# Assult rifles. Why do we need them?



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing. But another 71 people either wounded or dead brings the question back of why are assult rifles legal to own?

I can remember way back before assult rifles hit the market. Back then there was no mass shootings. If there was there probably wasn't 30 to hundred people shot up in a theater or class room, etc. Most large calibers only held 5 to 7 rounds, 22 calibers used a tubelar magazine and held 18 shots, then you had to take time out to reload before you could start shooting again. I think the world was a lot safer back then. 

I'm not saying I believe in taking our arms away. Mine are for hunting and home protection. But they don't produce mass casualties. But a assult rifle is made for nothing but mass casualties. They should only be used in the military, if you ask my point of view. 

A lot of people are going to say it's not the guns fault, it's the person who used it. But how are we going to keep these kind of rifles out of the wrong persons hand? How do we know they're criminals. A criminal back ground check isn't the answer. This guy that done the Aurora shooting only had 1 speeding ticket on record. How many of you assult rifle owners have a speeding ticket on record?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Exactly what is an assualt weapon?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

You asked why do people need assault rifles. People don't need them. Nobody needs them. People want them.

So I would ask, why do people want them? Is it to stroke their ego and make them feel big?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

pancho said:


> Exactly what is an assualt weapon?


Google is your friend and will give you an entire list of what exactly is an assault weapon.

.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

naturelover said:


> Google is your friend and will give you an entire list of what exactly is an assault weapon.
> 
> .


Actually it will give you many different definitions.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Hah, pack a few clips for that 30-06 pump or semi auto and you can get the same effect. Don't take too long to drop one out and throw one in....
Or just load up a few of those .22s and instant mayhem...
really think banning assault rifles will really change anything?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

he also had 2-40 cal glocks. 4 guns total.


----------



## mare (Aug 31, 2006)

sammyd said:


> Hah, pack a few clips for that 30-06 pump or semi auto and you can get the same effect. Don't take too long to drop one out and throw one in....
> Or just load up a few of those .22s and instant mayhem...
> really think banning assault rifles will really change anything?


this isnt meant to be snarky its a honest question...how are we going to stop this? i dont believe everybody carrying a gun is the answer--just cuz you have a gun legally doesnt mean you are going to know how and when to use it and it obviously doesnt mean that someone isnt going to snap after getting said gun legally. i like having my guns--i like using them but i dont feel the need to go off my property with them. i dont know, this shooting is such a tragedy and i think there are alot of people left wondering how to stop this madness. i think we need to leave the politics out of this and just try and find some viable answers with out being fearful that some one might want to take our guns away from us.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Rue assault weapons are illegal for the average citizen to own, They are fully automatic not semi auto


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

mare said:


> this isnt meant to be snarky its a honest question... i like having my guns--i like using them but i dont feel the need to go off my property with them. i dont know, this shooting is such a tragedy and i think there are alot of people left wondering how to stop this madness....


This isn't meant to be snarky either. I like my guns too but I don't want or have a need for an assault weapon. 

Do you have assault weapons? If you do, can you explain why you want them?

.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

In my opinion unless you are law enforcement or military (border patrol coast guard, state militia and such included) You don't and should not be allowed to have them. 

I am very pro gun but a weapon like that has 1 purpose, to kill and maim as many humans as possible in a short time span. civilians do not need that kind of ability. Law enforcement (military I include in this group) need them because the bad guys have them and to me it is sinful for law enforcement to EVER be out gunned by the snakes among us.


----------



## rags57078 (Jun 11, 2011)

oh they will stop it someday alrighty , yep ban guns and the honest people will turn them in and the bad guys will keep theirs , now lets see you protect your family . Now back up before they sold assault weapons on the market >> was there shootings ? did the media write about all them shootings ? did our population grow since then ? how many people was on drugs legal and illegal ?


----------



## sunny225 (Dec 4, 2009)

I, too, would like the OP to give us his definition of an assault weapon. Google be ----ed.
Also, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
It doesn't matter what yours or anyone else's opinion is on this subject. If I want an 'assault weapon' for whatever reason that's my right.
This was a terrible tragedy. When the theater posted no firearms signs, they made it a free fire zone & the guy knew he would get no return fire.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Did he have an assault rifle? Or did he have the civilian form? Assault rifles are full automatic, in my understanding and a person must have a special license for such. 

I have an AR that I use for deer hunting because of the ergonomics are practical and the weapon is sturdy.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

"Shall not be infringed" means if I want and can afford a howitzer I should be able to own it


----------



## mare (Aug 31, 2006)

no assault weapons here. dont see a need for them either.


----------



## mare (Aug 31, 2006)

rags57078 said:


> oh they will stop it someday alrighty , yep ban guns and the honest people will turn them in and the bad guys will keep theirs , now lets see you protect your family . Now back up before they sold assault weapons on the market >> was there shootings ? did the media write about all them shootings ? did our population grow since then ? how many people was on drugs legal and illegal ?


the thing is this guy was considered a honest person until he snapped--and i doubt there is anybody alive that doesnt have the capability of snapping.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

sunny225 said:


> .... If I want an 'assault weapon' for whatever reason that's my right.


Rights or no rights is beside the point. Why do you WANT it? Do you think you need it? If so, why?

.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Actually it will give you many different *definitions*.



I think that should read different "opinions" because that's exactly what they are. I can make an assault rifle/weapon out of just about any rifle/shotgun.

.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Why not, that is my best smaller game hunting rifle. If it was painted pink would that be OK?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2012)

because criminals have them. If that is what you feel you need to protect yourself from the criminals you should have one.
I don't think I could handle one. So it wouldn't be my choice.
I don't think they will ever keep the criminals from having them though. 
You all need to get mad at the ones who hurt people with them, and leave the ones who would not use them that way alone.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Why would a person want a car that went 100mph? The speed limit is much lower than that. There is absolutely no need for a car that goes over 60mph. Just think of all the lives that would be saved if people were not allowed to have a car that would go over 60mph.
Then we get into those red cars. Why would a person want such a thing. Look at the number of people killed by red cars.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Assault weapon: 12 gauge shotgun, extended magazine loaded with double O buckshot will make an AR15 look downright tame. Are we gonna outlaw shotguns also? F.B.I. agents are quoted as saying they had rather face someone with a rifle or handgun then face someone with a shotgun.

.


----------



## rags57078 (Jun 11, 2011)

no clue as to why that guy snapped , and like what was said it could have been a hunting rifle and the guy had a few extra clips , also what this nut did was totally wrong


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Dang ninny ya beat me to it. For defense that is the weapon I would pick for up close and personal.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Guess it is always easier to blame an inanimate object than to understand the atrocities that humans can perpetrate.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing. But another 71 people either wounded or dead brings the question back of why are assult rifles legal to own?


First off assault rifles are not legal to own in a lot of states and to have one anywhere in the US you must have a class 3 firearms permit issued by the federal government and pay a large 'transfer' tax before you buy one.

Now if you are talking about semi automatic weapons then that's different.




Oldcountryboy said:


> I can remember way back before assult rifles hit the market. Back then there was no mass shootings. If there was there probably wasn't 30 to


I suggest you google Charles Whitman.

But I can remember way back when it was nothing for kids to have firearms in their cars at school and there were no school shootings. Where and when I grew up just about every house had LOADED firearms in ACCESSIBLE locations and there was a murder every week. Like it or not, the weapon has nothing to do with the crime.




Oldcountryboy said:


> hundred people shot up in a theater or class room, etc. Most large calibers only held 5 to 7 rounds, 22 calibers used a tubelar magazine and held 18 shots, then you had to take time out to reload before you could start shooting again. I think the world was a lot safer back then.


Do you know what weapon was used in the largest mass killing in the US (not counting the OKC bombing)? Google "Happy Land social club" to find out. FYI death toll there was 87.




Oldcountryboy said:


> I'm not saying I believe in taking our arms away. Mine are for hunting and home protection. But they don't produce mass casualties. But a assult rifle is made for nothing but mass casualties. They should only be used in the military, if you ask my point of view.


Really? I guess I'm using mine wrong. Mine have taken several deer.




Oldcountryboy said:


> A lot of people are going to say it's not the guns fault, it's the person who used it. But how are we going to keep these kind of rifles out of the wrong persons hand? How do we know they're criminals. A criminal back ground check isn't the answer. This guy that done the Aurora shooting only had 1 speeding ticket on record.


You aren't. 

One of the prices you pay for freedom is that some are going to abuse it. 

What other rights or even things that are not rights are you willing to give up for safety? How many people are killed EVERY DAY by cars? Should we ban private ownership of cars? Or maybe just require them to be governed for a maximum speed of 20 MPH?

We see today how slippery that slope is. People have allowed the government more and more control on their lives for their "protection". Its reached the point now that the government now has the power to FORCE you to buy a product from a third party because the government has decided you are too stupid to protect yourself. We see local governments now telling their people what they can not eat and maybe how much soda they can buy at once, but hey its only because people are too stupid to take care of themselves.




Oldcountryboy said:


> How many of you assult rifle owners have a speeding ticket on record?


How many assault riffle owners have never shot anyone? Do we assume every one is guilty and punish the many for the actions of the few?


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)




----------



## OkieDavid (Jan 15, 2007)

Never owned one, don't think I'll ever have a need for one. Do I think they are cool? Heck yea. Would I like to shoot one or three? Heck yea. Would I ever vote to deprive you of yours (regardless of whatever motivation you had to buy it)? Heck no.....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Google is your friend and will give you an entire list of what exactly is an assault weapon.
> 
> .


Google is often wrong. An assault weapon is a shoulder fired rifle chambered for a medium powered round with the ability to fire in semiautomatic and either full automatic (e.g. the M16A1) or burst fire (e.g. the M16A2) modes.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

We just trashed these cats a while back .The word assault rifle was coined by the left media .it strikes fear on the left . But to the British years ago a musket would been an assault rifle . What would a 10 gauge sawed off pump shot gun do in a crowd using 00 buck shot . 

Even in the war of northern aggression some carried high as 6 pistols because of reloading problems ,that was 36 shots .

If one was following the once stupid law of 10 round mags with four pistols you would have 40 shots those mags press a button they fall free slap another one in easy . 

Next time someone goes nuts if they used a homemade flame thrower or bottle of gas with rags you lefty's going to out law gas too . gre:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mare said:


> this isnt meant to be snarky its a honest question...how are we going to stop this? i dont believe everybody carrying a gun is the answer--just cuz you have a gun legally doesnt mean you are going to know how and when to use it and it obviously doesnt mean that someone isnt going to snap after getting said gun legally. i like having my guns--i like using them but i dont feel the need to go off my property with them. i dont know, this shooting is such a tragedy and i think there are alot of people left wondering how to stop this madness. i think we need to leave the politics out of this and just try and find some viable answers with out being fearful that some one might want to take our guns away from us.


You aren't. 

One of the cost of freedom is that some are going to abuse it.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> "Shall not be infringed" means if I want and can afford a howitzer I should be able to own it


You want it with new tires or as is United States Model 1918 U.S. 155mm "Schneider" Howitzer for sale

Many black powder cannons are legal


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> This isn't meant to be snarky either. I like my guns too but I don't want or have a need for an assault weapon.


Do you like your car? Do you have a need for a $300,000 Bentely? How about a Ferrari that will do 140 MPH? How about a motorcycle? Do you want to forbid people from buying them because you don't have a need for them?




naturelover said:


> Do you have assault weapons?


No because I can't afford the money the feds demand to buy one.

But I do have what ignorant people might call assault weapons. 




naturelover said:


> If you do, can you explain why you want them?


This is like asking someone why they ride motorcycles. If you have to ask the odds are you'll never understand the answer. And most people who ask it have never ridden a bike. Therefore, I'm willing to bet you have never taken a rifle with a few high capacity mags out to shoot. Find someone with one and see if you buy a few boxes of ammo if they will let you shoot it some time. Try setting up 15 steel targets and see how fast you can knock them all down. Try hanging a few balloons from strings and see how fast (or even IF) you can pop them all. 

You might just discover while you really don't need one you do WANT one.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

So the jackboots can have autos but us peons can only have bolt-action...........

Seems the 2nd says some thing about the peons protecting them selves from the jackboot goobermint.........

This latest red flag event I heard he had an AK47 . . . . . .this is a semi auto . . .NOT an auto "assault" weapon.........


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

Yep, the facts are just too hard to deal with..

the Sherrif said it was an "AK47 type assault rifle firing .223 rounds".... There's a mistake in there.. just can't figure out if it was the reporter, the sheriff or both....

AK-47 in a .223.. really????


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Assault rifles are necessary when trying to overthrow a government that has begun to operate outside the authority granted to it under the Constitution. There are a number of other instances where they are pretty handy to have around as well, but that is the primary reason to have them.

While we're on the subject, the right to keep and bear arms is one of my Constitutional rights. Shouldn't the government buy me some guns?


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Said on the news it was an AR15 knock off made by S and W.

Why do people want them? Because they look cool is my best guess.

I personally don't think they should be illegal but don't get the attraction.

I totally get owning things like an M1 Carbine, or a Garand, or a military SKS. That's sort of about owning a peice of military history. 

I remember when the only "military style" weapons available were surplus military weapons.

But why own an AK knock off? I mean "REAL" AK's are full auto. There's not really any collector value there in a knock off.

I have an M1, several actual military SKS's but I find I get the most enjoyment out of shooting something that is slower to reload because I tend to take more time shooting it.

I said I dont' think they should be illegal. But I'm sort of torn on the big clips.

I don't really think they should be either, but I'm thinking that if you feel the need to have something that can hold 30,50 rounds maybe you oughta have to take an MMPI or have some sort of evaluation, or even have a couple pals vouch that you are OK? before you can purchase them?

But a lot of the popularity has to do with movies. I remember when the Dirty Harry movies came out and overnight everybody wanted an S and W model 29 The price went thru the roof!

I think that the whole doomsday fantasy thing has sort of replaced the hunter as the dominant market segment in the market and the industry is beign responsive.
Case in point:



deaconjim said:


> Assault rifles are necessary when trying to overthrow a government that has begun to operate outside the authority granted to it under the Constitution. There are a number of other instances where they are pretty handy to have around as well, but that is the primary reason to have them.


