# How do we the people feel about gun control



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We have a pretty good representation of America right here on this forum, and while Obama continuously says "The American people want more gun control", I say he's wrong.
I don't believe we the people want more control over us, so I thought I'd do a poll.
It's anonymous, so feel free to be honest, and as always, comments are welcome.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I think they need to enforce our current laws. More laws won't do anything but make it easier for criminals to use them against us law abiding folks. The next step that needs to be done is that the liberal media needs to get their facts straight and understand there is no gun show loophole. I have bought numerous guns at shows and always did a background check with the exception of a Winchester built in 1896. If you have to ask why, you clearly don't know outer current laws.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TripleD said:


> I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.


There's no need to have a motorcycle or diamond rings either.
Besides, how much fun would a tank be?
Lots of fun, that's how much


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> There's no need to have a motorcycle or diamond rings either.
> Besides, how much fun would a tank be?
> Lots of fun, that's how much


I would like a MRAP if they are street legal !!!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

TripleD said:


> I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.


 Oddly enough, you can own a tank now.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

If I were king for a day I would repeal all the gun control laws except the prohibition against felons possessing guns. I don't understand how come SCOTUS didn't strike them all down as unconstitutional. 

The only way they could be constitutional is if the second amendment was repealed. This is the ultimate goal of the gun grabbers.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nimrod said:


> If I were king for a day I would repeal all the gun control laws except the prohibition against felons possessing guns. I don't understand how come SCOTUS didn't strike them all down as unconstitutional.
> 
> The only way they could be constitutional is if the second amendment was repealed. This is the ultimate goal of the gun grabbers.


Because every time a democrat gets in the White House, he appoints activist judges with no more concern for the Constitution than the politician that put them there.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Any gun control legislation is treasonous.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I think they need to enforce our current laws. More laws won't do anything but make it easier for criminals to use them against us law abiding folks. The next step that needs to be done is that the liberal media needs to get their facts straight and understand there is no gun show loophole. I have bought numerous guns at shows and always did a background check with the exception of a Winchester built in 1896. If you have to ask why, you clearly don't know outer current laws.


I have bought a couple and did not have to do a background check.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.



Lol only because you don't own one they are a BLAST !
But wow when you get one stuck !


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

My father this passed summer moved from AZ to MI to be near his family as he is 78 and lived with me for 8 weeks. He showed up with (3) hand guns, no big deal, (2) were bought new at gun stores and 1 bought used at a gun show and he says without a background check or any paperwork. Once he got his place and became a MI resident we took all 3 to the local police and registered them. Now we are waiting for the 6 month residents rule so he can get his CPL which he let lapse in AZ because it isn't required anymore. So it sounds like you can buy a handgun in AZ without a background check.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I have bought a couple and did not have to do a background check.


A couple what?
At a gun show?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Because every time a democrat gets in the White House, he appoints activist judges with no more concern for the Constitution than the politician that put them there.


Republicans do the same thing. They just have a different agenda. 

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

We have too many restrictions now
Jim


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

For those of you who think we have just enough gun control at the moment... Does that include, or have you considered the excessive restrictions in certain places such as NY and CA? I understand many people hate those states for all the other problems they have, but they're still excessive and unnecessary especially compared to other areas.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Well.........I just came into the cabin from shooting on my private shooting range......and I must say, "I am feeling very good about my gun control".


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Two cars in every garage...a chicken in every pot...and a six shooter on everyones side..


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

I am fine with limiting magazine capacity, and some models, but until we restrict handguns, any restrictions on rifles will be very nominal in success, if any.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If it's good enough for the military it is good enough for me.

Gun control has been the first step used by the most vicious dictators in the world history. Millions upon millions have been slaughtered by governments who only wanted "to make everyone safe".
Whoever owns the guns run the Country. Politicians know this, and they don't like the situation at all.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Two cars in every garage...a chicken in every pot...and a six shooter on everyones side..


I meant with a 15 round clip...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Declan said:


> I am fine with limiting magazine capacity, and some models, but until we restrict handguns, any restrictions on rifles will be very nominal in success, if any.


The fact is, gun control, even outright banning does nothing to curb violence.
Sure, you have less "gun crime", but the murder and assault rate doesn't change.
All gun control, banning, mag capacity limits does is prevents good people from defending themselves and their loved ones.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> I meant with a 15 round clip...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

oneraddad said:


>


Yes there is


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

TripleD said:


> I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.


Agreed.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Yes there is


Funny thing is...never heard one of my life long buddies or neighbor's call it a magazine...always been a clip....might be a backwoods Ozark thing...we are different down here.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> The fact is, gun control, even outright banning does nothing to curb violence.
> Sure, you have less "gun crime", but the murder and assault rate doesn't change.
> All gun control, banning, mag capacity limits does is prevents good people from defending themselves and their loved ones.


