? at least not on any revolvers I have any way.
> .[/COLOR][/B]


Actually I've seen one. There's one imported .22RF revolver, I believe it's called "rough rider" or some such thing. This was a single action revolver that included a manual lever styled safety. Only implemented at all because because of political correctness.

It's an example of what stupid things manufacturers would have to resort to if trying to meet demands of people that know absolutely nothing about guns but are in the position of making rules governing the control of guns.


----------



## vicker

I have one of those .22 revolvers, by Heritage Arms. The dang thing drives me nuts. Who ever thinks of taking a revolver off of Safe? I need to remove that safety.


----------



## Tubby

simi-steading said:


> Honestly, AR's are way over rated in my book... They can be good guns with a lot of work, but they still have their flaws. They tend to like to jam if you don't keep them pretty clean as an example... To me they just aren't as reliable and are more finicky than weapons such as AK, SKS, FN/FAL, SG-550, M1, etc.. .


Negative. They do not need to be _pretty clean_ to run. They need to be properly lubricated. I make my living as an AR15/M16 gunsmith/armorer. The number one fix for those weapons is proper lubrication. If you lubricate your AR15/M16, it will run properly. 

A great article on the details can be had by searching for "Patrick A. Rodgers Keep Your Carbine Running" from SWAT magazine December 2006. He's a Vietnam War Marine veteran, former law enforcement, and currently is a firearms instructor specializing in the AR15 platform. 

Another problem with the civilian AR15 market is there is a lot of junk guns out there. A vast majority of the civilian manufacturers cut corners for the sake of profit. The top tier manufacturers are top tier for a reason. It's attention to detail. Quality parts, quality assembly, quality weapon. It's just that simple. They don't cut corners.


----------



## CesumPec

Tubby - I'm in the market for an AR. I foolishly didn't get something weeks ago. What brands do you recommend?


----------



## zant

Tubby said:


> Negative. They do not need to be _pretty clean_ to run. They need to be properly lubricated. I make my living as an AR15/M16 gunsmith/armorer. The number one fix for those weapons is proper lubrication. If you lubricate your AR15/M16, it will run properly.
> 
> A great article on the details can be had by searching for "Patrick A. Rodgers Keep Your Carbine Running" from SWAT magazine December 2006. He's a Vietnam War Marine veteran, former law enforcement, and currently is a firearms instructor specializing in the AR15 platform.
> 
> Another problem with the civilian AR15 market is there is a lot of junk guns out there. A vast majority of the civilian manufacturers cut corners for the sake of profit. The top tier manufacturers are top tier for a reason. It's attention to detail. Quality parts, quality assembly, quality weapon. It's just that simple. They don't cut corners.


 Yep-AR's LOVE lube....when I 1st owned one,my exp was mainly FALs and G3s....Armorer told me-when it squirts you in the face for the first couple rds-you're good to go....I still prefer an AK or Fal....


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

GOOD AR BRANDS 

not sure there are much in the way of bad ones 
almost all are usa made to mill spec 

some brands that i know people who own them have liked theirs 
i have friends with 
double star
new frontier armory 
cmmg
bushmaster
colt 
windham
RRA rock river arms 
ruger

and i know a guy who built his on a plum crazy lower 

my understanding is colt is about the only company that makes what it known as a large pin lower this is apparently code for we screwed this up we drilled it larger and now you need a adapter that costs you a few dollars more now , every one else appears to make everything to the standard mill spec


----------



## Wildcat

Annsni.....check out the Borrowed from a Friend Thread.


----------



## Annsni

Wildcat said:


> Annsni.....check out the Borrowed from a Friend Thread.


Will do! Thanks!


----------



## Tubby

CesumPec said:


> Tubby - I'm in the market for an AR. I foolishly didn't get something weeks ago. What brands do you recommend?


Colt, LMT, BCM.


GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> GOOD AR BRANDS
> 
> not sure there are much in the way of bad ones
> almost all are usa made to mill spec


False. There is no such thing as a mil spec civilian legal AR15. It would have to be fully automatic to be mil spec, because that's the spec. There are also material and assembly specs that must be followed. The closest thing you can get to mil spec as a civilian is from Colt. Their 6920 is exactly like the mil spec M4 carbine except semi auto and barrel length. BCM and LMT are just different brands that meet or exceed the spec. 



> some brands that i know people who own them have liked theirs
> i have friends with
> double star
> new frontier armory
> cmmg
> bushmaster
> colt
> windham
> RRA rock river arms
> ruger
> 
> and i know a guy who built his on a plum crazy lower


Of those the best is Colt. The others don't follow the mil spec for parts or assembly to the standard which is proven. They cut corners in parts quality and assembly, that's why they are priced lower. 



> my understanding is colt is about the only company that makes what it known as a large pin lower this is apparently code for we screwed this up we drilled it larger and now you need a adapter that costs you a few dollars more now , every one else appears to make everything to the standard mill spec


Colt no longer makes the large pin lower. It's been several years since the switch. The point of it was to disallow someone to install fully automatic fire control group in one of their civilian lowers. The full auto FCG is only for the "small pin" spec. Large pins are easy to find too.


----------



## Lilith

Very heated topic, and I have had this conversation before. Regardless of how anybody else feels, here is my take on weapons of any type.