The NRA who I think DOES do good things and a lot of right wing groups have fostered this sort of end times porn that people feed on and since so few hunt this fantasy is driving the market. Most of the people who subscribe to that sort of thinking are harmless but some like Mc Veigh are not, and with the glorification of the military and violence in our culture it's only natural that some will attempt to use them to carry out their fantasies.

I've known people, they could have had WAY more fun buying something like a Ruger Mark 3 and instead they bought some overpowered Glock or something that they can't shoot well and costs an arm and a leg to buy ammo just because of the badass factor.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Bluesgal said:


> Yep, the facts are just too hard to deal with..
> 
> the Sherrif said it was an "AK47 type assault rifle firing .223 rounds".... There's a mistake in there.. just can't figure out if it was the reporter, the sheriff or both....
> 
> AK-47 in a .223.. really????


Most are in 7.62x39 but you can find them in .223


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

And to the Op when was this world ever safe .:viking: A man well trained with a knife could killed as many :fussin:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> The NRA who I think DOES do good things and a lot of right wing groups have fostered this sort of end times porn that people feed on and since so few hunt this fantasy is driving the market. Most of the people who subscribe to that sort of thinking are harmless but some like Mc Veigh are not, and with the glorification of the military and violence in our culture it's only natural that some will attempt to use them to carry out their fantasies.
> 
> I've known people, they could have had WAY more fun buying something like a Ruger Mark 3 and instead they bought some overpowered Glock or something that they can't shoot well and costs an arm and a leg to buy ammo just because of the badass factor.


I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I get my information from them. I base my beliefs on what the founding fathers of this country said on the issue:



> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence â¦ 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 â¦ the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> George Washington





> "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> Richard Henry Lee





> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> Thomas Jefferson


Some people do not see the necessity to preserve freedom; I am not one of them.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Any rifle can be an assault rifle even a flint lock if it is used to shoot at anybody. Assault rifles came about during the 70"s and has been in the news every since before then you never heard of assault rifles because the name did not exist. So I guess you could say that any rifle made after the 70"s could be an assault rifle but any made before they made up a word are not.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

I think every household should have one.At least a couple thousand rounds of ammo also.You have to be willing and able to protect yourself from a foreign government taking us over and also be able to protect yourself from our own government.These incidents will happen,but that is the price we have to pay.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

I want to be armed the same as my opponent in a Combat situation.Plane and simple!

big rockpile


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

big rockpile said:


> I want to be armed the same as my opponent in a Combat situation.Plane and simple!
> 
> big rockpile


I would want to armed just a little better. There is no such thing as a fair gunfight.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Sawmill Jim said:


> And to the Op when was this world ever safe .:viking: A man well trained with a knife could killed as many :fussin:


Yelp seems they have been dealing with this lately.All weapons are just Tools.

3 LA-area homeless people found stabbed with notes - Yahoo! News

big rockpile


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mare said:


> the thing is this guy was considered a honest person until he snapped--and i doubt there is anybody alive that doesnt have the capability of snapping.


But very few do. Well over 99.999% of guns held by private citizens have never killed anyone. If someone goes off the deep end and wants to murder people, he will find a way. Next time you're in a crowd, think what would happen if someone snapped and drove into the crowd at 60 mph.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I want to be armed better than my opponent.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

poppy said:


> But very few do. Well over 99.999% of guns held by private citizens have never killed anyone. If someone goes off the deep end and wants to murder people, he will find a way. Next time you're in a crowd, think what would happen if someone snapped and drove into the crowd at 60 mph.


I wonder what would have happened if James Holmes hadn't been the only one in the theater that was armed?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

ninny said:


> Assault weapon: 12 gauge shotgun, extended magazine loaded with double O buckshot will make an AR15 look downright tame. Are we gonna outlaw shotguns also? F.B.I. agents are quoted as saying they had rather face someone with a rifle or handgun then face someone with a shotgun.
> 
> .


Got to agree 12Ga. Close Quarters very deadly.

big rockpile


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> I wonder what would have happened if James Holmes hadn't been the only one in the theater that was armed?


Agreed, if he thought or knew that one or two in the theater was armed, he would have picked another target or none at all. He is a lilly livered coward. He did not fight it out with the police. He knew they had guns and would kill him.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

making any firearm illegal is not the answer.

Public casteration, old school fashion with a pocket knife and a couple dudes to hold the offender still, before public hanging would go a long way to prevent the unpreventable. This, of course, having been sentanced by a judge.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Just how many high capacity magazines are emptied at crime scenes? Out of the millions currently owned or available, the number is miniscule. I would bet though, there are a lot of people in Chicago who wish they had them (or anything).

Would the word "assault" even be used if they didn't look like military weapons? People who are so against them need to realize they operate just like half the hunting rifles, and in many cases, are less powerful.

ETA: Stay away from crowds.


----------



## Countrybumpkin (May 12, 2002)

Perhaps things would change if the US made it a manditory 2 year hitch in the armed forces, teach the youth proper firearm usage and tactics, level the playing field, if you will, and weed out those who are not fit to use a weapon in the first place. Might take a generation, but things would change.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Countrybumpkin said:


> Perhaps things would change if the US made it a manditory 2 year hitch in the armed forces, teach the youth proper firearm usage and tactics, level the playing field, if you will, and weed out those who are not fit to use a weapon in the first place. Might take a generation, but things would change.


That is similar to what the Swiss do. Good system they have going there.

.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

To those who do not feel the need to own an AK, M1A or AR-15....fine.

Leaves more for me!

Never forget the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so we could protect ourselves from our own government!

Who here thinks our government is more trustworthy today than 200 years ago?

Anyone??


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tarbe said:


> Never forget the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so we could protect ourselves from our own government!
> 
> Who here thinks our government is more trustworthy today than 200 years ago?
> 
> Anyone??


Why was an untrustworthy government formed? If it is untrustworthy then why has it been kept in place for 200 years?

.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Back when the 2nd was put on paper the weapon of the day was a flint lock......
In its time it was a formidable "assault" weapon.............

But times and technology sure have changed...........

Back in my Army days I remember the pleasure of firing some interesting stuff.........
Watching a 90MM go down range 1500-2000 yards and hit the target.........
Wouldn't mind having one of those...........

But like some one else has said fed rules and regs and $$$$$$$$$$$ prohibit that.

So I'll stand up for anybody who likes these modern fire sticks...........


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Why was an untrustworthy government formed? If it is untrustworthy then why has it been kept in place for 200 years?
> 
> .



I feel foolish for answering this, but I will anyway.

Humans cannot be trusted with un-checked power. They will abuse it.

Repeat that 500 times or until you get it.


----------



## Countrybumpkin (May 12, 2002)

Thank you, tarbe. One only has to look at early 1930s Germany to see how true that statement is. Think that couldn't happen here, or anywhere on Earth for that matter? Think again.


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> You want it with new tires or as is United States Model 1918 U.S. 155mm "Schneider" Howitzer for sale
> 
> Many black powder cannons are legal


Can I borrow $17,950. plus shipping fees? Where can Ifind loads for it too.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Rights or no rights is beside the point. Why do you WANT it? Do you think you need it? If so, why?
> 
> .


Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the first semi-auto shotgun was made around 1900. The first semi-auto rifle came soon after. Those preceded any interest in the army in acquiring a semi-auto rifle or what is now called an assault weapon in certain configuraions.. 

Hunters bought semi-auto rifles because of the quick second or third or fourth shot available if they missed. For some it was, and for some still is, a means of making sure they had meat for their family. I bought one to thin the deer herd around here. When four of them are munching on the garden, flowers or shubbery, I can count on getting two out of four with a bolt action. With a semi-auto I have a much better chance of getting all four before they get into the woods.

Most people don't understand that some still hunt year round in this country to feed their families.

The assault weapon I've used is for trespassers. The most distinguishing feature is the ability to use larger capacity magazines. If magazine capacity is your concern, be aware that making one isn't that big a deal for many people with a well equipped home workshop. Any of the millions of semi-auto hunting rifles with detachable magazines could be turned into assault weapons.

FWIW, fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are also legal to own by federal law. You have to comply with federal regulations to buy one which can take six months or longer. Some states prohibit them for private ownership while many do not. Generally they are expensive to exremely expensive due to the collectors value. Normally you won't find them at most firearms dealers.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Why was an untrustworthy government formed? If it is untrustworthy then why has it been kept in place for 200 years?
> 
> .


An untrustworthy government was not formed. The forefathers did not trust future government. Hence the 2nd ammendment.

Seems they had foresight.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

I understand that weak minds afraid of an inantimate object can't comprehend reality but here goes.....Assault Rifle must have 3 capabilities-1.Sub .30 caliber(that means under .30 cal),2.Magazine fed,3.Full auto fire capable....If the firearm is a .30cal or above with same capabilities-It is called a Battle Rifle.......These are accurate terms used by armorers worldwide.....
More people are killed in America by .22 cal than any other caliber....
Calling a semi-auto or self loading rifle -a "Assault Rifle" is a politically correct term made up by anti-firearm/statist lovers to confuse the average nitwit(refer to previous above posts).If I buy a 72 Charger and paint it Petty Blue-I ain't driving Richards car.
If YOU don't want to own a semi-auto rifle-DON'T....
Semi-auto lookalike rifles are used in less than 1% of all murders/shootings...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> You asked why do people need assault rifles. People don't need them. Nobody needs them. People want them.
> 
> So I would ask, why do people want them? Is it *to stroke their ego and make them feel big?*
> 
> .


You have NO CLUE at all, do you?

There is NO difference in an "assault rifle" and any OTHER semi auto firearm other than APPEARANCE


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> *Why was an untrustworthy government formed?* If it is untrustworthy then why has it been kept in place for 200 years?


Who said one was?

ANY "Govt" can BECOME oppressive.

We overthrew one to become a country


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Guns don't jump up and kill anybody by themselves. Blaming the weapons for the people who mis-use them is like blaming forks for obesity. If you can put your personal fears of guns aside and really think about it logically, the 2nd amendment is brilliant. It gives US citizens power and freedom that most of the rest of they world will never know. It also gives the home soil an extra layer of security, who wants to send in troops when the populace is armed?? For all the millions of guns that are in the possession of our population, the percentage of mis-use of them is really low. It is easy to get emotional when something this awful happens, but if you stop and think how many other people own the same weapons as this guy did and you will never hear about them on the news, it might put it into perspective.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger. 

The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.

That's why people want to own weapons like that - so less effort and conscience is required to make the maximum number of kills in the shortest period of time.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Why was an untrustworthy government formed? If it is untrustworthy then why has it been kept in place for 200 years?
> 
> .


They were formed because a government was necessary, and there is no other kind. All governments are untrustworthy.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


When it becomes necessary to kill someone, I want to put as little effort into it as possible. If there are a lot of them, I'll need to conserve energy and ammunition; and you're right, I don't want to waste time feeling guilty about it later.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Bluesgal said:


> Yep, the facts are just too hard to deal with..
> 
> the Sherrif said it was an "AK47 type assault rifle firing .223 rounds".... There's a mistake in there.. just can't figure out if it was the reporter, the sheriff or both....
> 
> AK-47 in a .223.. really????


Yes, really. The Century Arms WASR is chambered in either 7.62x39 or.223 Remington, and there are many AK style kits in .223. The Polytech AK-47 Underfolder is chambered in .223 as well.

But it doesn't matter, he had an AR15


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it.
> 
> .



No, no, you don't! 

But that's ok. You are surrounded by millions in the US and Canada alike who do get it. We will keep the continent more or less free for you.


Tim


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


Conscience has to do with a person's moral fiber, not what kind of gun they own. Or do you really believe that if I have a gun with a magazine instead of the ol' 1800's technology 6 shooter, this makes me a bad person or means I have no conscience?? 

Millions of people in the U.S. own guns just as "sophisticated" as what that deviant, evil person had, but they won't mis-use them and you will never know of their existence because they won't make the news.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> They should only be used in the military, if you ask my point of view.
> 
> how are we going to keep these kind of rifles out of the wrong persons hand? How do we know they're criminals.


That was the argument Hitler used to disarm the citizens too. Its also the reason our founding fathers insisted that our citizenry never be disarmed. 

How do we keep them out of the wrong hands? I would strongly suggest a return to prompt and fair justice.... hanging sounds fine to me. If you will note when public hangings were more common... these incidents were pretty rare.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


Typical pseudo-intellectual bullcrap.I fear emotionally unstable people ..like yourself...with a single shot .22 more than I fear any good law abiding American with an real automatic weapon...:bowtie:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

oldasrocks said:


> Can I borrow $17,950. plus shipping fees? Where can Ifind loads for it too.


Did you ask about rent to own ???? Make you own ammo no big thing . Still less than a car :whistlin: Which would impress your neighbors the most :shrug:


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

oldasrocks said:


> Can I borrow $17,950. plus shipping fees? Where can Ifind loads for it too.


Black powder and whatever you tamp down the barrel on top of powder charge....Just please don't hold up any liquor stores with it...The canadians may get very,very afraid


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


Do you hunt?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> "Shall not be infringed" means if I want and can afford a howitzer I should be able to own it


How about a 10 megaton Nuke?

I'm serious, where does it stop?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> How about a 10 megaton Nuke?
> 
> I'm serious, where does it stop?


I think that would be out of most folks range of understanding or storage .Much less the ability to lob it at the neighbor . Also it comes under explosive devices . Just be happy with the cannon i posted if you need more than that i'm sorry for you luck and you should move to a better area . :teehee:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Where does it stop indeed?

The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.

How many more times does it have to happen, and with increasing numbers of victims per shooter, before something is done to put a stop to this type of travesty? All because ordinary citizens think they have a "right" to possess weapons of mass destruction.

What will it take to make it stop? Death penalty won't do it. The types of people who commit such acts are anticipating their own deaths anyway.

.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


Yes, effortless kills, less time.

Whether your fighting off a pack of wolves or a pack of theives, a semi-auto has benifits.

I once killed 6 of 8 dogs that had my horse surounded with a semi-auto .22 and 16 rounds in the tube. I fired ten of 16. Had to double pop a couple,,,,,,,,,,cuz it was a .22.