Perhaps, but since the right refuses to get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems, then I am at the point I am willing to take whatever we can get to at least attempt something other than sitting on our hands and blaming "black culture" or other such nonsense. 

The problem isn't assault weapons, it is handguns. Unfortunately to do something about 9mm is going to have to first create the legal precedents of going after the easier targets. There was a time when the NRA actually exercised some responsibility in helping address these issues. Not any more unfortunately.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> Any gun control legislation is treasonous.


That's a bit harsh............but I can see your point.:happy2:
Definitely a constitutional conflict.




Nimrod said:


> If I were king for a day I would repeal all the gun control laws except the prohibition against felons possessing guns. I don't understand how come SCOTUS didn't strike them all down as unconstitutional.
> 
> The only way they could be constitutional is if the second amendment was repealed. This is the ultimate goal of the gun grabbers.



When you figure out how a felon ban is "constitutional", you will have figured out how all the rest got passed. 



Cornhusker said:


> Because every time a democrat gets in the White House, he appoints activist judges with no more concern for the Constitution than the politician that put them there.





Jim Bunton said:


> Republicans do the same thing. They just have a different agenda.
> 
> Jim



It started before there was a democrat or republican........:whistling:




http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/sta/bliss_v_ky.htm


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

elevenpoint said:


> Funny thing is...never heard one of my life long buddies or neighbor's call it a magazine...always been a clip....might be a backwoods Ozark thing...we are different down here.


No we call it a clip in Texas too. Magazine is what comes in the mail once a month.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> No we call it a clip in Texas too. Magazine is what comes in the mail once a month.


Thought so...guess we're good here....


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

From what I have seen in the Constitution, they originally planned that the army was to be made up of local militia. The militia was made up of the common citizen. So as I see it whatever weapon the average soldier has, should be available to the average citizen. The M-16 is what the average soldier has so it should be with the citizen. The average soldier doesn't have nukes so neither should we. This was the intent of the founding fathers that the people were the military when needed. They were against a standing army.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Declan said:


> Perhaps, but since the right refuses to get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems,


LOL - get real. Depending on who is doing the counting, we've spent $12 TRILLION, $15T, or $22T fighting poverty over the last 50 years and poverty is still winning. Now we can start adding in Obamacare and that $22T is going to grow even faster. The stupid, ineffective, and wasteful gov't programs don't work. The dems have controlled both houses and the presidency enough times that it can't be the right holding back success. The programs don't work.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

The shooters in San Bernardino broke about 50 laws ( if we just had one more we all be safe!):facepalm:
Even the women would have been able to pass a back ground check they let her in the country! That not even start on the pipe bombs they were building
So those that. Want one more law what is it? We most likely have it in California.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

In my opinion, limiting magazine capacity only serves to make people feel like something is being done because anyone who does any amount of target practice knows that they preload several and it only takes a fraction of a second to replace them.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

If the hot air blow hards on the Hill and stump trail would stop trying to make new laws for public image purpose and simply demand proper enforcement of the weapon , convicted felon control laws and screening and responsibility laws and regulations already in place, all would see environmental safety increase, the hot air diminish and less accumulation of bills that simply choke the functioning of Capitol Hill for at least 60% of their time in session.

Blow hard hot and cold from the same hole politician's, the worlds largest contributor to greenhouse gas and methane pollution.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Declan said:


> Perhaps, but since the right refuses to get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems, then I am at the point I am willing to take whatever we can get to at least attempt something other than sitting on our hands and blaming "black culture" or other such nonsense.
> 
> The problem isn't assault weapons, it is handguns. Unfortunately to do something about 9mm is going to have to first create the legal precedents of going after the easier targets. There was a time when the NRA actually exercised some responsibility in helping address these issues. Not any more unfortunately.


Sorry my friend, but that came right out of the liberal playbook. Please give us fore warning so we can put on our rubber boots.

Handguns are not the problem. The society created by liberal thought and programs over the last fifty years are. They have denigrated the moral character of our nation reducing people to their most basic instincts. We are bombarded with gruesome violence and call it entertainment. Our music is nothing but audio pornography and we call it art. Our art does not represent the talent of the artist, just his attempt at perverted shock value. The institutions that have set the moral code are under constant attack and ridicule. Guns are not the problem. Handguns are not the problem. People who share your thoughts are.
All we need are more laws. All we need are more programs. all we need is more money. All we need is more control.