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;"
George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

Unfortunately, this comment is often misquoted as:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

the actual full quote is: 
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

Regardless, the opening statement of the quote is the same: "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; "

Notice how he states that we should be armed AND Disciplined? It is the people in this nation who lack discipline and have not taught their children this discipline that are threatening our freedoms. We have all sacrificed so much through our military service and support of our Soldiers, that is sickens me to see our rights, freedom, and safety threatened by a few who lack the discipline to understand the responsibilities that comes with Gun ownership. I will never give up my arms and ammunition, nor will I take lightly the advice offered here. As I pass on what I know of being one of the "free people" I will be sure to include enough instruction in discipline to ensure that my children will remain a free people.


----------



## wildcat6

CesumPec said:


> Tubby - I'm in the market for an AR. I foolishly didn't get something weeks ago. What brands do you recommend?


Whatever you can find right now. Good luck with that though as no one seem sto have them.


----------



## wildcat6

Tubby said:


> Colt, LMT, BCM.
> 
> False. There is no such thing as a mil spec civilian legal AR15. It would have to be fully automatic to be mil spec, because that's the spec. There are also material and assembly specs that must be followed. The closest thing you can get to mil spec as a civilian is from Colt. Their 6920 is exactly like the mil spec M4 carbine except semi auto and barrel length. BCM and LMT are just different brands that meet or exceed the spec.
> 
> 
> Of those the best is Colt. The others don't follow the mil spec for parts or assembly to the standard which is proven. They cut corners in parts quality and assembly, that's why they are priced lower.
> 
> 
> Colt no longer makes the large pin lower. It's been several years since the switch. The point of it was to disallow someone to install fully automatic fire control group in one of their civilian lowers. The full auto FCG is only for the "small pin" spec. Large pins are easy to find too.


Actually the military's version isn't fully automatic either. Only three round bursts. At least that was the case for the one's I was issued for the ten years I served. They were fully automatic in Vietnam but I have never seen one of the A1's before.


----------



## zant

MIL-SPEC=Made by lowest bidder....If I owned an AR,I'd buy a Bushmaster/LMT/BCM/DPMS long before I'd touch a Colt.....Just an opinion..


----------



## Cabin Fever

zant said:


> MIL-SPEC=Made by lowest bidder....If I owned an AR,I'd buy a Bushmaster/LMT/BCM/DPMS long before I'd touch a Colt.....Just an opinion..


 There is nothing wrong with being the low bidder when the specifications for the product you are bidding on are extremely stringent and have strict quality requirements and fine tolerances. For instance, the US mil-spec for the M-4 is over 50 pages long and sets the standard for a very precise, durable tool.

MIL-C-71186_(AR).pdf


----------



## zant

I understand that CF...but the MAJORITY of ARs on the market are "milspec" or better---there are cheapie-Hesse,CIA,and some others.....Not looking for an arguement,but the thought that "Colt" is the only good AR is downright silly,and Knight was'nt mentioned but they supply direct source ARs to the military.....and guys in both war zones are buying Magpul mags because they can't trust "milspec",same with Beretta mags.My son owns a LMT and 2 Bushmasters(all regifted from me)and they are both excellent firearms(for poodle shooters)


----------



## Bob Huntress

For those of you who feel that assualt weapons should be exempt from the second amendment protection, and that our founders were not intending that American citizens would have arms comparable to those used by government forces, please understand that the second amendment doesn't exist in a vacuum. When you read the scores of other documents that our founders wrote regarding the topic, the Declaration of Independance, Jefferson's letter The Tree of Liberty, the New Hampshire state Constitution, and others, you see that it was fully the intent of our founders that the free citizen have a fighting chance to overthrow the government should it become oppressive. With the full amount of documents written by our founders, you can not conclude that they intended that citizens have access to weapons that if need be, would be powerfull enough to overthrow this government, which would include assualt weapons. Think of it as America's last chance to preserve freedom.


----------



## MichaelK!

I think it's time to be fair to both sides in this debate. I being a gun owner (including AR's) I have to say that personally, I believe the gun ownership makes us safer. On the other hand, I don't think I'd in any way convince any of the 20 Conneticut parents of that, even though some of them I'm sure were convervative republicans.

I do think though that it is telling that none of these recent tragedies occurred in California, so perhaps it's worth debating further the assault weapon sitituation in this state. Basicly, it is still legal in California to own an AR or AK as long as it has a fixed magazine of 10 or less rounds. In California, "fixed magazine" means replacing the magazine ejection button in the rifle with a so called "bullet button". This is actually a user-replaceable, reversible procedure that only takes 5 to 10 minutes (no gunsmithing required). Here's the one I bought. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/937...08-with-wrench

In all honesty, I don't like the bullet button, but I do see the advantages of how it would keep antigunners away. It will make any AR in the US "street legal" for California, assuming you also buy the 10 round magazines to go with it. Besides that, it's reversable, meaning if the law changes, it only takes another 5 minutes of your time to change back to it's original configuration.

Would the bullet button saved any lives in Conneticut? Hard to say, but I do believe that it might slow down a crazed killer enough to give innocents a chance.