Aim,,,,,,,,squeaze. Aim,,,,,,,,,squeaze. Aim,,,,,,,,,squeaze. Ai,,,,,,,,,well you get the idea.

I think I'd of got 8 for 8 with a larger caliber.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


WAG here but what is your socialistic suggestion ??? Disarm the citizens :whistlin:Mine would be arm everyone then who wants to fire that first shot . 

Notice where guns are harder to get they just use different things in the UK knifes are a huge problem . But a gallon of gas would do wonders too . 

Socialist always want to punish the innocent first .:bowtie:


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


No they are not, or they would fight not put up their hands when the police show.

Most of the freaks here enjoy the limelight.

A public death for people to see actuall consequence, not read about a nice clean IV putting them to sleep, would do wonders.

Too bad if ya don't like the guns. It's actually nunyabidness.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Rights or no rights is beside the point. Why do you WANT it? Do you think you need it? If so, why?
> 
> .


I don't have any assault rifles, but I do have a few AKs and AR-15s
Do I need them?
Not yet
Do I want them?
Yes I do.
I assume you only have things you need and nothing you want just for the sake of wanting it?
For most of us, shooting and guns are a great hobby, we collect them, shoot them, compete with our friends, etc.
Nobody _needs _a bowling ball
Nobody _needs _a TV
Nobody _needs _27 pairs of shoes
Nobody _needs _a laptop computer


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> That's why people want to own weapons like that - so less effort and conscience is required to make the maximum number of kills in the shortest period of time.
> 
> .


 The time is coming when that just might come in handy....
GH


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


 Putting up a sign that states,,,"All ushers are carrying" might do it.
other than that,,, you can't outlaw stupidity.
GH


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Now hunting Google i found that country's that have strict gun laws or no guns allowed have more gun offences per 100,000 than the US does . So comrades explane that .
Thing is they try jumbling their figures seven different ways from sunset but you can sift it out .


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> WAG here but what is your socialistic suggestion ??? Disarm the citizens :whistlin:Mine would be arm everyone then who wants to fire that first shot .
> 
> Notice where guns are harder to get they just use different things in the UK knifes are a huge problem . But a gallon of gas would do wonders too .
> 
> Socialist always want to punish the innocent first .:bowtie:


Seeing as how I'm a capitalist gun owner living in a capitalist country I'm afraid I can't answer your question from a socialist's point of view. I don't know what a socialist's point of view would be anyway, and I don't think you know either.

Going on a rampage of killing is not about politics or socialism or capitalism. It's about mental illness.

I do not believe that disarming citizens is the answer to putting a stop to these kinds of shooting incidents. 

I do believe that the availability of such weapons needs to be restricted to military use only. I don't believe anyone else needs them.

Your comment about knives is a red herring and immature. It has nothing to do with the question at hand, you're just using that as excuse to skirt around the real issue. It's true that a person on a killing rampage can do a lot of damage with a knife, but how many times has a single person with a knife killed and injured so many people at one time in one place?

All this old yada yada rhetoric about knives and cars is old. Can't anyone come up with something new besides that useless old rhetoric?

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


I doubt that the reason he shot a theater is because it is illegal to have gun in it. End all gun free zones and have a cc permit allowed to carry one anywhere and this type of thing will go mostly away. There will be a few bun not as bad or long lasting.
I agree with the Canadian government that redistrict the caring of a gun by citizens because you can't trust Canadians to do the right thing. That goes for some of the States like Illinois they know their citizens can't be trusted with a loaded weapon. But in the south we have a shall issue cc permit and we have shown that we can be trusted to carry except around schools and government buildings.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> All because ordinary citizens think they have a "right" to possess weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> 
> .


We don't _think _we have the right, we _do _have the right to own our firearms
Now you are calling an AR a "weapon of mass destruction"?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Easy for you to say about knifes in the UK but i bet these 277 would differ with you 

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year! 

Hey and these ore old numbers they have had time to improve by now .


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That was the argument Hitler used to disarm the citizens too. Its also the reason our founding fathers insisted that our citizenry never be disarmed.


Hitler government didn't disarm German citizens, he relaxed some of the laws. German Citizens were barred ownership before that, and restrictive laws on ownership were allowed in 1928. Under the Nazi's, (1938 laws) exemptions from permits were even allowed...Hunters, government workers, and NS party members didn't need a license under Hitler. Jews, who weren't considered citizens of Germany, were the only ones not allowed firearms, and that was added after Kristallnacht, 8 months after Hitler came to power.




> In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
> 
> In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
> 
> ...


Firearms Laws In Nazi Germany.
On Gun Registration, the Nra, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars by Bernard Harcourt :: SSRN

Don't take this as defending his actions of banning firearms for Jews, I'm just clarifying a misconception that Hitler banned guns. I do see parallels between Hitler and the US at this time however. 

Classification of people as domestic terrorists, watch lists, etc.

Disarming any segment of a society, under racial, ethnic, or other protected classifications is wrong under any circumstances.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Why do I want a shot gun, hand gun, and semi-auto rifle and would have full auto if i could find it?

1. The supreme court has ruled that cops do not have a legal obligation to protect you, me, or my family. So it is up to me to protect my family.

2. My farm can be anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes from the nearest cop depending on the time of day and day of week. So it is up to me to protect my family.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> We don't _think _we have the right, we _do _have the right to own our firearms
> Now you are calling an AR a* "weapon of mass destruction"?*


Yes. Any weapon that can kill or maim so many in such a short period of time is a weapon of *mass* destruction.

.


----------



## Bandit (Oct 5, 2008)

1. The supreme court has ruled that cops do not have a legal obligation to protect you, me, or my family. So it is up to me to protect my family.

2. My farm can be anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes from the nearest cop depending on the time of day and day of week. So it is up to me to protect my family.[/QUOTE]

They Anti Firearm's Crowd Will Never believe that Decision .
I believe in Supporting Them in There's.
http://www.dizzyboy.com/jokes/funny-pictures/unarmed-house.jpg
Bandit


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Well I don't think I need to define Assult Rifle. You all purty much know what rifles I'm talking about. Whether it's a semi or fully auto and holds more then a dozen or so shells and can be quickly reloaded within a few seconds, is purty much a assult rifle. 



Ambereyes said:


> Guess it is always easier to blame an inanimate object than to understand the atrocities that humans can perpetrate.


Yes, but if that inanimate object wasn't capable of shooting so many rounds in such a short time, then maybe the Aurora massacre wouldn't be up to 70 dead and wounded people. 



Hollowdweller said:


> Said on the news it was an AR15 knock off made by S and W.
> 
> Why do people want them? Because they look cool is my best guess.
> 
> ...


Some good points there Hollowdweller. A lot of ownership is the attraction and too many "Rambo" movies. 

Last deer season while out in the woods I met a cuz of mine. He had his 6 year old daughter with him. Besides the little girl the first thing I noticed was he was carrying two rifles with him. A 30-06 bolt action and a AR15 or 47/whatever. He had to show off his AR to me, explaining that it has two bannana clips held together with each having 30 rounds. Shoot the first 30 rounds and flip the clip over and you have another 30 rounds to shoot. Then he tells me he brought his daughter along in hopes of her getting her first deer ever. I thought to myself "Well which rifle is she going to use?" "the 30-06 will knock her on her but_, and the assult rifle looks a bit too complicated for a 6 year old to be shootin". Then I got to thinking, we are only allowed 2 deer during deer season, why would a person need a rifle that holds 60 rounds to go deer hunting with. 

Yep, it's a ego thing. 



Sawmill Jim said:


> And to the Op when was this world ever safe .:viking: A man well trained with a knife could killed as many :fussin:


So your saying that a man well trainned with a knife could have walked into a theater and killed or wounded 70 people before they all got away? 

You definitely have been watching too many "Rambo" movies. 



Old Vet said:


> Any rifle can be an assault rifle even a flint lock if it is used to shoot at anybody.


Right! But, any rifle cannot produce 70 casualties in a theater in such a short time before the people escape to safety. Not even a flint lock rifle. Thats why there needs to be a limit of how much ammo a rifle can hold and how fast it can be reloaded. 



deaconjim said:


> I wonder what would have happened if James Holmes hadn't been the only one in the theater that was armed?


I wonder how many lives could have been saved if James Holmes had to stop and reload after every 5 shots? 


Hey you all! I know limiting the number of ammo a rifle can hold isn't going to solve the crime problems. But limiting the number a rifle can hold might let a few people escape that probably wouldn't have. One of those people might be you one of these days. Hopefully you'll never have to experience anything like this. But if it does, I hope you live to tell about it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I have to disagree with you Canadian. Like the men in Switzerland in the army and reserves who are required to keep an assault weapon at home, I think that should be universal. Here's my reason. The picture below is of my second cousin Beilo on my father's side. It was taken in 1937 in Nisko, Austria when she was 15. Sometime later she died near Krakow, Poland probably at Auschwitz, Birkenau or another concentration camp in that area. There are six million other reasons the people's rights to small arms, military or oherwise, are sacrosanct from my point of view.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Oldcountryboy you think people are to stupid to make bigger magazines for a rifle or pistol . You need to turn off your tv and go to fabrication school . My son has a 9mm pistol holds 30 and a 22 holds 50 these are pistols . Also even 10 rounds in a mag press a button mag drops slap another one in . 

Knew a fellow once would bet you a hundred dollars he could fire 4 shots with a double barrel shot gun before you could with a pump . 

You ever saw a really trained guy shoot a pistol or someone that practiced hours at a time . These guys can even work threw a jam in seconds or less . And most mentally count shots or fire two then three and repeat .I have seen one person burn 10 boxes of 40 cal at one practice .

maybe the next nut will build a flamethrower the plans are on the internet .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Yes. Any weapon that can kill or maim so many in such a short period of time is a weapon of *mass* destruction.


He could have killed more if he'd made firebombs instead of smokebombs.

About 3000 were killed with a couple of airplanes on 9-11
No one has called for banning them


Less than 1 percent of ALL firearms are ever used to *commit a crime*, much less to KILL someone

Stop blaming an OBJECT for the actions of a HUMAN

The Butcher



> After every mass shooting *anti-gun groups blame the availability of firearms* and promote their standard list of gun laws whether *relevant or not*. But guns are just one tool of mass murder, not the most efficient tool, and NOT a motivation. i.e. no one suddenly realizes that they can legally buy a gun, and because of it decide to go to the mall and murder everyone they see.





> By no coincidence *all of the worst mass murders in US history have been non-gun.*


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I used to be afraid of any gun. They were scary to me. A symbol of violence, savaged, meaness, criminals. I never would have thought I would ever be a person to say to my son "Look, you know the rules so call your friend up before he leaves his house to make sure he brings a gun and bullets.---Look I am not going to have time to drive him home to get it." 

I worry more about people hiking with out all the tools needed. From bear spray, knives, and a gun. It is a tool. Now I would love to provide my son with all the best and that includes wishing that I could provide him with a much better gun. I am doing what I can. He has had a state approved training (very cheap and such a BANG for the 10 dollars. 

I have learned that guns are just tools and there are tools that fall in a family grouping. Knifes -butter, paring, butchering, machete--each servers a function. The same goes for guns. One has to have possession of one to handle it. How can one learn to handle one if you keep the tools away. 

I can understand other peoples standing but if you are not comfortable with a gun do not get one but if someone is legally able to own one let it be. It is tragic what happened today and in the past and though I am not a physic the future too. But there will be people who die at they hands of someone ----and not because they are defending themself. Some might be slipped a 20pz non diet soda. 

I am grateful to all that DO carry, own, and practice with a gun. I know I lack the ability to safely deal personally with a gun --I will leave that to those willing and able. Thank YOU. I will support the right to bear ARMS. I now understand that a cc permit is the first aid card to protection from those who are dangerous--be they man or wildlife. I know I feel safer when someone does have a gun..

There was a kidnapping here. Someone was trespassing and the grandson (adult) asked the person to leave. The bad man had the gun the good man did not (but he did have a spare set of car keys) He was force into his own car and force to drive him down our way. The only road connecting one part of Alaska to another was shut down for 4 hours as they searched for him (bad man had the good man pullover to make a nature call but took the key out. the good man used the his spare key)--So we have two news storys of the day. Each disturbing --in one Why are there guns and in another it is if only he had had a gun when the bad man was just lurking around the grand mother's hours.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The *more oomph* the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the *more effortless kills* can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


There you go spouting mindless RHETORIC instead of using your *normal *LOGICAL way of thinking.

You usually do SO much better at sticking to facts instead of relying on emotion and ignorance.

You're *insulting *the MILLIONS of gun owners who have NEVER *MISUSED *their guns, based on the actions of* ONE* LUNATIC


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> All this old yada yada rhetoric about knives and cars is old. Can't anyone come up with something new besides that useless old rhetoric?
> 
> .


 How bout,, its in our "constitution" for a reason, and,, because I can.. Enough said...
Obviously,, its not for you to understand. But,,, you do have to accept the fact.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I think what will inevitably happen as a consequence of continued incidents like this is that people will still keep their right to bear arms but there will be restrictions placed on quantity of ammunition and the means to make ammunition. I don't think there's anything in the constitution that says people have the right to acquire all the ammunition they want, only that they have the right to bear arms. It won't be so easy in the future for people to walk into a supplier and buy boxes and boxes of ammunition - or to order thousands of rounds off internet the way this guy did during the past month. It won't be easy for millions and millions of people to be making their own home made ammunition either if they want extra.



Oldcountryboy said:


> ..... One of those people might be you one of these days. Hopefully you'll never have to experience anything like this. But if it does, I hope you live to tell about it.


There is a most ironic coincidence about this last incident. Jessica Ghawi, an aspiring young sports journalist from Texas, and one of the women that was killed in the theatre in Aurora, had narrowly missed being shot at Toronto's Eaton Centre last month when she was visiting there on holiday. In her own words from her blog after the Toronto incident, the Toronto shooting made her think about life and mortality.