Liberalism is the religion of failure. History has proved it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I voted for the first option because I don't believe the *federal* (I assume that's who you were referring to) government has the right to impose any restrictions on our Constitutional rights, 2nd or otherwise.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Declan said:


> Perhaps, but since the right refuses to get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems, then I am at the point I am willing to take whatever we can get to at least attempt something other than sitting on our hands and blaming "black culture" or other such nonsense.
> 
> The problem isn't assault weapons, it is handguns. Unfortunately to do something about 9mm is going to have to first create the legal precedents of going after the easier targets. There was a time when the NRA actually exercised some responsibility in helping address these issues. Not any more unfortunately.


The left had control of the whole country for a few years and did nothing to fight poverty, substance abuse or lack of mental health.
They spent their time and political capitol getting obamacare shoved through.
You can't continue to blame the right and the NRA for the failures of the left.
If anybody actually took responsibility, we might get something done.
Taking away our rights is the wrong way to go.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

RICHMOND â Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced Tuesday that the commonwealth will no longer recognize out-of-state concealed handgun permits, part of a national push to circumvent legislatures opposed to tightening gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...2ce3d0-a821-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Declan said:


> Perhaps, but since the right refuses to *get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty *and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems, then I am at the point I am willing to take whatever we can get to at least attempt something other than sitting on our hands and blaming "black culture" or other such nonsense.
> 
> The problem isn't assault weapons, it is handguns. Unfortunately to do something about 9mm is going to have to first create the legal precedents of going after the easier targets. There was a time when the NRA actually exercised some responsibility in helping address these issues. Not any more unfortunately.


The left has done a real bang-up job on that. Everyone is rich now..


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Declan said:


> Perhaps, but since the right refuses to get on board with a more proactive approach to fighting violence by fighting poverty and treating people's mental health and/or substance abuse problems, then I am at the point I am willing to take whatever we can get to at least attempt something other than sitting on our hands and blaming "black culture" or other such nonsense.


 The evidence would suggest that the Left's "war on poverty" has made the situation, when it comes to violence, worse. The government has relieved young men of the responsibility for their actions. They are largely free to father any number of children and slink back into the shadows and let government pay for their progeny. With such catastrophic damage to the family, largely among the poor, young people have no good role models and cling to gangs to get some semblance of a family life. After 50 years of government "help", the culture is completely broken. Throwing more money at the situation is not going to help, nor is all the silly little "feel good" gun control laws that do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> The evidence would suggest that the *Left's "war on poverty"* has made the situation, when it comes to violence, worse. The government has relieved young men of the responsibility for their actions. They are largely free to father any number of children and slink back into the shadows and let government pay for their progeny. With such catastrophic damage to the family, largely among the poor, young people have no good role models and cling to gangs to get some semblance of a family life. After 50 years of government "help", the culture is completely broken. Throwing more money at the situation is not going to help, nor is all the silly little "feel good" gun control laws that do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


Feel good falsehoods is all they have..


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> The evidence would suggest that the Left's "war on poverty" has made the situation, when it comes to violence, worse. The government has relieved young men of the responsibility for their actions. They are largely free to father any number of children and slink back into the shadows and let government pay for their progeny. With such catastrophic damage to the family, largely among the poor, young people have no good role models and cling to gangs to get some semblance of a family life. After 50 years of government "help", the culture is completely broken. Throwing more money at the situation is not going to help, nor is all the silly little "feel good" gun control laws that do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


If the left's war on poverty is such a failure (which it isn't), then why hasn't the right done anything to improve upon it?

The war on poverty reduced the poverty rate 10%. It is knocking down the remaining 15% that is the challenge at hand. I am all for trying something new, bit it has to be more realistic than "To end poverty we must reduce the taxes of the top 1% and eliminate the estate taxes".


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> That's a bit harsh............but I can see your point.:happy2:
> Definitely a constitutional conflict.


I just figure, why not call the quacker a duck? I think the original idea about forcing laws on people that were in conflict with the constitution was that it was treasonous. We have lots of traitors in DC these days....


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The poverty level has gone done, but median income is flat. We stand a chance of many in median level entering the poverty level soon.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Declan said:


> If the left's war on poverty is such a failure (which it isn't), then why hasn't the right done anything to improve upon it?
> 
> *The war on poverty reduced the poverty rate 10%.* It is knocking down the remaining 15% that is the challenge at hand. I am all for trying something new, bit it has to be more realistic than "To end poverty we must reduce the taxes of the top 1% and eliminate the estate taxes".


 Not so much. The poverty rate was in steep decline from the early 40's to the early 60's, because an increase in productivity in the U.S. during and after WWII. As is usual with government power grabs, the government simply grafted on to a trend already in progress. It can be argued that the so called "war on poverty" caused an early end to this trend, but, of course, that cannot be proven. 