Like others on this site, I've armed myself with an AR because of civil unrest concerns. I for one have kept my original magazine releases, just in case. If rioting looters and rapists were raging through my area, I'd pull the release out of storage and adapt the rifle to blast away at nerdowells to make sure no-one harms my family. I'm willing to let a jury decide if I had criminal intent for doing that during a riot. But for dealing with gophers on my property right now, I guess I can live with a bullet button. To me, this is a much less scary alternative to gun prohabition.

What's your opinion? Please out inflamitory statements like Commifornia or crazed liberal.


----------



## deaconjim

MichaelK! said:


> I think it's time to be fair to both sides in this debate. I being a gun owner (including AR's) I have to say that personally, I believe the gun ownership makes us safer. On the other hand, I don't think I'd in any way convince any of the 20 Conneticut parents of that, even though some of them I'm sure were convervative republicans.
> 
> I do think though that it is telling that none of these recent tragedies occurred in California, so perhaps it's worth debating further the assault weapon sitituation in this state. Basicly, it is still legal in California to own an AR or AK as long as it has a fixed magazine of 10 or less rounds. In California, "fixed magazine" means replacing the magazine ejection button in the rifle with a so called "bullet button". This is actually a user-replaceable, reversible procedure that only takes 5 to 10 minutes (no gunsmithing required). Here's the one I bought. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/937...08-with-wrench
> 
> In all honesty, I don't like the bullet button, but I do see the advantages of how it would keep antigunners away. It will make any AR in the US "street legal" for California, assuming you also buy the 10 round magazines to go with it. Besides that, it's reversable, meaning if the law changes, it only takes another 5 minutes of your time to change back to it's original configuration.
> 
> Would the bullet button saved any lives in Conneticut? Hard to say, but I do believe that it might slow down a crazed killer enough to give innocents a chance.
> 
> Like others on this site, I've armed myself with an AR because of civil unrest concerns. I for one have kept my original magazine releases, just in case. If rioting looters and rapists were raging through my area, I'd pull the release out of storage and adapt the rifle to blast away at nerdowells to make sure no-one harms my family. I'm willing to let a jury decide if I had criminal intent for doing that during a riot. But for dealing with gophers on my property right now, I guess I can live with a bullet button. To me, this is a much less scary alternative to gun prohabition.
> 
> What's your opinion? Please out inflamitory statements like Commifornia or crazed liberal.


I wonder how many of those parents of Sandy Hook students wish there had been more guns in that school besides the ones carried by the shooter? Since he was the only one armed, he could have done as much damage with a knife or even a baseball bat.

Your whole dissertation on fixed vs. removable magazines is interesting, but pointless. The 2nd Amendment says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Limiting my choices is an infringement and therefore Congress does not have the authority to pass such a law. 

Let's look at the issue anyway. Assume Congress is willing to violate the Constitution and pass such a law. I checked, and it's already illegal to walk into an elementary school and indiscriminately shoot six year-old children. Do you really think that a person who is willing to do that anyway is going to pay the slightest bit of attention to gun restrictions? The only thing that would do is make it more likely that he would outgun any law abiding citizen he came up against. 

Guns are not the problem, so gun restrictions won't be the solution.


----------



## Cabin Fever

zant said:


> I understand that CF...but the MAJORITY of ARs on the market are "milspec" or better---there are cheapie-Hesse,CIA,and some others.....Not looking for an arguement,but the thought that "Colt" is the only good AR is downright silly,and Knight was'nt mentioned but they supply direct source ARs to the military.....and guys in both war zones are buying Magpul mags because they can't trust "milspec",same with Beretta mags.My son owns a LMT and 2 Bushmasters(all regifted from me)and they are both excellent firearms(for poodle shooters)


Not wanting to argue either. The point I was trying to make was mil-spec and being the low bidder is not necessarily a bad thing. That;s all.

But since you brought up Colt - I would never say that Colt makes the best AR. I would also never say that Harley-Davidson makes the best motorcycle. However, in both cases they are the oldest, American-made traditional brand that are considered to be the "standard" (by many, not all) to which others are compared to. In both cases - Colt and Harley - is a manufacturer that has been selected by the military and law enforcement for decades. Are they the best? Not necessarily. It's simply a matter of personal opinion and what the buyer values.

When I was doing my research several years ago before I bought our ARs, there several things I thought were important. An upper and lower built from a stronger grade of solid aviation aluminum stock and then milled and CNC-machined into the part...not just stamped from a lesser grade aluminum to make the part. A chrome-lined barrel and chrome-lined chamber. A barrel made of a high grade chrome-moly steel alloy. A stainless steel bolt. Mil-spec anodizing. A long track record of sucessful experince and ahigh resale value. Colt fit the bill for what was important to me. There are other brands out there that would too.


----------



## zant

Alright CF,we're just having fun with the whole AR thing......BUT HARLEY is'nt the BEST..?????? them thars words to start a war


----------



## HDRider

Annsni said:


> OK - I admit that I'm pretty ignorant in the whole gun thing. I do agree that our Constitution provides protection for people to arm themselves but I also can see the argument of having gun control. I don't know. I obviously am hearing a TON from those who don't want anyone to have any sort of a gun - heck, they might even not want BB guns!!
> 
> But let me hear from you guys - the guys who actually have guns and use them. Should there be some regulation on assault weapons? What about the ability to shoot 100 rounds in 1.3 seconds (totally making that up but you know what I mean)? Someone said today that all these kids wouldn't be dead if the shooter didn't have the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly but I disagree with that and think that he could get a LOT of kids killed with even just a regular pistol.
> 
> So what say you on the matter? Educate me from the other side. I appreciate your opinion! Heaven knows I'm not going to get it from the liberal media and friends I have! Many of the conservative friends I have don't have guns so I need you to tell me stuff!