She had written on her blog on June 5 that she was eating inside of the Eaton Centre food court when an "odd feeling" made her walk out of the shopping mall just minutes before shots rang out. She wrote:​ 
_"It&#8217;s hard for me to wrap my mind around how a weird feeling saved me from being in the middle of a deadly shooting. What started off as a trip to the mall to get sushi and shop, ended up as a day that has forever changed my life. I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders&#8217; faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don&#8217;t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath."_


Jessica lived to tell about it the first time but didn't live to tell about it the second time.











.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can't anyone come up with something new besides that *useless old rhetoric*?


That's what I've thought about most of your comments on this topic.

If you look at honest data, more die every year from ALCOHOL than from guns

Where's the outcry against that *horrible drug that's killing innocent children, and is only used to get high?*

(See how silly emotional rhetoric sounds?)


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

LOL Bear, get a grip on yourself and stop being so emotional yourself. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks about my comments so there's no point in all of you getting personal and making direct insults at me about it. 

If you and other people are getting personal and all emotional reacting to what I say that tells me something. I figure that means some of you are feeling a guilty conscience because you recognize but don't want to acknowledge a serious problem looming on the horizon and that everybody is a participant of that problem.

I call that avoidance on top of skirting around the problem with useless rhetoric.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Right! But, any rifle cannot produce 70 casualties in a theater in such a short time before the people escape to safety. Not even a flint lock rifle. Thats why there needs to be a limit of how much ammo a rifle can hold and how fast it can be reloaded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may be right that more people would have escaped had he needed to stop and reload, but more would have lived had even one of them returned fire. Had others been armed at the time, there would have been no violation of constitutionally protected rights. On the other hand, your solution would have infringed upon the rights of everyone in the country. 

From where do you believe the government would get the authority to pass such a law?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I think what will inevitably happen as a consequence of continued incidents like this is that people will still keep their right to bear arms but there will be restrictions placed on quantity of ammunition and the means to make ammunition. I don't think there's anything in the constitution that says people have the right to acquire all the ammunition they want, only that they have the right to bear arms. It won't be so easy in the future for people to walk into a supplier and buy boxes and boxes of ammunition - or to order thousands of rounds off internet the way this guy did during the past month. It won't be easy for millions and millions of people to be making their own home made ammunition either if they want extra.
> 
> .


Ammunition is a vital component of "arms" and the right to purchase ammunition for my guns is protected under the Constitution as well. Let us assume for the sake of argument however, that you are correct. The funny thing about our Constitution is that it is designed to place limits on the government rather than on the people. Congress only has the authority to do the things enumerated under Article 1 Section 8 of the document that extablished it. Nowhere in that clause do I see any reference to regulating the production or sale of ammunition.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

If we don&#8217;t have a way to stand up for our rights and freedom, we wont have any. I believe the only thing that is keeping this government from enslaving us is our guns. And they are chipping away at that too.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

You know, I think it is a valid point to make that, if you think the government should deny us the right to bear arms because people have been killed with guns, then the same logic dictates that, since people have been killed because of religion that the government should ban religion as well. Are you prepared to go there?


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Knew a fellow once would bet you a hundred dollars he could fire 4 shots with a double barrel shot gun before you could with a pump .


I had an uncle that could, with a pump, hit five clays faster than anyone else could with a semi-automatic. When and where I grew up every home had guns, heck I even kept a rifle in my school locker (we had a shooting club at school), and no one ever shot anyone even if you were bullied. 

If a person was so inclined, they could kill more people, faster, with a backpack than any personal firearm produced. 

"O"


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Perhaps we should blame the depravity of man instead of the tool he uses to commit the crime.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

To me an assault weapon is ANYTHING you are pointing at ME.........

Yes that certainly includes a single shot 22.............


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Yes. Any weapon that can kill or maim so many in such a short period of time is a weapon of *mass* destruction.
> 
> .


So then Bush was right, there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq

I know you are from Canada, and you've been taught to be afraid of scary looking guns, but this ain't Canada.
This is America, we don't fear inanimate objects, and we are the largest armed force in the world.
Unfortunately, our faux government will stoop to any level to take away our right to defend ourselves.
Obamaco will take this opportunity to try to infringe on our rights.
We need to get rid of the crazy people, not the guns.
Let's ban insanity


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Well I don't think I need to define Assult Rifle. You all purty much know what rifles I'm talking about. Whether it's a semi or fully auto and holds more then a dozen or so shells and can be quickly reloaded within a few seconds, is purty much a assult rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not the gun
This nut was intent on killing as many people as possible, and if he didn't have a gun, he would have used something else, explosives, poison, a car bomb, etc.
Disarming people doesn't protect people.
Creating an atmosphere of distrust and division is more to blame than guns
This country is in turmoil, we've tolerated the intolerable for so long it's becoming acceptable.
Nobody says a thing when 40 people are shot in Chicago in one weekend, and Chicago has very restrictive gun laws.
People expect that in Chicago, they don't expect it in Colorado.
Unless we are willing to put a SWAT team on every corner in every city in the country, we can't protect people from the crazies.
But we can give people the means to protect themselves.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He could have killed more if he'd made firebombs instead of smokebombs.
> 
> About 3000 were killed with a couple of airplanes on 9-11
> No one has called for banning them
> ...


Statistically, guns are safer than cars


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> LOL Bear, get a grip on yourself and stop being so emotional yourself. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks about my comments so there's no point in all of you getting personal and making direct insults at me about it.
> 
> If you and other people are getting personal and all emotional reacting to what I say that tells me something. I figure that means some of you are feeling a guilty conscience because you recognize but don't want to acknowledge a serious problem looming on the horizon and that everybody is a participant of that problem.
> 
> ...


I'm not insulting you, but you are Canadian, you don't get it.
You've lived in a restrictive socialistic society so long, you think that's the only way to live.
I disagree.
As Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or give me death"
Without guns, there can be no liberty, nit when the Chicago mob is running the country


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wonder how many people in that theater had CCW permits but obeyed the firearms prohibition. Does that mean the theater can be held liable since it created a gun free victim zone? 

I hope that people with a CCW start to routinely ignore those rules by businesses. I'd feel much safer.

I'm always amazed by the arguments people use to justify their desired means when they ignore the root cause and instead pick on something that facillitated the incident.

As pointed out, the killer could have picked an alternative method and still killed lots of people. Suicide bombers do it all the time. Of course that's not in vogue here yet. While we're banning things, lets ban suicide bombers. If we follow the reasoning put forth by our Canadian friend we should ban bombs instead. Of course we already do that. Will that stop some nutcase?

Even if you're armed, someone walking into a theater with the right kind of backpack bomb has a chance of killing you along with lots of other people. 

I'm curious how the shooter in the Toronto, Canada mall shooting that Ms. Ghawi escaped acquired his weapon. Doesn't Canada have stricter gun control laws than the US?

Mr. Holmes had something going on mentally. Here we have rather ineffectual law to prevent those wih mental issues from acquiring firearms. We also have laws against people convicted of certain crimes from buying firearms.

The result is that unidentified nutcases like Holmes or gang members like Husbands in the Toronto mall shooting still get firearms. 

I's a dangerous world out there. Take steps to protect yourself. It's very obvious that the laws and law enforcement aren't going to change that.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


You are not going to put a stop to it. There is nothing anybody can do to sit back and say, this will NEVER happen again. It might be a gun, it might be a bomb, it might be an arson attack. Who knows what a sick mind bent on destruction can think of? The evil side of humanity is always there. Disarming the "good guys" will help, how??


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Oldcountryboy you think people are to stupid to make bigger magazines for a rifle or pistol . You need to turn off your tv and go to fabrication school . My son has a 9mm pistol holds 30 and a 22 holds 50 these are pistols . Also even 10 rounds in a mag press a button mag drops slap another one in .
> 
> Knew a fellow once would bet you a hundred dollars he could fire 4 shots with a double barrel shot gun before you could with a pump .
> 
> ...



No, the next nut will rent a truck, buy some diesel fuel and fertilizer and take down a building full of people and a daycare center. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Should we ban rental trucks, diesel fuel or fertilizer? All three are readily available to any and everyone that wants them. If someone is intent on killing people, they'll find a way. Someone could remove a section of track on an Amtrak railroad and kill a bunch of people. 
All this talk about banning assault weapons, I say again, what is an assault weapon? I once watched a t.v. program in which a guy had a regular looking, off the shelf .22 rifle. Within 5 minutes and a few accessories he had the thing looking just like what many people are calling an assault rifle. There's an accessory that is sold at gun shows and stores that you can put on the trigger of a .22 semi-auto that increases the rate of fire tremendously, almost like having a full auto weapon.
The whole point is, if someone is intent on killing a single person or a bunch of people, they will find a way.

.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Rights or no rights is beside the point. Why do you WANT it? Do you think you need it? If so, why?
> 
> .


Some such as the shooter- Bigger is better,More is Better. The guy felt small,unnoticed, he needed to feel powerful. 

Some like guns. period. They like how they look,work ect.

Some like big powerful vehicles, people that drive SUV's get dogged all the time.

Some collect dogs,cats,junk.sometimes hundreds of them.

What's the point of asking? The guy has issues,does that meen everyone should be punished?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

If anyone else in that theater had been armed, there probably would have been far fewer casualties.

Maybe the solution is more guns, not fewer? :shrug:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

ninny said:


> No, the next nut will rent a truck, buy some diesel fuel and fertilizer and take down a building full of people and a daycare center. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Should we ban rental trucks, diesel fuel or fertilizer? All three are readily available to any and everyone that wants them. If someone is intent on killing people, they'll find a way. Someone could remove a section of track on an Amtrak railroad and kill a bunch of people.
> All this talk about banning assault weapons, I say again, what is an assault weapon? I once watched a t.v. program in which a guy had a regular looking, off the shelf .22 rifle. Within 5 minutes and a few accessories he had the thing looking just like what many people are calling an assault rifle. There's an accessory that is sold at gun shows and stores that you can put on the trigger of a .22 semi-auto that increases the rate of fire tremendously, almost like having a full auto weapon.
> The whole point is, if someone is intent on killing a single person or a bunch of people, they will find a way.
> 
> .


And some have a name Like Reno,slip over the edge,massacre many in a home and walk away free.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yes. Any weapon that can kill or maim so many in such a short period of time is a weapon of *mass* destruction.


I am pretty sure this was an attack on batman fans.... not catholics.


----------



## Minelson (Oct 16, 2007)

pancho said:


> Why would a person want a car that went 100mph? The speed limit is much lower than that. There is absolutely no need for a car that goes over 60mph. Just think of all the lives that would be saved if people were not allowed to have a car that would go over 60mph.
> Then we get into those red cars. Why would a person want such a thing. Look at the number of people killed by red cars.


Since our speed limit is 75 here then I need my truck to be able to go at least 85


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Is this an assault rifle or weapon of mass destruction? How many of you have one similar to this? You should be ashamed. It *could* kill so many, so fast.

[YOUTUBE]lLk1v5bSFPw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Well I don't think I need to define Assult Rifle. You all purty much know what rifles I'm talking about. Whether it's a semi or fully auto and holds more then a dozen or so shells and can be quickly reloaded within a few seconds, is purty much a assult rifle.
> 
> .


I have a Springfield XDM, a semi-auto handgun which I carry concealed. It holds 19 rounds. With a few hours of practice, I got my reload times down to the range of 1.9 to 2.1 seconds. So by your definition, it is an assault rifle. :umno:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I know this will sound callous and my sympathies go out to the families of this horrible incedent, but, 146 people died in an incedent involving a fary boat. They appear to be MUCH more dangerous than any gun, what's the government goint to do about them?


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

How many of you own one of these "assault rifles" or "weapon of mass destruction"? 


[YOUTUBE]2GsmUzSBaUQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Minelson said:


> Since our speed limit is 75 here then I need my truck to be able to go at least 85


Since the speed limit is 75 there should not be a vehicle that goes over 50mph. What need is there for anything that will go the speed limit? It is much safer to go below the speed limit.

How about we limit all vehicles to 2 clyinders? Maybe that will stop people from speeding and killing others.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Just how many high capacity magazines are emptied at crime scenes?


The answer is MANY high capacity magazines are emptied at crime scenes ... when cops are there and trying take down an armed and violent yet to be convicted criminal. The cops shoot fast and furious when a fire fight breaks out. It isn't fire one shot, look to see what happened, think about it, check again to see if the bad guy is bleeding, and then consider whether you might want to start getting ready to fire again.

A few years back when cops raided a motel near my home, the bad guy got off one round and the 5 cops fired something like 70 within just a few seconds. It was all considered justifiable because the bad guy drug dealer was trying to fight his way out of the motel room. 

While I hope to never have to draw my gun in anger, if things go bad, I want to have the ability to engage in the same tactics cops use to protect themselves.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

naturelover said:


> That is similar to what the Swiss do. Good system they have going there.
> 
> .


Israelis also...

.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Possum Belly said:


> Is this an assault rifle or weapon of mass destruction? How many of you have one similar to this? You should be ashamed. It *could* kill so many, so fast.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]lLk1v5bSFPw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


My wife owns the same revolver that Jerry Miceluk used in that video!

Here is a photo of WIHH's S&W Model 625JM "Jerry Miceluk Special" in .45acp....


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Darren said:


> I wonder how many people in that theater had CCW permits but obeyed the firearms prohibition.


My vision plays awful tricks on me. I can see just fine down the sights of a gun and do a pretty darn good job of hitting my targets. But if I'm about town and I see one of those signs on a door, I have a hard time ever figuring out whether it is a guns prohibited or guns welcomed sign. Sometimes I never figure out what that sign was supposed to say until I'm leaving the place.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

naturelover said:


> I think what will inevitably happen as a consequence of continued incidents like this is that people will still keep their right to bear arms but there will be restrictions placed on quantity of ammunition and the means to make ammunition. I don't think there's anything in the constitution that says people have the right to acquire all the ammunition they want, only that they have the right to bear arms. It won't be so easy in the future for people to walk into a supplier and buy boxes and boxes of ammunition - or to order thousands of rounds off internet the way this guy did during the past month. It won't be easy for millions and millions of people to be making their own home made ammunition either if they want extra.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting that Canada's strict gun control laws did not prevent this incident from occurring in Toronto.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We have had people use over the counter meds as a way to kill. Maybe STORES should close. 