To end poverty we must make poverty something intolerable to those living in it. No more big screen TV's, designer shoes, smart phones, and eating "high on the hog", etc for those who live off of the government. 

I tend to fall in line with he Benjamin Franklin idea of dealing with poverty:




> âI am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.â
> &#8213; *Benjamin Franklin*


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Declan said:


> If the left's war on poverty is such a failure (which it isn't), then why hasn't the right done anything to improve upon it?
> 
> The war on poverty reduced the poverty rate 10%. It is knocking down the remaining 15% that is the challenge at hand. I am all for trying something new, bit it has to be more realistic than "To end poverty we must reduce the taxes of the top 1% and eliminate the estate taxes".


Any links?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> The poverty level has gone done, but median income is flat. We stand a chance of many in median level entering the poverty level soon.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

elevenpoint said:


> Two cars in every garage...a chicken in every pot...and a six shooter on everyones side..



No no no ! 
Nowadays that's a chicken WITH some pot....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> Funny thing is...never heard one of my life long buddies or neighbor's call it a magazine...always been a clip....might be a backwoods Ozark thing...we are different down here.


Most people call it a clip. Some people just like to correct others to make themselves look more intelligent. I was in the military and I call it a clip too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

BlackFeather said:


> The average soldier doesn't have nukes so neither should we. This was the intent of the founding fathers that the people were the military when needed. They were against a standing army.




Average skews your statement. 
You see at the time the constitution was written the best weapons were in the hands of citizens. 
These would have been rifled canons and long guns. Yes joe average didn't own them but the best ones were privately not government owned.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Gun control to address crime and violence is like mopping the floor to control bleeding. 
We need a register of insane and violent. Not guns.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Most people call it a clip. Some people just like to correct others to make themselves look more intelligent. I was in the military and I call it a clip too.


Now I know if this was the other way around, you'd see fit to correct my erroneous thinking. 

Magazine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)

Clips:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)

And from the real experts:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/9-misused-gun-terms/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> The left had control of the whole country for a few years and did nothing to fight poverty, substance abuse or lack of mental health. go.



Lol. The left had control for a few (2) years and failed huh ?
But wouldn't that mean the right had control for a LOT of years and failed too ?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Most people call it a clip. Some people just like to correct others to make themselves look more intelligent. I was in the military and I call it a clip too.


You are also wrong and look unintelligent


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol. The left had control for a few (2) years and failed huh ?
> But wouldn't that mean the right had control for a LOT of years and failed too ?


Quite a stretch that breaks the reality barrier there.

Anyway,,,
No political party can end poverty.

Jobs end poverty. Welfare does not end poverty, over a long period of time it just makes one comfortably numb.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> To end poverty we must make poverty something intolerable to those living in it. :



Most people living in poverty are children. 

So is your plan to beat the children ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Most people living in poverty are children.
> 
> So is your plan to beat the children ?


Why don't you stop spouting so much nonsense?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Most people call it a clip. Some people just like to correct others to make themselves look more intelligent. I was in the military and I call it a clip too.


You didn't while you where in I will hazard to guess. &#128518;&#128518;


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Most people living in poverty are children.
> 
> So is your plan to beat the children ?


What's your suggestion?
Make stuff up and blame somebody else?
Is that you Barry??? :rotfl:


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

we have beyond reasonable laws in place already restricting firearms ownership

California goes way way way beyond most any other state in over the top laws to try and control firearms and firearms users. way beyond reasonable and it does it with no quantitative evidence that it is working .

if you compare it to the states that have no such over the top restrictions , it appears it is hurting rather than helping.

magazine limit is 10 rounds , some guns based on their looks are restricted from having removable magazines , a tool must be needed to remove the magazine , this is designed to slow down a user.
10 days cooling off period on a firearms purchase meaning if you purchase a gun you pay don the money then fill out the background check paperwork then 10 days after the background check is passes you can pick up your gun.

if you happen to see 2 guns you like and want to purchase both you can but BUT you have to wait 30 calendar days after the first if picked up to pick up the second even if you already owned a gun or 5 or 10 , even if you have a carry license 

every gun in California must be transferred through a licensed dealer where a background check must be run

California also sets specific features and options a gun must have to be sold in California , manufacturers have to submit new firearms for testing , destructive testing even if only the color changed more guns must be resubmitted for testing.


yet criminals get guns every day in California some through these "legal channels " yet they tell us they need more laws , these are not laws to provide safety , these are laws that may look helpful to the unknowing but who's sole purpose is to pacify the unknowing and oppress the knowing 

I fall somewhere between 1 and 2 also , there are many restricted things that I see no point to SBR short barrel rifles being one of these , just call it a pistol and have the pistol paperwork filled out for it , there is no point wasting time and resources registering tens of thousands of SBR every year for every guy or gal who wants to build one and is willing to pay the special tax and special registration to have one legally.