So where is your head now? A lot of people put in a lot of time "helping" you, and a few beagles led you down a few rabbit holes. Let's hear what you are thinking.


----------



## Annsni

HDRider said:


> So where is your head now? A lot of people put in a lot of time "helping" you, and a few beagles led you down a few rabbit holes. Let's hear what you are thinking.


Good question! I see the issues a little more clearly now. It's not about what gun works for hunting but instead, what is our right to carry. "Assault weapons" can be just an inflammatory term and includes guns that are not just machine guns like the military use. While I don't personally have a gun, I wouldn't be at all opposed to looking for one in the future to enjoy shooting (at a range) and for protection.


----------



## MichaelK!

deaconjim said:


> I wonder how many of those parents of Sandy Hook students wish there had been more guns in that school besides the ones carried by the shooter? Since he was the only one armed, he could have done as much damage with a knife or even a baseball bat.


I can agree with that. The same week as Columbine, a Japanese man with a knife killed 12 Japanese students in a local school.


deaconjim said:


> Your whole dissertation on fixed vs. removable magazines is interesting, but pointless. The 2nd Amendment says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Limiting my choices is an infringement and therefore Congress does not have the authority to pass such a law.


It's silly to say it's pointless, because our constitution is a living document that can be changed by ammendment. Your "right" can be infringed by amendment whether you like it or not. An ammendment could very easily "clarify" the issue of whether or not gun ownership is a personal or collective right.


deaconjim said:


> Let's look at the issue anyway. Assume Congress is willing to violate the Constitution and pass such a law. I checked, and it's already illegal to walk into an elementary school and indiscriminately shoot six year-old children. Do you really think that a person who is willing to do that anyway is going to pay the slightest bit of attention to gun restrictions? The only thing that would do is make it more likely that he would outgun any law abiding citizen he came up against.


That's hard to say. Perhaps yes. In the time it would take an attacker to drop an empty mag and insert a new one with a bullet button, it might give victims the chance to spring up and wrestle the empty gun from his hands. This is the sort of thing that armchair commandoes can argue infinituim.


deaconjim said:


> Guns are not the problem, so gun restrictions won't be the solution.


Cars kill far more people per year than guns, but we accept safety devices installed in them to keep us safer, even though they add cost and inconvience. Why is it so hard to attempt a similar stratege with guns? Reasonable people accept the need for speed limits on the road to keep everyone safer, so why is reasonable magazine limits so hard to accept?


----------



## deaconjim

MichaelK! said:


> t's silly to say it's pointless, because our constitution is a living document that can be changed by ammendment. Your "right" can be infringed by amendment whether you like it or not.


You were quite accurate in your wording here. My rights can be infringed, but they cannot be taken away by an amendment. My rights, bestowed by my creator, are inalienable (that means they can't be taken away). The Constitution exists because we have rights, not the other way around. The government, brought into being and given authority by the Constitution, was created to protect my right, and when that government becomes a threat to the rights it was created to protect, it is no longer has any legitimate authority and we, as free men, have a responsibility to bring that illegitimate government to an end. That is why a very wise man said:

_"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_ 



MichaelK! said:


> An ammendment could very easily "clarify" the issue of whether or not gun ownership is a personal or collective right.


That issue needs no clarification since our founding fathers, (you know, the guys that wrote the Constitution?) made it quite clear what they meant. Here, I'll provide you with a couple of quotes:
_No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms._ 
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. ​[The Constitution preserves]_ the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms._
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. 

_Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...*[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people*. _
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. 

_Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...*[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people*. _
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. 

_[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... _--George Mason 

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; &#8230;" _Samuel Adams_

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence &#8230; from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable &#8230; the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference &#8212; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." _George Washington_
​Feel free to make an effort to pass such an amendment however, and see how easy that is to accomplish.



MichaelK! said:


> That's hard to say. Perhaps yes. In the time it would take an attacker to drop an empty mag and insert a new one with a bullet button, it might give victims the chance to spring up and wrestle the empty gun from his hands. This is the sort of thing that armchair commandoes can argue infinituim.


The arguments of "armchair commandoes" is not the issue. Since it is already illegal to shoot 6 year old children, what makes you think a silly gun law is going to stop someone from using an illegal gun to illegally shoot the kids? At some point, reality must be taken into consideration.



MichaelK! said:


> Cars kill far more people per year than guns, but we accept safety devices installed in them to keep us safer, even though they add cost and inconvience. Why is it so hard to attempt a similar stratege with guns? Reasonable people accept the need for speed limits on the road to keep everyone safer, so why is reasonable magazine limits so hard to accept?


The right to own a car is not guaranteed in the Constitution, but your point raises an intersting question. The left pretends they want to take our guns for our own safety, but since cars kill "far more people per year than guns", why aren't they trying to take our cars rather than our guns? Could it be perhaps, that the only safety they are concerned about is that of the government officials who seek to take our freedom?