Gas and matches have killed they must be controled.

cars and booze should be ended. 
Get rid of movies and movies theatres, churches are not safe nor are schools, Oh, then there are the hospital shootings. 

knifes,
rocks
water,
cars
fertilizer
guns
rope
poison
hands
pillows


Man is what kills he will always find a tool, if needed to kill. Sorry people who transfer the power to the tool are not looking are the problem --it is man free will and ability and a misguided mind. I was scared of guns for what they could do to the point that I did not see what they were meant to do. They are meant to keep people safe. I have learned the value of having a gun in the hands of a trained skilled person. I was about 20 feet from my kitchen door and I did not see or even know that I was walking into a bear behind a tree and in the bushes thank God someone DID have a gun (ok it was a duck hunting gun--but it did get the brownie to lose interest in me=6 bullets later by a F& G person --It reared and got aggressive first and not just myself but everyone was safe)

I do not personally carry a gun because I lack the skill. Not everyone has to. It would have been better if others had a gun. Cameras stop crimes and are often suggested as a means to deter trespassers, and shoplifters, "Put a sign up stating that you have a camera and that should stop it" Well a sign saying guns allowed work too. Criminals do not wish to to be a victim thats why they use force.. Give power to the good folks and the bad folks will be out numbered thus a better society.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Interesting that Canada's strict gun control laws did not prevent this incident from occurring in Toronto.


And Norway's did not stop their massacre that was even more deadly than the movie theatre.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Interesting that Canada's strict gun control laws did not prevent this incident from occurring in Toronto.


Maybe Canadian bad guys don't have the decency to follow the rules and restrictive laws
Laws are created to control the lawful and punish the unlawful, but they do not protect the innocent


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The world just isn't a safe place, there are crazy people in it. You can't legislate enough to stop them, just be prepared to deal with them.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Cabin Fever said:


> My wife owns the same revolver that Jerry Miceluk used in that video!
> 
> Here is a photo of WIHH's S&W Model 625JM "Jerry Miceluk Special" in .45acp....


Bet she can shoot it well too.  :run:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Melissa said:


> The world just isn't a safe place, there are crazy people in it. You can't legislate enough to stop them, just be prepared to deal with them.


Yep, ya cant fix stupid..... but it can be dealt with.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

zant said:


> I understand that weak minds afraid of an inantimate object can't comprehend reality but here goes.....Assault Rifle must have 3 capabilities-1.Sub .30 caliber(that means under .30 cal),2.Magazine fed,3.Full auto fire capable....If the firearm is a .30cal or above with same capabilities-It is called a Battle Rifle.......These are accurate terms used by armorers worldwide.....
> More people are killed in America by .22 cal than any other caliber....
> Calling a semi-auto or self loading rifle -a "Assault Rifle" is a politically correct term made up by anti-firearm/statist lovers to confuse the average nitwit(refer to previous above posts).If I buy a 72 Charger and paint it Petty Blue-I ain't driving Richards car.
> If YOU don't want to own a semi-auto rifle-DON'T....
> Semi-auto lookalike rifles are used in less than 1% of all murders/shootings...


ahhh. . Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the standard AK round, 7.62X39 a .30 caliber rd?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> If anyone else in that theater had been armed, there probably would have been far fewer casualties.
> 
> Maybe the solution is more guns, not fewer? :shrug:


I'm surprised I agree with you wg but think also he did have Full Body Armor,shots could of kept him occupied,Head shot would have been Great.

big rockpile


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

big rockpile said:


> I'm surprised I agree with you wg but think also he did have Full Body Armor,shots could of kept him occupied,Head shot would have been Great.
> 
> big rockpile


"Full body armor" is a misconception. As you pointed out, a head shot would have been quite effective, but pretty much anywhere below the waist would have had his full attention as well.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

With all the laws being violated does any body think that one more law would have stopped this. The only way it would make any difference is that law abiding citizens would be prevented from doing this but if you are law abiding citizens you would be prevented from this by the law anyway.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...


If he wanted to kill the max number in the min time he would have used a few simple fire "bomb" which you have all the ingredients in your home. They are VERY simple and easy to make, easy to use, cheap, portable and the plans are easy to find on the net. In a matter of a few seconds, well before the fire suppression system would kick in, he could have kiled dozens.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I can remember way back before assult rifles hit the market. Back then there was no mass shootings.


This statement is completely wrong as is usual with the anti-gun crowd. FBI statistics show the incidence of mass killing (more than five in one incident) has remained static for decades. The worst incident of this kind was accomplished with gasoline, not a firearm. To try to blame the actions of a lunatic on a particular mechanism is typical lefty wrongheadedness.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


It will stop when people decided they must protect themselves therefore making tne future shooters realize that they can not do such a thing. That or when the people have given up freedom and allow the government total control. As long as you have freedom there is going to be those who abuse it.

Think about it, the only way to stop slander is to allow the government to control the press.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

naturelover said:


> LOL Bear, get a grip on yourself and stop being so emotional yourself. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks about my comments so there's no point in all of you getting personal and making direct insults at me about it.
> 
> If you and other people are getting personal and all emotional reacting to what I say that tells me something. I figure that means some of you are feeling a guilty conscience because you recognize but don't want to acknowledge a serious problem looming on the horizon and that everybody is a participant of that problem.
> 
> ...


Interesting that you are a mind reader as well as an expert in repeating tired old arguments that have been shown to be false many times.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> LOL Bear, get a grip on yourself and stop being so emotional yourself. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks about my comments so there's no point in all of you getting personal and making *direct insults at me about it*.
> 
> If you and other people are getting personal and all emotional reacting to what I say that tells me something. I figure that means some of you are feeling* a guilty conscience* because you recognize but don't want to acknowledge *a serious problem* looming on the horizon and that everybody is a participant of that problem.
> 
> ...


I haven't "insulted" you any more than *you have insulted* many RESPONSIBLE gun owners

I have nothing to feel "guilty" about, and the "serious problem" is the lies and ignorance that gets spread by rabid anti gunners anytime ONE FOOL does something like this.

The "let's punish everyone" attitude is how you treat KINDERGARTENERS, not adults.

The "right to bear arms" doesn't HAVE to specifically mention ammunition, since ANY right NOT mentioned is retained by THE PEOPLE.

Check your history books if you don't understand THAT part of the Constitution.

The concept dates back a LONG way, and is really just common sense.

If you have a RIGHT to life, you also have a RIGHT to the means to DEFEND your life.

If you have a RIGHT to own firearms, you have a RIGHT to the ammunition that makes them function.

It's not rocket science


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My only "guilt " is that I can't trust my vision enough to use a gun to protect my family and must rely on others to protect me. Yet, knowing one's limitations in a situation is very helpful for all invoked. I prey that the time never comes (same as a car accident or house fire but I prepare for those terrible possible event it would be foolish not to prep for a shtf event). I just can not wrap my mind around banning a tool which can save a life. I have come full circle because of being open minded enough to expose myself and to learn. Education and former debates (when I sat with NL) over time allowed personal grow and respect for guns. 

Please --those who feel that the pro gun support have been wasting their time speaking out logically to gun haters your words do not always fail to educate. 

Just a bit of encouragement to you Pro gun people who speak out.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't "insulted" you any more than *you have insulted* many RESPONSIBLE gun owners
> 
> I have nothing to feel "guilty" about, and the "serious problem" is the lies and ignorance that gets spread by rabid anti gunners anytime ONE FOOL does something like this.
> 
> ...


Show me any rights that any Canadians have? They don't have any that the government gives them and can take away from them. So asking them to to view the rights guaranteed by the constitution is foreign to them.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Where does it stop indeed?
> 
> The incident that prompted this topic is being touted in the news as being the worst mass killing and/or injuries of innocent people by a single shooter in America's history.
> 
> ...


 Here's a curve ball for you,,,see if you can catch it.
The bible was finally written and given to the common man even tho God knew His word would be taken out of context and abused.
How many people have been murdered over religeon? {astronomical}
How many crimes have been commited using guns? {7%}
The bible is just a tool to guide us thru life.
A gun is just a tool to be used for survival,,, and in some cases for fun.
Thank God I can have my bible,,, and my guns..
GH


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The ones who ought to feel guilty are the ones who don't allow firearms in public places if there are laws in place that allow concealed carrying.... As it stands the constitution clearly allows Americans to be armed, there is no restriction in the constitution about what type of arms are allowed. If people don't like that, they can amend the constitution- or at least try. It don't see it ever happening.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "right to bear arms" doesn't HAVE to specifically mention ammunition, since ANY right NOT mentioned is retained by THE PEOPLE.
> 
> If you have a RIGHT to own firearms, you have a RIGHT to the ammunition that makes them function.


No. If something ceases to exist in abundance all the _rights_ in the world cannot demand it to exist again. Nobody can produce in abundance or force someone else to produce in abundance something that is no longer easy or practical to produce at whim. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be food or water or oil or firearms and ammunition.

Mark my words on this. A time will come soon when ammunitions will not be so easy or practical to produce in abundance for the whims of the run of the mill citizens who think they have a right to demand them. When that happens the firearms enthusiasts who like their extravagant toys will have to become conservative with the limited ammunition they can purchase or make and will have to put their extravagant killing toys aside in favour of practical considerations.

You don't think it will happen. I know it will happen. You should bank on it.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> Show me any rights that any Canadians have? They don't have any that the government gives them and can take away from them. So asking them to to view the rights guaranteed by the constitution is foreign to them.


I think it is a good thing for me that you believe what you said there. I encourage you to continue in that belief. 

.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> No. If something ceases to exist in abundance all the _rights_ in the world cannot demand it to exist again. Nobody can produce in abundance or force someone else to produce in abundance something that is no longer easy or practical to produce at whim. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be food or water or oil or firearms and ammunition.
> 
> Mark my words on this. A time will come soon when ammunitions will not be so easy or practical to produce in abundance for the whims of the run of the mill citizens who think they have a right to demand them. When that happens the firearms enthusiasts who like their extravagant toys will have to become conservative with the limited ammunition they can purchase or make and will have to put their extravagant killing toys aside in favour of practical considerations.
> 
> ...


The people in the U.S. has out sourced quite a few different things. Ammo included.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

naturelover said:


> No. If something ceases to exist in abundance all the _rights_ in the world cannot demand it to exist again. Nobody can produce in abundance or force someone else to produce in abundance something that is no longer easy or practical to produce at whim. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be food or water or oil or firearms and ammunition.
> 
> Mark my words on this. A time will come soon when ammunitions will not be so easy or practical to produce in abundance for the whims of the run of the mill citizens who think they have a right to demand them. When that happens the firearms enthusiasts who like their extravagant toys will have to become conservative with the limited ammunition they can purchase or make and will have to put their extravagant killing toys aside in favour of practical considerations.
> 
> ...


There goes quite abit of food. (great idea)
Where is it going? 
Who is going to end it?

That is what should worry people who are anti gun --What would the world look like with out guns. It would NOT be a "care bear" world. NL

As a small framed person who is NOT strong I could be harmed. People with out a moral compass would take advantage of anyone they could. It would be a world with greater violance and fewer freedoms. I can not think of any place in the world were personal freedom flourish when the personal right to self protection is removed. 

Oh, Canada NO --it is a nice place, very clean, but the people do not know what freedom that Americans once had --We are still ahead of you but losing freedom daily. The water here is warming up the Canadian frogs have only known the water to be warm.

I prey for a safer world with freedoms and that comes with the right to bear Arms.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

naturelover said:


> No. If something ceases to exist in abundance all the _rights_ in the world cannot demand it to exist again. Nobody can produce in abundance or force someone else to produce in abundance something that is no longer easy or practical to produce at whim. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be food or water or oil or firearms and ammunition.
> 
> Mark my words on this. A time will come soon when ammunitions will not be so easy or practical to produce in abundance for the whims of the run of the mill citizens who think they have a right to demand them. When that happens the firearms enthusiasts who like their extravagant toys will have to become conservative with the limited ammunition they can purchase or make and will have to put their extravagant killing toys aside in favour of practical considerations.
> 
> ...



Well I guess I'd better get more re-loading equipment..:whistlin:


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> How about a 10 megaton Nuke?
> 
> I'm serious, where does it stop?


Why should it stop?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I think I have enough ammo to last me for quite a while.  If I conserve it I will probably have ammo when I die of old age. 
If ammo gets scarce I will carry a knife along with my gun. For the people who get close I will use the knife and save my ammo for emergencies.
There are quite a few people like me. They already have quite a bit of ammo.


----------



## crispin (Jun 30, 2010)

pancho said:


> I think I have enough ammo to last me for quite a while. If I conserve it I will probably have ammo when I die of old age.
> If ammo gets scarce I will carry a knife along with my gun. For the people who get close I will use the knife and save my ammo for emergencies.
> There are quite a few people like me. They already have quite a bit of ammo.


There are a lot of people like us...


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

pancho said:


> I think I have enough ammo to last me for quite a while. If I conserve it I will probably have ammo when I die of old age.
> If ammo gets scarce I will carry a knife along with my gun. For the people who get close I will use the knife and save my ammo for emergencies.
> There are quite a few people like me. They already have quite a bit of ammo.


We are in pretty good shape when it comes to ammo also and than there are the bows compounds and longbow, thinking about getting a crossbow.. I have some nice swords and never go anywhere without a knife or three..


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> How about a 10 megaton Nuke?
> 
> I'm serious, where does it stop?


I know where there is a couple of 3.5 megaton and maybe a couple of 5 megaton ones.
If we get where we don't have guns or ammo there won't be anything stopping me from getting one.

Then when I say I will blow you away you had better believe it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> Well I guess I'd better get more re-loading equipment..:whistlin:


That would probably be a wise thing for you to do now while you can.

.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

pancho said:


> I think I have enough ammo to last me for quite a while. If I conserve it I will probably have ammo when I die of old age.
> If ammo gets scarce I will carry a knife along with my gun. For the people who get close I will use the knife and save my ammo for emergencies.
> There are quite a few people like me. They already have quite a bit of ammo.