"suppressors" IE a muffle for your gun to reduce the noise of combustion , cars and trucks are required to have them , but guns some states ban them all together others it is another registration and special tax , think about it most other civilized nations with firearms hunt with suppressors they can hear the game and not damage their hearing by muffling the exhaust of combustion 


to many laws already that don't make it any better or even make sense that go unenforced to make any more


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I've heard much mention of gun control but does anyone have a clear definition of what that involves?

We had a discussion at dinner the other night because a family member I don't like anyway was discussing the need for 'greater gun control' in the US and when I asked them for clarification on this and after much discussion, they seemed unable to define gun control. 

Somebody might want to update the dinner party rule book because up until then, I thought only religion and politics were off limits


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I've heard much mention of gun control but does anyone have a clear definition of what that involves?
> 
> We had a discussion at dinner the other night because a family member I don't like anyway was discussing the need for 'greater gun control' in the US and when I asked them for clarification on this and after much discussion, they seemed unable to define gun control.
> 
> Somebody might want to update the dinner party rule book because up until then, I thought only religion and politics were off limits


Most gun control advocates don't know much about the subject.
They parrot what their favorite politicians and Hollywood halfwits say, spread it like Gospel and don't realize they are trying to slit their own throats.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> What's your suggestion?
> 
> Make stuff up and blame somebody else?
> 
> Is that you Barry??? :rotfl:



No that sounds like your suggestion. 
I suggest we better support children and make their parents pay for it through taxes.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Most people living in poverty are children.
> 
> So is your plan to beat the children ?


so are you saying that children live in poverty while their parents/guardians do not?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> We have a pretty good representation of America right here on this forum, and while Obama continuously says "The American people want more gun control", I say he's wrong.
> I don't believe we the people want more control over us, so I thought I'd do a poll.
> It's anonymous, so feel free to be honest, and as always, comments are welcome.


We do NOT have a pretty good representation of America on this forum.This forum has few liberals and moderate republicans.Most people on this forum are far far right.I believe that large metro areas should have different gun laws than sparsely populated rural areas.I don't have an answer to the problem.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wwubben said:


> We do NOT have a pretty good representation of America on this forum.This forum has few liberals and moderate republicans.Most people on this forum are far far right.I believe that large *metro areas should have different gun laws* than sparsely populated rural areas.I don't have an answer to the problem.


You think they should be better armed so they can protect themselves?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> You think they should be better armed so they can protect themselves?



Well......it _should_ be an option, don't ya think?
:croc:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wwubben said:


> We do NOT have a pretty good representation of America on this forum.This forum has few liberals and moderate republicans.Most people on this forum are far far right.


All I can say is, "sorry"?:shrug:




> *I believe that large metro areas should have different gun laws than sparsely populated rural areas.
> *I don't have an answer to the problem.


I believe I would be looking to relocate..:runforhills:.....


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Most people call it a clip. Some people just like to correct others to make themselves look more intelligent. I was in the military and I call it a clip too.


Democrat's call them clips. In less you were in world war 2 using a garand?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Most gun control advocates don't know much about the subject.
> They parrot what their favorite politicians and Hollywood halfwits say, spread it like Gospel and don't realize they are trying to slit their own throats.


I've heard much talk about 'needing gun control' or 'needing to do something' but no specifics on what it would involve so it's hard to agree with a policy or laws if you don't know what they might be.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I've heard much talk about 'needing gun control' or 'needing to do something' but no specifics on what it would involve so it's hard to agree with a policy or laws if you don't know what they might be.


Basically, they want to ban the sale of what they call "Assault rifles".
These scary beasts include the AR-15, Ak-47 and anything semiautomatic with features such as a pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc.
From there, it's pretty easy to classify most weapons as "assault weapons".
Once they get rid of the "assault" weapons, they'll turn their attention to handguns.
They'll start with magazine restrictions, then move to restricted muzzle velocity, and keep trimming our rights down until all we have is a single shot BB gun.
The ultimate goal as I see it is to have strict gun laws such as they have in the UK.
When a government fears it's people being armed, you have need of a new government.
Gun control is all about the control, public safety has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The simple fact is that any law that restricts the gun rights of a lawful citizen is unconstitutional. I know, I know, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, but, they are wrong. (yes, they can be wrong) The citizens are entitled to any an all weapons available to soldiers, without infringement. The 2nd amendment wasn't created to allow hunting and self defense alone, it was written to protect against the government overstepping its bounds. (Which is why "Shall not be infringed" was included). There can be no argument against that fact without ignoring and twisting the words of the founders.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

I have asked many times in many places, but can anyone here show a drop in crime or killing following any one of the federal, pieces of "gun control" legislation that have already been attempted? 