----------



## tarbe

deaconjim said:


> The right to own a car is not guaranteed in the Constitution, but your point raises an intersting question. The left pretends they want to take our guns for our own safety, but since cars kill "far more people per year than guns", why aren't they trying to take our cars rather than our guns? *Could it be perhaps, that the only safety they are concerned about is that of the government officials who seek to take our freedom?*


No doubt!


----------



## CesumPec

Well said, DeaconJim. 

The US CONS does not give us our rights, it merely lists *some* of our rights to remind the gov't what it can not do.


----------



## TexasGunOwner

I'll toss out a few links for consideration.


Why Not Renew the &#8220;Assault Weapons&#8221; Ban? Well, I&#8217;ll Tell You&#8230;

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/


Gun Rights, Gun Control, and Irreconcilable Cultural Differences

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...econcilable-cultural-differences-david-french


Regulating the Militia

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson


This list doesn't include abortions. 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm


----------



## reluctantpatriot

Punishing the law abiding does nothing to stop the criminal. However, it does create a situation where when one creates new criminals by fiat out of the formerly law abiding, one creates rather motivated people. Rather than seeking out true criminal intent they rather seek out a remedy to being unfairly classified and punished.

In reality, if one is made a criminal for simple possession of an inanimate object of metal, wood and/or polymer that has dimensions too large, too small or with an arbitrarily undesired means of operation with no criminal intent made against anyone, why should the person respect any other law? If there is no rational reason for a law or a rational law is not properly enforced, why react with emotional hysterics to blame both the inanimate object and the law abiding for the acts of an individual criminal.

As for my business, if it comes down to it, I will carry out the letter of the law but with no exceptions for any law enforcement or government employee, current or former. If a police department sends me a department firearm for repair from Illinois, for example, if it cannot be modified to meet the same restrictions put upon non-law enforcement residents, or it is banned outright for civilian possession, then I guess it will either have to be demilled per BATFE specifications or otherwise cut into bits. I will not treat one animal more equally than another.


----------



## MichaelK!

deaconjim said:


> The arguments of "armchair commandoes" is not the issue. Since it is already illegal to shoot 6 year old children, what makes you think a silly gun law is going to stop someone from using an illegal gun to illegally shoot the kids? At some point, reality must be taken into consideration.


That is a silly statement, because someone can be killed with anything, from an assault rifle to a philips screwdriver. You don't have to think very hard though that a psycho with an assault weapon will most likely kill more people than a psycho with a screwdriver. My point being, that psycho is likely to kill LESS people if it's harder to reload. That's how reality must be taken into consideration.

You don't seem to grasp the point I am trying to make here. I myself am not pushing for more gun control. Why would I want to outlaw the very guns that I myself own? But, there is a growing mass of very antigun people in this country, and their stringent cries for total disarmament are getting louder and louder, like a building tsunami wave. You can stand on the shore and utter the second amendment as loud at you like, but however loud you shout is not going to stop a tsunami!


----------



## zant

So because a bunch of ignorant emotional sheep are bleating we are supposed to give up or not own inanimate objects that can't hurt anyone without the human factor??OKEY_DOKEY


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

2 machines 

both are used daily by licensed and unlicensed users 

both used for good and bad 

one registered in every state 

the other register in just a few

one 50% crimes using the machine to kill ,the machine was legally owned 

the other less than 1% of all crimes using the machine to kill ,the machine was legally owned 


300 million of one 

254 million of the other 

both used by professionals and amateurs every day all over the country

one 33000 deaths by accident or crime 

the other 10,000 by accident or crime 

one 15150 by crime 

the other 9150 by crime

one 15150 by accident 

the other 850 by accident 

who's who ?




45 million more guns than cars , 1/3 fewer deaths , 1/20 fewer accidents


----------



## Hawkshaw

Our country is changing to an ever closer example of socialist/communist type society. Where everyone shares... either you are sharing what you work for or you are sharing your burdens with everyone else. For those of us who work we are already donating 30+% or so of our earnings to the government one way or another. The more social we get the more of that is going to be required of us. More control and less freedom.

With that stated the main reason for gun control and bans etc. is not about making the country safer it is about "control" and that is all it is about. They may come at you with the proposal that if we remove certain guns etc. off the street then it will be safer, but that has been proven many times over again to be false and highly misleading. All of the areas in the world where guns have been eliminated the crime rate has gone out the roof. The powers that be know that as long as we are armed we will be citizens but if we are unarmed we will become subjects with little or hardly anything to resist them. Be very careful how you look at this and don't get all caught up in the anti-gun hype :bandwagon:about it being a safer world. 

Our forefathers did not envision that for this country and that is why we have the 2nd Amendment for our protection from tyranny.


----------



## Txsteader

If the govt was really serious about reducing the number of deaths, they wouldn't grandfather existing guns as they're now suggesting. And I don't really see how making everyone register their guns is going to stop any crimes. 

The only way to absolutely ensure that gun crimes don't happen would be to totally disarm the population, confiscate all weapons, no? 

The *core* purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people against a tyrannical central government because a powerful central government that has gone rogue (tyrannical) is the greatest threat to not only individual freedom but individual LIFE.