As i told whatishisname ever here of fabrication school :whistlin:
Bet some don't even know you can make your own gunpowder :teehee:
Another thing some of us quit counting rounds and now count pounds of ammo.So let the anti gunners get their sling shot and fire away :teehee:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

naturelover said:


> That would probably be a wise thing for you to do now while you can.
> 
> .


Don't worry about that, I have enough to last quite awhile and can do some pretty good damage with a bow, of course the arrows would be modified.:whistlin:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Ambereyes said:


> Don't worry about that, I have enough to last quite awhile and can do some pretty good damage with a bow, of course the arrows would be modified.:whistlin:


If you like wood arrows better stock up they trying to outlaw cutting any trees too . :whistlin:

And aluminium smelters pollute the air :whistlin:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

pee and ash


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> pee and ash


One of the things needed I have a factory to produce and the other is easily made.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> pee and ash


Lots of formulas .Fire works guys make it all the time .
Homemade Gunpowder | eHow.com


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Mark my words on this. A time will come soon when ammunitions will not be so easy or practical to produce in abundance for the whims of the run of the mill citizens who think they have a right to demand them. When that happens the firearms enthusiasts who like their extravagant toys will have to become conservative with the limited ammunition they can purchase or make and will have to put their extravagant killing toys aside in favour of practical considerations.
> 
> You don't think it will happen. I know it will happen. You should bank on it.
> 
> .


Sadly, I believe this will be true.

This is what can happen over time when anybody can vote.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> No.
> 
> * If something ceases to exist in abundance all the rights in the world cannot demand it to exist again*.
> 
> ...


More mindless rhetoric.
I'm disappointed with you

Once again you show you REALLY don't* know* much about this subject.

Do you know there are back streets in India where they can build most any firearm you want BY HAND?

Think what can be done with *power tools*.

To think guns and ammo can't be made due to some law is ridiculous.

Also, we have them now to* PREVENT* the passage and enforcement of those laws.

Do you know it's "illegal" to own a gun more powerful than a 38 in Mexico?

How's that law working?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Hey but on the bright side i could sell my spare ammo for quarter million bucks if it gets that rare :teehee:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Win07_351 said:


> Sadly, I believe this will be true.
> 
> This is what can happen over time when anybody can vote.


I don't think it has anything to do with who can or cannot vote. It's all about what happens over time with everything that gets taken for granted and used extravagantly in a throw away society. When something is no longer practical or possible to mass produce in a factory then private individuals who think it's essential and want it for themselves will have to put personal time and effort into producing their own. Individuals who have to produce things for themselves tend to be more conservative and practical in what they produce and are less likely to be wasteful and extravagant with their end product.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More mindless rhetoric.
> I'm disappointed with you


Meh. Irrelevant.



> Once again you show you REALLY don't* know* much about this subject.


I know about rationing. 



> Do you know there are back streets in India where they can build most any firearm you want BY HAND?


I'm sure there's probably back streets over here where people can do the same thing.



> Think what can be done with *power tools*.


Power tools work great when they have what it takes to power them.



> To think guns and ammo can't be made due to some law is ridiculous.


Who said anything about any law about not making them? 



> Also, we have them now to* PREVENT* the passage and enforcement of those laws.


That's a laugh. Guns can't stop rationing laws from being put in place. More often than not it's been guns and warfare with them that has caused rationing laws to be put in place.



> Do you know it's "illegal" to own a gun more powerful than a 38 in Mexico?
> 
> How's that law working?


So what?

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with who can or cannot vote. It's all about what happens over time with everything that gets taken for granted and used extravagantly in a throw away society. When something is no longer practical or possible to mass produce in a factory then private individuals who think it's essential and want it for themselves will have to put personal time and effort into producing their own. Individuals who have to produce things for themselves tend to be more conservative and practical in what they produce and are less likely to be wasteful and extravagant with their end product.
> 
> .


You're not knowledgeable about shooting sports in the US are you? Where there's demand, there's supply. You can walk into almost any Walmart in this country and buy reloading supplies. During hunting season many Walmarts have an ammo aisle. It's a beautiful sight. I've gotten some of my best deals on ammo immediately after hunting season.

You don't seem to be aware of what differentiates this country from most others. That's the sovereign states which still pass and enforce their own laws. That is why fully automatic weapons and silencers are legal in many states. BTW, destructive devices, such as hand gernades, are also legal in many states. And you're emotional over a man running amok with a couple of Glocks, a poodle shooter and a 12 gauge? It's sad that happened. It's sadder the business created the victim zone. I hope the victims and their families sue the theater chain for that unfortunate management decision.

Check out the youtube videos of attendees at machine gun meets going through more ammo than you can imagine. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't do that if you have medical issues.

It took two presidential elections for the Democrats to finally learn that firearms are a third rail issue in this country. With the decision of our Supreme Court ruling that firearms ownership is an individual right and the rollback of the Brady Law, private ownership of firearms, including some that you'd probably go apoplectic over, and ammunition is assured.

It's encouraging that the demand for firearms has been on a steep upswing in this country. 

Huff and puff all you want, that's the way it is here. We can buy firearms chambered from .17 up to 20 mm and shoot the hell out of them. If you asked the average rural dweller around here, how many guns they owned, they most likely wouldn't know without stopping and mentallly counting. Yet this state has never had a mass killing.

Meanwhile residents of this great country use firearms daily to defend themselves while sometimes saving the state money since there's no need to incarcerate the attacker afterwards. Is this a great country or what?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

You folks are shooting down my getting rich off my spare ammo plan :grumble:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> ....... Is this a great country or what?


Just fantastic. Like somebody put an irrepressible 2 y.o. alone in a candy store and left him there. :bouncy:


:hysterical:

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Just fantastic. Like somebody put an irrepressible 2 y.o. alone in a candy store and left him there. :bouncy:
> 
> 
> :hysterical:
> ...


I guess you think that we should go under the Canadian government and give all of our guns to the Mexicans so that they can defend them self from drug dealers. If you don't like the way we run our country go some where else to live oh you live in Canada so you are living somewhere else and complaining about our laws or just complaining about the way we live like most other people that live outside our country and trying to get us to become like you.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Just fantastic. Like somebody put an irrepressible 2 y.o. alone in a candy store and left him there. :bouncy:
> 
> 
> :hysterical:
> ...


After I get finished in the candy store, I want one of these since they're legal in this great country.

[YOUTUBE]pYBztSlUyhg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Darren said:


> After I get finished in the candy store, I want one of these since they're legal in this great country.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]pYBztSlUyhg[/YOUTUBE]


I'm with you but if you stop in to go deer hunting you carry your own gun and ammo :bouncy: Oh my back :awh:


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Hey but on the bright side i could sell my spare ammo for quarter million bucks if it gets that rare :teehee:


That ain't a bright side.Where you gunna spend that quarter mil,locked up in a FEMA camp,tighter than Dick's Hat Band?.Besides, just as soon as "O" finds out about that roll you are carrying around,and its big enough to choke a mule,He's gunna usurp it, and send it to Kenya as gratuity for recently doing their part,like burning records,black mailing,tearing down statues and signs about his birthplace,and maybe even demanded some killings.All was a huge plus in his cover up and usurpation.

Plus if there's any Sawmill Jim money left,it can be used to teach all the unmarried women in Kenya,,how to wash up.Especially after sex with the same men who was supposed to have learned how to wash their stuff, from that last shipment of hard earned American citizens money,but,they blew it all on booze, Chinese firecrackers, and lion repellent.:nana:

Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program | CNSNews.com


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

EDDIE BUCK I weren't planning on sharing with O or anyone else .No checks cash turned into silver or silver . Unless every thing goes south and stays there this stash if for the grandchillen :nana:

If the gurberment wants in on the deal the price has got to go up high enough i can buy me a poley tisshion or two . :bouncy::bouncy: An't that the American way :awh:


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Ever notice this when you were a kid? You had a candy bar and your buddy's Mom wouldn't let him have one. All your buddy did was tell you how bad that candy bar was for you and how it probably didn't taste all that good anyhow. Deep inside he wanted that candy bar in the worst way.

Good morning, Naturelover!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Just fantastic. Like somebody put an irrepressible 2 y.o. alone in a candy store and left him there. :bouncy:
> 
> 
> :hysterical:
> ...


True.... but a great many of us "hope" to "change" that situation come november.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

In honor of our neighbors to the north, I took one of my AK-47s out last night and shot some hoes in the ozone


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> In honor of our neighbors to the north, I took one of my AK-47s out last night and shot some hoes in the ozone


*OMG*, you mean there's hoes in the ozone???ound:


.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> In honor of our neighbors to the north, I took one of my AK-47s out last night and shot some hoes in the ozone


Careful there i here they are an endangered species in Canada :bouncy::bouncy:


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Was that like the Imus "hoes" . . . .???

And what the devil were the "hoes" doing in the ozone . . ??

They can't ply their trade there............


Yes Corny I know what you ment . . but I just couldn't resist the Imus thing.........


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

:nana:


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I have a hoer out it my garden right now! (I hope she doesn't read this, or I'll be the one hoeing from now on!)


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> I have a hoer out it my garden right now! (I hope she doesn't read this, or I'll be the one hoeing from now on!)


I'm gonna P.M. her and point it out to her.:nana:


.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Odd.

Our barbaric 2nd ammendment and the hazards some think it causes, yet immigration to the country still happens. Many of these immigrants are refugees. I wonder what they are running from? I suspect that the vast majority must feel it is safer here than in the country they fled, that had much, much stricter gun laws. Many of them fleeing their government.

Just wierd.

Of course, maybe they just saw the Tombstone movies and want the wildwest life. Who wouldn't?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cabin Fever said:


> I have a hoer out it my garden right now! (I hope she doesn't read this, or I'll be the one hoeing from now on!)


I hear she goes armed, you better be ready to run when she sees that. :run:

.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Norway's strict gun laws didn't stop their nut from slaughtering nearly eighty people with one legally purchased handgun and rifle.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

time said:


> Odd.
> 
> Our barbaric 2nd ammendment and the hazards some think it causes, yet immigration to the country still happens. Many of these immigrants are refugees. I wonder what they are running from? I suspect that the vast majority must feel it is safer here than in the country they fled, that had much, much stricter gun laws. Many of them fleeing their government.
> 
> ...


Nearly all of the immigrants come heir by their own will. They find the US a good place to live away from the reason they immigrated from. But most of them know that this country is becoming like the place they left and are saddened by what is about to happen. I hers from an immigrant from Peru on the Rush Limbaugh show and she is afraid of the bribery of public officials here is about as bad as those she left.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

vicker said:


> Norway's strict gun laws didn't stop their nut from slaughtering nearly eighty people with one legally purchased handgun and rifle.


Laws don't stop nutcases in any country from killing people.

Not aimed specifically at you Vicker because you haven't participated much in this topic anyway - but there seems to be some tunnel vision happening in this topic with people bringing up the same old, same old about laws and focusing on gun laws in America and other countries. 

Gun laws in America and other countries was not what this topic was about. It was about assault rifles and the question was "why do people need them"? I think it's been demonstrated that it's an ego thing and nobody really needs them, people just want them and they can have them if they can afford them.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Laws don't stop nutcases in any country from killing people.
> 
> Not aimed specifically at you Vicker because you haven't participated much in this topic anyway - but there seems to be some tunnel vision happening in this topic with people bringing up the same old, same old about laws and focusing on gun laws in America and other countries.
> 
> ...


The "reason" people need them is irrelevant. We have a right to have them, and that right is protected by our Constitution. If somehow someone managed to repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would still have the right to have them.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I'll give you 4 reasons to own an assault weapon;
because we can
zombies
coyotes
politicians
Nuff said.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> The "reason" people need them is irrelevant. We have a right to have them, and that right is protected by our Constitution. If somehow someone managed to repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would still have the right to have them.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the reason people _want_ them is irrelevant. I have the _right_ to walk around with bare breasts in public if I _want_ to. I have the right to get an abortion if I want to. I have the right to commit suicide if I want to. If I have the right to do that does it mean that I need to do it or that I should want to do it? Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do or the wise thing to do.

.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Laws don't stop nutcases in any country from killing people.
> 
> Not aimed specifically at you Vicker because you haven't participated much in this topic anyway - but there seems to be some tunnel vision happening in this topic with people bringing up the same old, same old about laws and focusing on gun laws in America and other countries.
> 
> ...


You ignore the reasons given for needing them. It's not that they have'nt been given. They may not be 'good enough' for you, or in actuallity you prefer to spin them into something else, but it does not matter. 

Why does the US "need" nuclear weapons? It is a deterent. We'll use them if we need to. On whatever/whomever we need to. That's all you need to know.

The rest is the usuall thread drift.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I think it's been demonstrated that it's an ego thing and nobody really needs them, people just want them and they can have them if they can afford them.
> 
> .


You know, if you are going to start these threads, the least you can do is read the messages.

As stated previously, I NEED firepower to protect my farm and family.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Typically, rifles that you are probably talking about are rugged, idiot proof and dependable in all types of environments. They stand up to abuse well and are just a handy weapon to have. Kinda like a dirt bike. Few people really need them, but they're fun to have and, for some, can be the best tool for the job they purchased it for.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Laws don't stop nutcases in any country from killing people.
> 
> Not aimed specifically at you Vicker because you haven't participated much in this topic anyway - but there seems to be some tunnel vision happening in this topic with people bringing up the same old, same old about laws and focusing on gun laws in America and other countries.
> 
> ...


Need has nothing to do with it. Merely wanting one is reason enough to own one. I know you have things around your house you don't really need, so should you be forced to get rid of them? It really is that simple. Beyond that, they really are fun to shoot. I enjoy shooting my single shots, my semi autos, my lever actions, my pumps, and my bolt actions. The semi autos are no more or less dangerous than any of the others, just a different type gun.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the reason people _want_ them is irrelevant. I have the _right_ to walk around with bare breasts in public if I _want_ to. I have the right to get an abortion if I want to. I have the right to commit suicide if I want to. If I have the right to do that does it mean that I need to do it or that I should want to do it? Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do or the wise thing to do.
> 
> .


I won't stop you from doing any of those things.

Wise is a matter of opinion. It would depend on your goal.