-FFA 1938

-GCA 1968

-FOPA 1986

...........................crickets!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

cfuhrer said:


> so are you saying that children live in poverty while their parents/guardians do not?



No I said most people in poverty are children. Why would you think I said something else ?

However it is common for children to live in poverty while their parents don't. One parent can leave the children. Or the children can be given to someone one else to care for. I just don't know how common that is.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

tamarackreg said:


> I have asked many times in many places, but can anyone here show a drop in crime or killing following any one of the federal, pieces of "gun control" legislation that have already been attempted?
> 
> -FFA 1938
> 
> ...


The numbers show gun control has no effect in the long run.
Usually, right after gun control is passed, there is a spike in murders, but after a few years it settles back to the pre-ban levels.
the numbers just don't support the gun grabbers lies.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> The simple fact is that any law that restricts the gun rights of a lawful citizen is unconstitutional. I know, I know, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, but, they are wrong. (yes, they can be wrong) The citizens are entitled to any an all weapons available to soldiers, without infringement.


 So where do you draw the line? Do you think its good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? RPGs? Tactical Recoiless Nukes? Mortars? TOW anti-tank missiles? I am all for a well armed populace, but I think we're better off NOT having our streets turned into downtown Ramadi or Mogadishu, or letting just any nutcase with a grudge have the ability to launch a rocket into city hall because he didn't like his tax bill. We're not there yet, and hopefully we won't be for a good long time.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> So where do you draw the line? Do you think its good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? RPGs? Tactical Recoiless Nukes? Mortars? TOW anti-tank missiles? I am all for a well armed populace, but I think we're better off NOT having our streets turned into downtown Ramadi or Mogadishu, or letting just any nutcase with a grudge have the ability to launch a rocket into city hall because he didn't like his tax bill. We're not there yet, and hopefully we won't be for a good long time.


 I can see local and state jurisdictions limiting the carrying of larger weapons of war, but, not the ownership of such weapons. Some of those weapons can be owned now. You can build a nice and effective flamethrower in your home shop. If you have the money, tanks are perfectly legal to own.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> We do NOT have a pretty good representation of America on this forum.This forum has few liberals and moderate republicans.Most people on this forum are far far right.I believe that large metro areas should have different gun laws than sparsely populated rural areas.I don't have an answer to the problem.


I have to disagree. most people here are pretty middle of the road. We do have a few rabid liberals who tend to confuse the issues with their radical agenda of human degradation and totalitarian control, But overall it's a moderate crowd.

We really don't have urban dwellers. they are simply country people who have not moved out yet. Being rural is a state of mind.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> So where do you draw the line? Do you think its good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? RPGs? Tactical Recoiless Nukes? Mortars? TOW anti-tank missiles? I am all for a well armed populace, but I think we're better off NOT having our streets turned into downtown Ramadi or Mogadishu, or letting just any nutcase with a grudge have the ability to launch a rocket into city hall because he didn't like his tax bill. We're not there yet, and hopefully we won't be for a good long time.


Where would you draw the line?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> I can see local and state jurisdictions limiting the carrying of larger weapons of war, but, not the ownership of such weapons. Some of those weapons can be owned now. You can build a nice and effective flamethrower in your home shop. If you have the money, tanks are perfectly legal to own.


 So you would be ok with just anyone owning anti-tank rocket launchers, just not carrying them? Why is that? Wouldn't that be an 'infringement' to tell someone they can own something just not carry it?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I am Canadian and voted for number 1 in the poll.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> So you would be ok with just anyone owning anti-tank rocket launchers, just not carrying them? Why is that? Wouldn't that be an 'infringement' to tell someone they can own something just not carry it?


What's your solution?
Total confiscation?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

greg273 said:


> So you would be ok with just anyone owning anti-tank rocket launchers, just not carrying them? Why is that? Wouldn't that be an 'infringement' to tell someone they can own something just not carry it?


Sure. Why trust the government with something we aren't allowed to own?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> The simple fact is that any law that restricts the gun rights of a lawful citizen is unconstitutional. I know, I know, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, but, they are wrong. (yes, they can be wrong) The citizens are entitled to any an all weapons available to soldiers, without infringement. The 2nd amendment wasn't created to allow hunting and self defense alone, it was written to protect against the government overstepping its bounds. (Which is why "Shall not be infringed" was included). There can be no argument against that fact without ignoring and twisting the words of the founders.