----------



## Txsteader

Another thought: if the NRA, who is supposed to be in discussions w/ the WH today, is willing to concede any ground re: 2nd amendment rights, there soon won't be any need for the NRA.


----------



## DryHeat

For a presentation of some basis of the pro-control side, I would recommend watching Jon Stewart's Daily Show (available online, of course) from night before last (Jan 8 or possibly as midnight Jan 9), anyway the one with Ret. Gen McChrystal as guest). Not for Gen. McCrystal's comments that .223s are for the military but not civilians so much but for the earlier development of a succinct summary which I will paraphrase. A series of comment and interview blerbs were shown building to a clip from a CNN Piers Morgan interview with a self-evident jackwagon who spouted with likely spittle-spewing intensity something about how if the government comes for HIS weapons it'll be 1776 all over again. Stewart then summed it up calmly, approximately, "OK. Now I see what's happening. Because a small number of paranoid lunatics have the FANTASY that the government is going to take THEIR weapons away, the vast majority of us are not even allowed to develop ways to address the ongoing FACT that this country has 30,000 firearms deaths every year."


----------



## Annsni

Although I was falling asleep, I was SHOCKED at the little I heard about Cuomo's State of the State speech about gun control in NY when they talked about it on the news last night. "No one needs an assault weapon for hunting." Who said anything about the 2nd Amendment being just for hunting??????


----------



## zant

McChrystal is a suckup that wants to be head of SS,I mean DHS...

30,000 ayr-mainly suicides or inner city black gangbangers-I'm not a banger or suicidal...figures lie and liars figure....


----------



## wildcat6

MichaelK! said:


> That is a silly statement, because someone can be killed with anything, from an assault rifle to a philips screwdriver. You don't have to think very hard though that a psycho with an assault weapon will most likely kill more people than a psycho with a screwdriver. My point being, that psycho is likely to kill LESS people if it's harder to reload. That's how reality must be taken into consideration.
> 
> You don't seem to grasp the point I am trying to make here. I myself am not pushing for more gun control. Why would I want to outlaw the very guns that I myself own? But, there is a growing mass of very antigun people in this country, and their stringent cries for total disarmament are getting louder and louder, like a building tsunami wave. You can stand on the shore and utter the second amendment as loud at you like, but however loud you shout is not going to stop a tsunami!


If you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a glass of milk. We cannot just sit back and not fight back. Kinda a slap in the face to our forefathers that fought to protect those very same rights.


----------



## Steve L.

Annsni said:


> Although I was falling asleep, I was SHOCKED at the little I heard about Cuomo's State of the State speech about gun control in NY when they talked about it on the news last night. "No one needs an assault weapon for hunting." Who said anything about the 2nd Amendment being just for hunting??????


He's telling lies, too.


> "No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer," Cuomo said. "End the madness now!


We're limited to SIX in any semi-auto rifle/shotgun now, anyway. :yuck:


----------



## simi-steading

He's right.. I don't need 10 rounds of ammo to go deer hunting... But I do need 30 rounds of ammo when the government decides to start locking people up for thought crimes.... The exact reason the second amendment was written...


----------



## tytglovett

I haven't read all the other posts, but this is my two cents. Gun bans do not work nor do gun free zones nor do more restrictive laws. People intent on evil will continue to do evil, all gun bans do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The capacity of the magazine is not the issue and the deaths of those at Sandy Hook really isn't either. ( not that it wasn't horrible)That is simply propaganda from people that want to disarm the public. If the media was really interested in spreading the truth we would see the news reporting cases of law abiding gun owners protecting them selves and saving lives by proper gun use. One should really look back in history to see what happens when a nation is disarmed. It is so clear to me what is happening and where we as a nation are headed that I don't understand why others don't see this as well.


----------



## Txsteader

simi-steading said:


> He's right.. I don't need 10 rounds of ammo to go deer hunting... But I do need 30 rounds of ammo when the government decides to start locking people up for thought crimes.... The exact reason the second amendment was written...


Somebody needs to put that on a billboard! :thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *In the time it would take* an attacker to drop an empty mag and insert a new one with a bullet button, it might give victims the chance to *spring up and wrestle the empty gun from his hands*


That's right out of the Demoncrat playbook.
Which of the 6-7 year old kids do you think could have done that?


----------



## simi-steading

I'm sure anyone that plans to do a mass shooting would not go through the hassle and worry about the legalities of putting a bullet button on his gun.. 

Once again, the bullet button is just another feel good measure for the unknowing.. Easily reversible if you buy a gun with one on it.. 

Even if you don't reverse it, you could attach something to your hand or finger that would allow you to use the bullet button pretty much as fast as the regular release.. 

Once again, laws being made by people that have no freakin clue..