If it is your goal to not attract attention to yourself, it might not be wise to display yourself. If your goal is to attract attention, bare breasts may or may not get the desired result. I would need a preview to know fer sure. 

It would be unwise to prevent myself from having the opportunity to defend myself, IMO.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> You know, if you are going to start these threads, the least you can do is read the messages.
> 
> As stated previously, I NEED firepower to protect my farm and family.


If you are going to read these threads the least you can do is take note of who starts them and the reason why they were started.

I like to have firepower to protect my possessions and family too, and I have the firepower that's needed for that, it serves me very adequately. I do not need the type of firepower that was the original subject of the topic and I doubt that you do either.

.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Just a little info from some friends we had lunch with, they own one of the largest gun shops in this area. Since the shooting they have been super busy selling guns, instead of people being afraid they are getting prepared. Classes for CCW are since the shooting booked several months in advance. Friends said they are running low on all tactical weapons and the only time that has happened was once during Christmas..


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> If you are going to read these threads the least you can do is take note of who starts them and the reason why they were started.
> 
> I like to have firepower to protect my possessions and family too, and I have the firepower that's needed for that, it serves me very adequately. I do not need the type of firepower being discussed and I doubt that you do either.
> 
> .


I'll tell ya what.

Let's go paintballing. You can have a single shot and all the rounds you can carry, and I'll bring a powerfull semi-auto.

It'll be fun.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

time said:


> I'll tell ya what.
> 
> Let's go paintballing. You can have a single shot and all the rounds you can carry, and I'll bring a powerfull semi-auto.
> 
> It'll be fun.


That actually does sound like it would be a fun challenge. I'd be happy to go paintballing with you and after I nail you with my very first shot I can take away your powerful semi-auto, right?

.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> That actually does sound like it would be a fun challenge. I'd be happy to go paintballing with you and after I nail you with my very first shot I can take away your powerful semi-auto, right?
> 
> .


Yep. :bouncy:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

While taking my boy to church I ran into a young man with small children a wife and a MIL. He was wearing shorts and a holster. I took the time to thank him. We talked and I guess I was not the first to go out of my way that to thank him.

Just like I thank the vets I will now that those who are packing they just might be seconds away vs minutes, hours or days. 

NL
The Type of gun you are faining alarm over is simply a gun able to work at a different level. Due to different siduations different level of tools are used. I can us a spoon to dig a hole or I can use a dirt machine. Why limit the tools by the NON user choices. Let each pick the tool for the job. I happen to think that the majority of those here at HT are not out to kill or take unlawful action with their tools. (see you have expressed that they are ego driven I do not see it that way.--they may be proud and pleased but the people here have expressed --not to you satisfaction --but are you able to be satisfied that they have the for a reason to protect and provide in many ways.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I've never been paintballing. Are head shots allowed?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> NL
> --but are you able to be satisfied that they have the for a reason to protect and provide in many ways.


No. I think they are excessive.

.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

People really don't need indoor plumbing but it is nice. Same way with guns.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I've never been paintballing. Are head shots allowed?
> 
> .


Sure. I suggest wearing goggles.

And keep yer head down. The paintballs will be comming at a steady stream. And aimed.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the reason people _want_ them is irrelevant. I have the _right_ to walk around with bare breasts in public if I _want_ to. I have the right to get an abortion if I want to. I have the right to commit suicide if I want to. If I have the right to do that does it mean that I need to do it or that I should want to do it? Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do or the wise thing to do.
> 
> .


Yes, and it is left to your discretion to do the things you have a right to do without having to explain yourself to anyone. There are a number of reasons why someone would want to own what people call "assault rifles", and it is for them to decide.

I have given you my reasons (to kill people who need killing), and I don't see that is has anything to do with ego.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

People do things with words. The word gay is one. That's always struck me as an odd choice. It connotes happiness and frivolity, which are mostly viewed as positive in one usage and something entirely different in another. For those that have studied marketing, the word was an excellent choice.

What would have happened if the word bummed had been chosen? Bummed can be construed as an act performed by gays but it has a negative connotation as far as mood. Gay definitely comes across as more uplifting than bummed. As a replacement for queer and homosexual it sounds better. Think about homosexuals telling the world they're bummed instead of gay. Talk about ackward.

Assault is another curious word choice. The word has a very negative connotation. Assault is bad. Therefore assault and rifle taken together must be bad. Words have subtle meaning that can influence opinions. When did assault replace semiautomatic as the word of choice? Was that another bit of marketing to denigrate something that in one form or another had been used by hunters since 1900?

Using assault instead of semiautomatic provides an easy way to convey a mental image instead of a correct technical term that most would not understand. I've stopped being amazed by newspaper stories that get the technical details of firearms wrong. I still recall one on the front page of the New York Times. The writer used semiautomatic and machine together to describe a firearm the Branch Davidians owned. That usage was and still is technically incorrect.

Sure some folks want a M16, Mattel is hell, lookalike. It goes with the big azz 4x4 SUV or truck that never sees mud or the other outsized accouterments of life some chose but don't really use. Are we impressed yet? Obviously some are by the sheer evilness of assault rifles.

Those negatively impressed by the word assault are ignoring the reality of a rifle design that's been around for 50 years. Now apply the terminology to what some consider "ugly" rifles and you have another reason for passionate dislike. 

If it wasn't a problem fifty years ago, why is it a problem now? The answer, I think, is marketing. 

Remember the big comfortable cars that had enough room for an extended family. People loved them. Did they love them as much when the term gas guzzler was hung on them? What you have is an effort to implement policy by swaying public opinion by effective word choice.

More folks than not can't get beyond prejudiced thinking. Marketing has always taken advantage of that aspect of human nature. Add feelings to a lack of knowledge of the technical details and you get a fervent passion that is astounding.

Sometimes you just need to ignore the uninformed. They've already made their minds up. The righteousness they feel has already carried them beyond critical thinking.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> If you are going to read these threads the least you can do is take note of who starts them and the reason why they were started.
> 
> I like to have firepower to protect my possessions and family too, and I have the firepower that's needed for that, it serves me very adequately. I do not need the type of firepower that was the original subject of the topic and I doubt that you do either.
> 
> .


Are you more concerned with the looks of what you consider "assault" weapons?
Or are you concerned with functionality?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

What's funny I was raised hunting Deer with 303 British,USMC Trained with M14,went to M16.Have used AK 47 and don't care for them.

What's funny when President Reagan was shot Media tried saying he was shot with Special Ammo,trying to make it worse than it was,when in Truth it was .22 LR HP,very common.

big rockpile


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

naturelover said:


> No. I think they are excessive.
> 
> .


They are,,,,,,,,,,,,,if your on the wrong end of them. That's the point.

How are you to defend yourself against them, unless you have your own?

Notice none of the players in this video are using a single shot. I wonder why?

[YOUTUBE]COw2mfnqwjE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Are you more concerned with the looks of what you consider "assault" weapons?
> Or are you concerned with functionality?


The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people. 

The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?

I couldn't care less if it looked like a pink and purple porcupine or a walking stick, nor what other people consider to be functionality. A firearm by any name or intended function that holds that many rounds is excessive and beyond the needs of ordinary citizens. There is no way that young man should have had such easy access to it. If people want to play with firearms like that then maybe they should be in the real military instead of playing at being in the military with deadly toys that are only suitable for the military.

It is extreme and disproportionate to the average person's need. It is excessive, pridefully indulgent, extravangant and boastful.

It is NOT needful. It is NOT impressive. I think it is cowardly and lazy and repugnant. 

That is my personal opinion and I'm sticking to it. Okay?

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?
> 
> ...


You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to, however, are my guns and my right to own them regardless of whether or not you deem it necessary for me to have them.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to, however, are my guns and my right to own them regardless of whether or not you deem it necessary for me to have them.


James, I don't want your guns or your right to own them. I'm more than happy with the ones I have.

Weren't you in the Navy at one time - or some branch of the military - if I seem to recall correctly? If so, didn't you and your cohorts get proper training and vetting for mental stability and the handling of such kinds of weapons and when they need to be used? Do you really believe that any mentally ill, immature and dysfunctional young person with no military training or qualifications in dealing death out to others should be able to have such easy access to the weapons he got, and all the ammunition that he got so easily off internet?

Is that why you want such weapons for yourself, so you can defend yourself and family against mentally ill individuals that you have given the right to have easy access to them so he can come and kill you?

It's a vicious circle.

.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Well, . . Obama has now flown out to Aurora & is getting ready to make a speech; no doubt to make political hay as well! It will be "interesting" to see if he will be trying to 'limit' the 2nd amendment.

It's on live right now!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> James, I don't want your guns or your right to own them. I'm more than happy with the ones I have.
> 
> Weren't you in the Navy at one time - or some branch of the military - if I seem to recall correctly? If so, didn't you and your cohorts get proper training and vetting for mental stability and the handling of such kinds of weapons and when they need to be used? Do you really believe that any mentally ill, immature and dysfunctional young person with no military training or qualifications in dealing death out to others should be able to have such easy access to the weapons he got, and all the ammunition that he got so easily off internet?
> 
> ...


Yes, I was in the Navy, and I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Constitution says that ALL American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed upon. 

I think it is a good idea for everyone who owns a firearm to be properly trained in the use and handling of that weapon, but what I think is a good idea is just my opinion, and it is not adequate justification to deny another citizen the freedom to exercise the right given to him by his creator.

There are conditions upon which a citizen can be denied the freedom to exercise certain rights, but only after they have been afforded due process of law. A convicted felon for instance, loses his freedom to exercise his right to own a gun. A person who has been judged mentally unfit can also be denied that freedom. 

Unfortunately, our society has developed a penchant for assigning a name for every little personality quirk known to man and considering them to be 'mental illnesses'. Knowing how some of our politicians operate, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see them using those quirks as an excuse to limit our freedoms.

There are risks involved in living in a free country, but freedom is most certainly worth the risk.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; *are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?*
> I couldn't care less if it looked like a pink and purple porcupine or a walking stick, nor what other people consider to be functionality. A firearm by any name or intended function that holds that many rounds is excessive and beyond the needs of ordinary citizens. There is no way that young man should have had such easy access to it. If people want to play with firearms like that then maybe they should be in the real military instead of playing at being in the military with deadly toys that are only suitable for the military.
> ...


I have the right through our Bill of Rights to protect myself/family/friends to the best of my ability and use technology as a tool to do just that. The current weapons used by the military should be available to anyone who qualifies for any type of firearm(felony/mental issues). Some of us are "too old" to be in the military. We need to be prepared for anything that's comming. Using a flintlock against fully automatic weapons is kind of stupid when it comes down to it. I guess my main point would be that i don't trust my government to look out for my best interests and well being, they are constantly proving they're not capable of this(read about all the cops killing inocent citizens), so i want the weapons the government has to repel a despot government(it's in OUR Declaration of Independence), after all, it's only fair since us taxpayers paid for that research and development on these weapons. Yes, that means whatever you can afford! More people die from vehicles/doctors/accidents, then from guns! You don't really need a car, but it's nice to have one. But it's not a "right" though as guns are. Our supreme court recently ruled that this:


Bill of Rights - Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

doesn't really mean what it say's and that the government doesn't need any real probable cause, or oath, or anything to bust down your door and kill you by "accident"!

And they certainly don't understand this bolded part:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*.

And this:

Declaration of Independence exerpt:

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness*. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, *it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security*.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 

So you see, it's also our right and duty to be able to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". 

How do we do this without the same weapons they have? People will always find a tool to use in the commission of a crime and the criminal doesn't care about laws concerning weapons now do they? Liberals are always crying about things being equal and fair, doesn't it apply to protecting one's self too?
A woman going against a 240lb man doesn't have much of a chance, but if she had a 357 and had a few classes on how to use it, she would stand a MUCH better chance. I know this is about "assualt" weapons, but when you ban one, others are not far behind. Here in Kalifornia, i cannot legaly carry an un-loaded handgun on public property without paying a tax thanks to Portantino(D) La Canada.(this is a WHOLE nuther subject)


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

This will really get some people excited.
In Ms. if you are a felon you can still get a license to carry a gun.
Fill out the paperwork. If you haven't had any problems with the law in 7 years, I think that is the right time limit, you can apply and get a CCW.
Not all get a license but some do.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Win07_351 said:


> Sadly, I believe this will be true.
> 
> This is what can happen over time when anybody can vote.


**************
the 'dems' have been signing up dead folks, dead dogs, illegals on both sides of the border(s). . .& then will run them thru a couple of more times as well. . .

Some years there are more votes counted in various precincts, then there are registered voters!:smack


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> This will really get some people excited.
> In Ms. if you are a felon you can still get a license to carry a gun.
> Fill out the paperwork. If you haven't had any problems with the law in 7 years, I think that is the right time limit, you can apply and get a CCW.
> Not all get a license but some do.


Sounds reasonable to me. Grossly unfair to bar someone from owning guns for some crime years ago that may not even have involved guns. More and more crimes have been elevated to felony status. I have a friend who is 65 and was arrested at age 22 for stealing a 55 gallon drum of gasoline from a rural oil company shack. He drank a lot back then and a guy who worked for the company told him in a bar that they wouldn't care if he took it. Very bad judgement on his part but he has had no other law problems in his past and yet he still cannot own a gun because of a 43 year old felony conviction.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I'll give you 4 reasons to own an assault weapon;
> because we can
> zombies
> coyotes
> ...


obnoxious canadians who feel it is their 'civic' duty to tell us how we should run our country. . .:smack


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> obnoxious canadians who feel it is their 'civic' duty to tell us how we should run our country. . .:smack


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> If you are going to read these threads the least you can do is take note of who starts them and the reason why they were started.
> 
> I like to have firepower to protect my possessions and family too, and I have the firepower that's needed for that, it serves me very adequately. I do not need the type of firepower that was the original subject of the topic and I doubt that you do either.
> .


*****************
for the rest of us, it's NOT your business or right to make that determination as to whether we have a need for such a weapon. All we have to have is a "want"!