I'm sorry to keep bringing it up, but the words actually used in the Bill of Rights, at least in the first 8 of the 10, is "the people" not "lawful citizen" or even "citizen".

That interpretation changed after the *14th* amendment, where citizenship came into play. Whether it's taxes, voting, or gun ownership there simply is no constitutional basis for legislation creating a class of "partial citizenship". You either are on with full rights or you aren't one without any.

When you get into granting non citizens the rights to representation, legal protections in court, etc. you realize why the words "the people" is an important distinction.
This country IS different. Even if you come here for a visit, you are treated the way a guest SHOULD be, with the same respect as everyone else.
Easy to say, hard to do.

Obviously if you aren't being "lawful" and you get locked up, you won't be able to lock your own door, have a weapon, vote (watcher, I know voting isn't guaranteed a right) and you won't have these rights as long as you're in jail.
But upon release, and as long as you remain "lawful" there's no constitutional basis for removing a right that was guaranteed in writing with no exceptions.





greg273 said:


> So where do you draw the line? Do you think its good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? RPGs? Tactical Recoiless Nukes? Mortars? TOW anti-tank missiles? I am all for a well armed populace, but I think we're better off NOT having our streets turned into downtown Ramadi or Mogadishu, or letting just any nutcase with a grudge have the ability to launch a rocket into city hall because he didn't like his tax bill. We're not there yet, and hopefully we won't be for a good long time.


Do I think it's "good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? "
Nah, probably not.:lookout:
At some point, I think everyone encounters laws that aren't good for society.
That's when it falls on the shoulders of individual responsibility, and no law is ever going to change that fact.

It might be a good time to note that this actually should encourage city hall NOT to offend their employers.:grin:



Farmerga said:


> I can see local and state jurisdictions limiting the carrying of larger weapons of war, but, not the ownership of such weapons. Some of those weapons can be owned now. You can build a nice and effective flamethrower in your home shop. If you have the money, tanks are perfectly legal to own.


I would have to say that anyone I knew that had a flamethrower and could *carry* a tank, would be on my list of people to make friends with, if at all possible, lol.



greg273 said:


> So you would be ok with just anyone owning anti-tank rocket launchers, just not carrying them? Why is that? Wouldn't that be an 'infringement' to tell someone they can own something just not carry it?


See reply above.....:teehee:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> I have to disagree. most people here are pretty middle of the road. We do have a few rabid liberals who tend to confuse the issues with their radical agenda of human degradation and totalitarian control, But overall it's a moderate crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> We really don't have urban dwellers. they are simply country people who have not moved out yet. Being rural is a state of mind.



Lol perhaps it seems that way to you because you are in the middle of the right that makes up most rural and mid country people.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I can see local and state jurisdictions limiting the carrying of larger weapons of war, but, not the ownership of such weapons.


Agree but in all honesty, the term 'bear' is defined as 'carry'. 

Is it practical to carry around a flamethrower or a rocket-launcher? Of course not. And unless our government does the unthinkable, there's really no need to carry them. But look at Syria. Look at Egypt. Look at Libya. 

Never say never. As corrupt as our government has become and judging by the megalomaniacs running the country, one never knows when one might need to defend against an unlawful and tyrannical government.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> Where would you draw the line?


Kind of a thin line around the out side like bread crust that's moldy the bay area ,Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles here on the west coast !New York city,New Jersey, Detroit, DC Miami for starter's on the east?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol perhaps it seems that way to you because you are in the middle of the right that makes up most rural and mid country people.


Actually I think the middle of the right makes up most people.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So the right elected the current President ?
Interesting thought.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> All I can say is, "sorry"?:shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I live in a rural area and have my conceal carry permit and have many firearms.I fear no one.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wwubben said:


> I live in a rural area and have my conceal carry permit and have many firearms.I fear no one.



Then you have no problem.
I have no firearms, no CCW, no fear and no problem also.
If others have some problem with guns or crime, maybe they can find useful solutions in this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by greg273 View Post
> So where do you draw the line? Do you think its good for society if people walk down city streets carrying flamethrowers? RPGs? Tactical Recoiless Nukes? Mortars? TOW anti-tank missiles? I am all for a well armed populace, but I think we're better off NOT having our streets turned into downtown Ramadi or Mogadishu, or letting just any nutcase with a grudge have the ability to launch a rocket into city hall because he didn't like his tax bill. We're not there yet, and hopefully we won't be for a good long time.


Those aren't "arms".

They are "ordnance" and "WMD's" and already restricted under other laws.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those aren't "arms".
> 
> They are "ordnance" and "WMD's" and already restricted under other laws.



Now we are getting into semantics and individual interpretations. An RPG could certainly fit the definition of 'arms'. 