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

DryHeat said:


> For a presentation of some basis of the pro-control side, I would recommend watching Jon Stewart's Daily Show (available online, of course) from night before last (Jan 8 or possibly as midnight Jan 9), anyway the one with Ret. Gen McChrystal as guest). Not for Gen. McCrystal's comments that .223s are for the military but not civilians so much but for the earlier development of a succinct summary which I will paraphrase. A series of comment and interview blerbs were shown building to a clip from a CNN Piers Morgan interview with a self-evident jackwagon who spouted with likely spittle-spewing intensity something about how if the government comes for HIS weapons it'll be 1776 all over again. Stewart then summed it up calmly, approximately, "OK. Now I see what's happening. Because a small number of paranoid lunatics have the FANTASY that the government is going to take THEIR weapons away, the vast majority of us are not even allowed to develop ways to address the ongoing FACT that this country has *30,000 firearms deaths every year.*"


where are they getting that number , i couldn't find anything near that tallying up accidents and outright homicides using guns when i went looking 

that's much closer to the actual traffic deaths every year 

some looking........I see how there math works according to the CDC if you add the 18,735 suicide by gun to the 11,493 homicides by gun , you can break the 30k mark with 30,228 

now the really scary numbers are the 31,758 unintentional poisonings and 24,792 unintentional falls , for a total of 56,550


----------



## simi-steading

No, the scary numbers are the number of civilians and children being killed by our very owe government in the name of "war on terrorism"

I ask... who is the real terrorist?

http://rt.com/news/pakistan-civilian-victims-drones-695/


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's right out of the Demoncrat playbook.
> Which of the 6-7 year old kids do you think could have done that?


face it as trajic as it is the 6 and 7 year old kids wouldn't have had a chance if the choice of weapon was a sharpened lawn mower blade made into a make shift machete

arguing magazine size in crime is about as futile as arguing if the steel had been a softer alloy and not 1095 carbon steel the blade would have needed sharpening after 49 or 50 victims to continue cutting with reasonable effort 

as it was it appears to have been 4 handguns , of course illegally obtained as he was 20 not 21 and killed the owner of the guns rather than purchasing them.
even if each only held 10 whats the difference if you have 15 round magazines if your planning a New York reload any way. back to futility of the argument


----------



## CaliannG

~sighs~ Ya'll just aren't getting it, are you?

Listen and listen closely: _ Soccer Moms run this country when it comes to things like gun laws._

Congress doesn't want to deal with the highly controversial issues of Gun Control. Even if you are a Dem Congresscritter, it's close to political suicide. If you are a Repub Congresscritter, it IS political suicide. NONE of them want this issue on the table. 

The people who want this issue on the table, who are calling, writing, and harassing their Congresscritters, are Soccer Moms. 

So, how are ya'll going to address this with the average Soccer Mom? The Soccer Mom doesn't CARE about your second amendment rights. She cares that a bunch of kids were shot in a school and she now has nightmares of the same thing happening to her little bundles of joy.

The Soccer Mom doesn't care about your statistics, your hunting rifles, and whether you need 15 rounds to kill a deer, or if you can reload 5 round magazines so fast that it doesn't matter. All she wants is her children to be safe from murderous nutcases.

She is not completely stupid, either. You can tell her about someone killing a bunch of kids with a knife in Japan, and she KNOWS the difference. She knows that it takes *years* to get good enough in close combat to be a major threat with a knife, but that with a ranged weapon, on can get by with "shoot a LOT of bullets". She is not going to listen to you when you tell her that cars kill more people than firearms, because she sees cars as a useful commodity, and she does not see firearms as something necessary for a person to get to work.

So, here, you are preaching to the choir...we have firearms, we understand them, and we want to keep them. We understand each other. But WE are not the ones that need convincing. The people that need convincing are the Soccer Moms.

And you are not going to convince them by calling them names (sheeple), questioning their intelligence, or telling them that it is all a government plot to take over our nation. 

Hey, there is a Soccer Mom over there, and it looks like she is e-mailing her Congresscritter. What are YOU going to tell her that will convince her that she should tell that Congresscritter that she in NOT in favor of more gun control?

Because the fate of YOUR firearm ownership depends upon YOU convincing her that she should side with you in this.


----------



## Txsteader

Soccer Mom isn't all _that_ intelligent if she allows her emotions to override her common sense. If she were intelligent and informed, she'd know that gun laws.....other than outright banning and confiscation.......have not and will not prevent gun crimes.

Politicians are more than happy to exploit tragedies and peoples' emotions.


----------



## wannabechef

Txsteader said:


> Soccer Mom isn't all _that_ intelligent if she allows her emotions to override her common sense. If she were intelligent and informed, she'd know that gun laws.....other than outright banning and confiscation.......have not and will not prevent gun crimes.
> 
> Politicians are more than happy to exploit tragedies and peoples' emotions.


Chances are the soccer moms cell phone is 100 times more dangerous to her van full of kids.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

You see I am getting it , I have gotten it all along and i have known for years that schools as are almost all other places , are wide open targets.

but schools take it so far beyond any other place , a total ban on anything usefull to stop an attacker , and most try real hard not to need a cop in them , and metal detectors at the door are a sign that you are a bad school 

so the soccer moms and most others like to live the lie that because there is a fresh coat of paint they are in the burbs and all the lawns are mowed that nothing bad can happen.

for them security is things looking nice and the lie they tell themselves. 

school security and face it most security relies on people thinking someone is watching or that they might get caught or stopped or just a lack of intrest in anything inside the building along with a respect for innocent life 

when you have a suicidal assailant like a terrorist school shooter , their concern is being stopped early 

in living this Lie that so many people tell themselves , they reject ideas that could keep them safer 

now face it schools really are very safe places statistically , but why , primarily because only crazy people want to hurt kids generally and most of them don't want to either.
even drug dealers and other criminals have family or kids that go to school so they generally respect schools , besides where would the next generation of drug users come from dead kids can't buy their drugs after school it is just bad business.

so things working for school security , criminals just nothing of value to gain from hurting kids , and even criminals have families.

things working against school security , soccer moms insisting that things look nice that they live in a nice neighborhood and their kids go to a good school that doesn't need locked doors to inconvenience them or police or security guards those are all signs of bad schools.