> The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." *That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons,* but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.


 http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> Sure. Why trust the government with something we aren't allowed to own?


 The government is not an outside entity, it is composed of citizens who are elected by either direct of indirect voting by other citizens. And 'we the people' have determined that certain weapons are too destructive to place in the hands of just anyone without regulation. If you want to see open-carry of RPG and flamethrowers in America, then I suggest voting in people who will help change the laws to suit your desires. I doubt you're going to get very far with that. 
My view is that if RPGS and flamethrowers ever become a neccesity, then no law will matter anyway. We aren't there yet, and I would NOT support Joe Blow from Kokomo walking into the gas station with an anti-tank rocket launcher. No reason for it at this point, and it has the potential to do great harm to other people just trying to live out the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Flamethrowers are legal everywhere but California. They are for sale by private companies and you can even buy military ones that have been removed from service. They are not considered firearms and no license is required. I'd love to have one but they're a bit pricey for no more than I'd use one. Be great for burning brush, melting ice, wiping out hornet's nests and such.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> If it's good enough for the military it is good enough for me.
> 
> Gun control has been the first step used by the most vicious dictators in the world history. Millions upon millions have been slaughtered by governments who only wanted "to make everyone safe".
> Whoever owns the guns run the Country. Politicians know this, and they don't like the situation at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those aren't "arms".
> 
> They are "ordnance" and "WMD's" and already restricted under other laws.



Lol yes I'm sure the framers of the constitution did not include the term WMDs so they would be excluded. 

Personally I'd like to "ARM" myself with some of those weapons. 

This country wasn't founded to be safe it was founded on liberty at the cost of lives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Now we are getting into semantics and individual interpretations. An RPG could certainly fit the definition of 'arms'.
> http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm





> That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons,


You can already own all those other than grenades, which are considered "explosives".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> The government is not an outside entity, it is composed of citizens who are elected by either direct of indirect voting by other citizens. And 'we the people' have determined that certain weapons are too destructive to place in the hands of just anyone without regulation. If you want to see open-carry of RPG and flamethrowers in America, then I suggest voting in people who will help change the laws to suit your desires. I doubt you're going to get very far with that.
> My view is that if RPGS and flamethrowers ever become a neccesity, then no law will matter anyway. We aren't there yet, and I would NOT support Joe Blow from Kokomo walking into the gas station with an anti-tank rocket launcher. No reason for it at this point, and it has the potential to do great harm to other people just trying to live out the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.


The government is supposed to be our servant, not our master
If guns scare you so bad, don't buy any.
Leave the rest of us our rights.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> So the right elected the current President ?
> Interesting thought.


Nope. They were to lazy to get off their fat rear ends and to vote. 
Hopefully, they are now disgusted enough to change that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Nope. They were to lazy to get off their fat rear ends and to vote.
> Hopefully, they are now disgusted enough to change that.


I really hope so
We need to get this country back on track and heal all the damage done by the current "administration"
There's no place in the presidency for the bigotry of Obama


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

TripleD said:


> I'm in the middle of 1 and 2. I want to be able to own anything the local LEO has...No need for me to have a tank though.


I'm in between 1 & 2 as well, but feel some of the existing laws need to be changed. For example, I feel non-violent felons should be able to have their gun rights restored (perhaps 1st time non-violent felons with no recidivism during "X" period of time).

However, as far as any "new" laws/regs, I wouldn't be totally against something that basically says to be able to legally purchase a gun, one must be able to show they know how to use/handle it safely (perhaps require some sort of safety certification or something?) and at least have an idea of how to actually hit what they aim at.

Flame away at will, but a gun is not a toy...it is a weapon. Anyone who has the privilege of owning one should do so responsibly and safely.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow Hippy you have it all wrong In Your last paragraph. 

It's not a privilege it's a right. 
You don't get to regulate my rights. 
For instance if you regulate what or how I can say things. my freedom of speech is gone.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

greg273 said:


> The government is not an outside entity, it is composed of citizens who are elected by either direct of indirect voting by other citizens. And 'we the people' have determined that certain weapons are too destructive to place in the hands of just anyone without regulation. If you want to see open-carry of RPG and flamethrowers in America, then I suggest voting in people who will help change the laws to suit your desires. I doubt you're going to get very far with that.
> My view is that if RPGS and flamethrowers ever become a neccesity, then no law will matter anyway. We aren't there yet, and I would NOT support Joe Blow from Kokomo walking into the gas station with an anti-tank rocket launcher. No reason for it at this point, and it has the potential to do great harm to other people just trying to live out the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.


I would disagree that we have anything to do with the election of quite a few in government. I also disagree that we have seen the majority represented in legislating the matter.


----------