I have a plan for school security , we start by locking all the doors , the only door that people can come and go with without a swipe card is the front door witch is also locked.
all doors get swipe card access , and cameras inside and out. and all doors not opened from the inside or outside with use of the access card set off an alarm , all doors opened by a card are logged for time date and who anything not falling into the standard time schedule sets off a notice 
all these cameras get fed to monitors in a security office , this is staffed by police or a mix of police and security staff as needed.
next up communication , when i was in school 20 years ago every room was outfitted with a phone after one of the early school shootings and the doors could be locked , i thought it was interesting that many schools still contain no communication and have class room doors that can only be locked from the outside, phones were good 20 years ago , but we can do so much better , radios are used in some places but a digital radio platform with text messaging capabilities could take this to the next level messages could be pushed to all staff , codes , for things like silent lock down . as well as function as push to talk radios 

don't like my plan , well it is a plan for security and not a plan for passifying soccer moms till the next election , implement part of it or all of it , but do something , laws on the books don't make safety . barriers , procedures and fast response make security.


most of these procedures are already in place in many many corporations , many employers have restricted access to much of their buildings require that employees swipe their ID card to enter office spaces , or get on or off the elevator , that no visitors be allowed to go any where unescorted.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

the sad part is every time there is one school shooting there seems to be more , why usually the follow up ones are very angry stressed students who realize their school isn't very much different than the school where the other shooting happened and if that school really didn't have any security theirs probably doesn't either , once that mental change is made , they can see the real vulnerability. and act out often against the bullies or class mates.


----------



## Annsni

I guess you can call me a soccer mom, although my kids don't play soccer. But I'm a typical suburban mom living in a nice house with a nice lawn.

But I don't believe the hype of the "get guns out of everyone's hands now!!!!" people. That's why I came to you guys - to try to understand what I'm NOT hearing from the press.  You really HAVE helped a lot!


----------



## Txsteader

Annsni said:


> I guess you can call me a soccer mom, although my kids don't play soccer. But I'm a typical suburban mom living in a nice house with a nice lawn.
> 
> But I don't believe the hype of the "get guns out of everyone's hands now!!!!" people. That's why I came to you guys - to try to understand what I'm NOT hearing from the press.  You really HAVE helped a lot!


Good for you. You're looking at it logically rather than emotionally.

We ALL love our children and grandchildren and nobody wants this to happen again. I don't know what the solution is, but I know that taking guns away from law-abiding people isn't going to solve the problem.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Annsni said:


> I guess you can call me a soccer mom, although my kids don't play soccer. But I'm a typical suburban mom living in a nice house with a nice lawn.
> 
> But I don't believe the hype of the "get guns out of everyone's hands now!!!!" people. That's why I came to you guys - to try to understand what I'm NOT hearing from the press.  You really HAVE helped a lot!



lots of us live in nice house with a mowed yard 
It is really a metaphor for living the lie and the behavior of giving into emotion over reason or logic.

if your doing the research , your not just giving in to emotion.


----------



## Old Virginia Jo

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> it used to be that semi autos were semi autos , but slick willy got the laws re written , for a slight change in definition. a semi auto is now
> 
> "anything that produces a shot each time the trigger is pulled till the gun is empty or all cartridges are spent,"
> 
> so now even a double barrel shot gun with a single trigger that allows you to fire 2 barrels is a semi auto , not really but that's the new definition.


Is this for real?! Wish you would provide a cite for this statement. By this definition, even a Single barrel rifle or shotgun is "semi-auto!!" What a joke of the English language. :hair


----------



## Metalman

Anyone who thinks they would be safer in a country in which ordinary citizens cannot own guns for self defense can relocate to Mexico. Just don't take a gun or ammunition across the border or you are likely to end up in Jail.

Of course, there may have been unintended consequences of the decision after the last Mexican revolultion to disarm ordinary citizens.

One radio talk show host here in Houston asks this question from time to time. "Had you rather take your family to live in El Paso, Texas or across the border in Juarez." Persons who do not live in border states like Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona may not appreciate the difference in these two cities, but a bit of surfing should clarify the choices. Thugs who kill children in Mexico are rarely if every identified or brought to justice.

One very real possibility is that the heavily armed drug cartels will eventually take over the government of Mexico.

The wise men who founded the United States had lived in an environment similar to the one that exists in Mexico today and knew one of the ways to achieve a balance of power.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

2 cities a fence apart , it isn't the fence that makes one side of it so much better a place to live


----------



## CesumPec

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> 2 cities a fence apart , it isn't the fence that makes one side of it so much better a place to live


excellent point


----------



## wannabechef

Old Virginia Jo said:


> Is this for real?! Wish you would provide a cite for this statement. By this definition, even a Single barrel rifle or shotgun is "semi-auto!!" What a joke of the English language. :hair


He's being sarcastic, but it actually has some truth to it now.


----------