:nana:
That, and the means to afford them.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing. But another 71 people either wounded or dead brings the question back of why are assult rifles legal to own?
> 
> I can remember way back before assult rifles hit the market. Back then there was no mass shootings. If there was there probably wasn't 30 to hundred people shot up in a theater or class room, etc. Most large calibers only held 5 to 7 rounds, 22 calibers used a tubelar magazine and held 18 shots, then you had to take time out to reload before you could start shooting again. I think the world was a lot safer back then.
> 
> ...


I think it's that pesky old second amendment that's caused all the troubles.

The 2nd amendment, contrary to popular progressive thought, has absolutely nothing to do with hunting... it is for protection against humans, both foreign and domestic.

There is absolutely no way to stop a lone gunman (if you believe some reports that are circulating, the CO shooter wasn't alone, but that's a whole nother topic) from killing people. This guy had no record. He may have been crazy as a loon, but he was never diagnosed or medicated for such... I heard the 'talking heads' all morning that we should prevent guys like 'him' from having any firearms... reading between the lines, the 'him' they're talking about, is EVERY one. Since the COS had a clean record, wanting to make it difficult for him (with his clean record), means everyone should be banned from ownership.

Also read and seen photos of the COS in his ballistic uniform... and the progressives saying that no gunfire from CCW holders would've stopped him. True, if I were in the theater, my 44 mag would not have penetrated through his vest, but it would have knocked him down and broken some ribs... a head shot and he's down... if he's down for just a second, the other handful of lead would found their target.

Ban all firearms... or twinkle your nose and make them all go poof! Big Deal... this guy had bomb making supplies on hand, and could just as easily walked in (from the exit) with a can of gasoline and a bandolier of hand grenades, or white phosphorus, or sarin, or any other toxic substances and killed everyone.

The world is a dangerous place, and I do my dangest to avoid any scenarios that'd put me into a large room of disarmed sheep.

I have over a dozen hammers, hundreds of screwdrivers, saws of every sort, etc. each tool for a specific use. I have a tool in my fork drawer, that is used daily and nightly, for rat killing and coyote scaring. I have a tool for killing hogs. I have several tools for killing deer, elk, caribou. A tool for grizzly. Yada yada yada... and a tool for tyrants. Needless to say, I run a case through the fork drawer tool every six months or so... the tyrant tool is a "safe queen".

If one bullet is good, six bullets are better... through this perfectly reasonable logic, ten is even better, 30 better better, etc.

If our govt. and country wasn't infiltrated with communists, progressives, and weak kneed liberals, I'd own a .30 caliber belt fed fully automatic rifle, or maybe even a .30 cal mini gun. Why? Why not??? Anyone that's ever had the chance to rock and roll, would love to own one for themselves.

Btw... I do not own full autos... doesn't mean that I wouldn't, if I could afford one, or if the GCA were repealed, they could be 'made' from existing AR's and AK's for literally just a few bucks.

A large capacity magazined weapon is a force multiplier. If I have to shoot at a hundred mutant zombie bikers from Pittsburgh, I don't want to grab the flintlock... I want to grab the AR/AK and a sack of 30 or 40 round mags.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Oh... forgot to mention... I don't like people or politicians telling me I can't do something, when that pesky old Bill of Rights says I can. Makes me want to go out and do exactly what they don't want me to do....

A well armed society is a polite society...


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

This man was a defect plain and simple !! It's just like buying a new set of tires and you have a blowout. You cant judge every tire and say nobody needs to buy a full set. My guns must be defective because they have never shot anybody.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?
> 
> ...


So you think that if he took 5 minuets instead of 2 to shoot that many rounds is alright. The thing about the so called assault weapons is the large magazine. The other 3 minuets will be enough to reload 3 or 4 times. But if you think that it is alright then you need to have your head examined. One shot is more than enough to break all laws we have in place. Even a single shot is against the law enough to get the death penalty. Since there are no shooting in Canada at all you have hit on an idea as to stop them in our country. Oh I was wrong you said that there are shooting in Canada and were upset that we did more in Colorado.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

MJsLady said:


> In my opinion unless you are law enforcement or military (border patrol coast guard, state militia and such included) You don't and should not be allowed to have them.
> 
> I am very pro gun but a weapon like that has 1 purpose, to kill and maim as many humans as possible in a short time span. civilians do not need that kind of ability. Law enforcement (military I include in this group) need them because the bad guys have them and to me it is sinful for law enforcement to EVER be out gunned by the snakes among us.


Your argument is valid... IF you live next to the police department. IF you live way out on the back side of nowhere, your on your own...

So, 
Law Enforcement needs assault weapons because the Bad Guy Snakes have assault weapons.

So, it is perfectly logical to state:
If the Bad Guy Snakes have assault weapons, and there is no Law Enforcement, individuals (like myself) need assault weapons to counterbalance the evil of the BSG's.

Response time to my house, if anyone is even on duty, is a minimum of 45 minutes. Enough time to do a whole lot of mayhem.

And so, this is why a lot of American's choose to own large capacity firearms.... because the 'takers' have them.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

There is no difference between the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms.

The high capacity magazine is no different from a long-winded rant, as compared to, say, a well-placed one-liner.
Therefore, those of us with our wits and wisdom about us hereby retain the right to our own long-winded rants, every bit as much as those who just like to blow. 

That said, I, personally, like to conserve my ammunition, but, every now and then, I can rave, at length, with the worst of them. :thumb:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

ninny said:


> Assault weapon: 12 gauge shotgun, extended magazine loaded with double O buckshot will make an AR15 look downright tame. Are we gonna outlaw shotguns also? F.B.I. agents are quoted as saying they had rather face someone with a rifle or handgun then face someone with a shotgun.
> 
> .


They did ban streetsweepers, a 12 gauge shotgun... I believe it'd be a Class III weapon now.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

pancho said:


> People really don't need indoor plumbing but it is nice. Same way with guns.


I know there is some bad indoor plumbing, but I've never known of any plumbing to be used intentionally to kill or wound 70 people in a short period. 



Cornhusker said:


> Are you more concerned with the looks of what you consider "assault" weapons?
> Or are you concerned with functionality?


Functionality! Limit how much ammo a weapon can hold and how fast it can be reloaded. 



big rockpile said:


> What's funny I was raised hunting Deer with 303 British,USMC Trained with M14,went to M16.Have used AK 47 and don't care for them.
> 
> What's funny when President Reagan was shot Media tried saying he was shot with Special Ammo,trying to make it worse than it was,when in Truth it was .22 LR HP,very common.
> 
> big rockpile


How many more might have been shot or killed if John Hinkly Jr. had access to a assult weapon with a 100 round rotary clip? He didn't have the best fire power when he opened fire on President Reagan therefore he was taken down quickly. That could have been the case in the Aurora shooting also, had J. HOlmes was limited to so many rounds only. 



naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?
> 
> ...


I second what she said and so does many more people across America. If we limit how much fire power a loony has then we don't need as much either. But if we keep it as it is, then the next time we all go to a theater to watch a good movie, don't forget to pack your assult rifles and your side arms in case a loony opens up. Can you imagine setting there inside a theater and you look around and everyone is holding a AR/Ak in their lap and a couple of clocks on their side just waiting for a loony to stand up and fire a shot. Holy Moly, next thing you know everyone is shooting at everyone cause no one knows for sure just who the real loony is. 

Belive I'll just wait till the movie comes out on disk! 



deaconjim said:


> You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to, however, are my guns and my right to own them regardless of whether or not you deem it necessary for me to have them.


Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Country Boy, fully automatic weapons have always been legal under federal law. That means someone could legally carry a belt fed M60 provided state law did not prohibit it. That's the same weapon Rambo used to ventilate a town in the movie. The idea of limiting the ammunition a firearm can carry has many issues that are often easily defeated. Since 1934 AFAIK, only one of the registered machine guns in this country has been used in a crime and that was by a LEO.

The Norwegian who recently killed so many on an island simply reloaded continually. No one else had a weapon to counter him. Someone with a double barrel shotgun could kill everyone that couldn't escape in a movie theater with enough practice reloading.

Are you going to make it illegal for people to practice reloading fast? Even five and six shot revolvers can be speed loaded. 

I suspect someone like Holmes wasn't that much of a marksman. High cap magazines often encourage spray and pray tactics while someone who is a marksman often gets better results with or without a high cap magazine. Look at the number of rounds fired by cops with high cap rounds and the meager amount of hits during incidents. A high cap magazine is a psychological crutch. 

By eliminating them you might be encouraging something far more deadly. Far from being as deadly as you think, a high cap round may prevent some from becoming excellent shooters.

I've always heard if you want a kid to develop shooting skills you start them with a single shot rifle.

Would you have rather have had Holmes work on his shooting skills? For the number of rounds fired, he should have killed many more.

So what are you going to do about that? Ban target practice?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

What part of you can have custom magazines made or that as of now there are at least a million high capacity mags. out there . Even if they were banned would this guy cared .Not only that but if he had two 40 cal pistols that in it's self is a lot of fire power . :clap:

And Hinkley used a 22 not a 40 cal or 45 .

Bottom line there are many non thinking people that dream limiting such things will stop nuts from killing people . Many just don't believe in holding the operator of what ever device used in killing responsible but the device .

Outlaw what ever you want to but outlaws will still acquire what ever they desire as laws mean nothing to them anyway . 

Next i an't dumb or stupid enough to enter a crowded place the Gov or who ever won't allow conceal carry .Like the ones wanting these mags banned these places have been cleared of danger for outlaws to operate at their will with no citizen having a recourse :grumble:


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

vicker said:


> Typically, rifles that you are probably talking about are rugged, idiot proof and dependable in all types of environments. They stand up to abuse well and are just a handy weapon to have


that sounds like an AK47 to me. I'm glad you have come on over to the side of righteousness, freedom, and firepower.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

tarbe said:


> I feel foolish for answering this, but I will anyway.
> 
> Humans cannot be trusted with un-checked power. They will abuse it.
> 
> Repeat that 500 times or until you get it.


This is true. Including not to be trusted with the un-checked power of big guns that fire off 100 rounds or more. They will abuse it. Just ask Holmes.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Just ask the last several populations who were disarmed just prior to having such turned against them by their "own" government.

A free man has the right to own and carry any weapon that may ever be used against him.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?
> 
> ...


Actually, an AR-15 doesn't hold any ammo, the magazine does.
Magazines can hold 5 to 100 rounds, but the most common mag is a 30 round


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Interesting that Canada's strict gun control laws did not prevent this incident from occurring in Toronto.


Interesting? More like tragic. But that's what happens when Canadian gangsters get their hands on restricted guns that are smuggled in from America where it's so easy to get them.


----------



## idigbeets (Sep 3, 2011)

We need high capacity magazines, semi (and full imo) automatic firearms to maintain vigilance against those that would oppress this country, both foreign and domestic. 

When the economy continues to derail, food prices, gas prices go up even higher, looting begins (easily mind you), home SHTF supplies are at risk. You defend your home, life, family, and property, and supplies with a knife, baseball bat, or a single shot revolver. I'll stick w/ my semi automatic "assault" weapons.

The police are too far away for a lot of us to make a difference, They are there to enforce laws, not protect citizens from criminals etc. When seconds count, the police are minutes (if not hours) away.

As far as the mental illness goes of the shooter... He wasn't diagnosed, he wasn't a threat on anyone's radar, he legally purchased 2 pistols, a shotgun, and a semi automatic rifle. Background checks etc are done, he passed. what more gun control does one need? 

It goes to show you how fragile human minds really can be, stress, poverty, failure at life, dropping out of school, etc can cause deep depression or other "conditions" that make one break with reality, normal thoughts. How do you regulate that? What law could you pass to prevent the "sleeper" crazy person from retaliating against society? Answer me that.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Cabin Fever said:


> Ever notice this when you were a kid? You had a candy bar and your buddy's Mom wouldn't let him have one. All your buddy did was tell you how bad that candy bar was for you and how it probably didn't taste all that good anyhow. Deep inside he wanted that candy bar in the worst way.


Too much candy makes people fat, slow, lazy, glutted, sick and mentally sluggish .... then it kills them.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Statistically, and by every other criteria in existance, the mental disconnect embraced by those who seek any manner of disarmament poses a far greater threat to mankind than all the crackpots throughout history, combined.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Some people may not like themselves, their family, or anyone else. They do not need a weapon.
For those who care about themselves, their family, their belongings, and other people, it is nice to be able to protect them.
If you think guns should be banned, don't buy one.
If you don't think enough of your family to protect them, don't buy a gun.
If you care about a person and want to protect them, buy a gun.

Nothing says you have to protect others. Some people do care about people. They do not want to see them harmed. Some people love their family. They want to protect them.

Your choice.
We do still have a choice.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Those who support banning high cap magazines don't seem to have read the amount of time Holmes spent preparing for the incident. Others have mentioned the use of other devices. If someone like Holmes wasn't able, in their mind, to kill enough people quickly with a firearm, what would they choose?

Are we forgetting the intelligence of some of these people? The Unibomber is an example. Holmes reads like another. I'm surprised he didn't cook up a nerve gas. We're fortunate whatever fantasy he was entertaining didn't include that. Holmes was apparently a gifted student who until something happened when he was in the phd program, did extremely well. Would you rather divert people with a large capaciy magazines or have them consider something more lethal? 

The potential for another Oklahoma City is still with us The government may have a better chance of detecting it before the damage is done. But people can still fly under the radar.

The ultimate solution is to mandate continuous psychological screening. If you work in a nuclear power plant, that's something you accept. Should everyone in society be required to undergo that?

How many people here are comfortable with mayor Bloomburg of New York City banning large capacity soft drinks? FWIW, those probably contribute to the death of far more people than firearms. Sounds extreme doesn't it? *But we can't be too safe.*

When do you stop allowing the government new ways to regulate our life under the guise of safety and well being? The law of unintended consequences still trumps anything we can think of. 

The concern about high capacity magazines reminds me of China's attempt to kill all of the sparrows to prevent them from eating grain. They succeeded to a remarkable degree. Then the insects multiplied to an enormous extent and caused far greater damage than the birds that previously kept them in check. Of course we're smart enough to know that might be an outcome. So we wouldn't do that. Still *we can't be too safe. *

Don't forget the potential of a brilliant high school student who loves chemistry but doesn't get the respect he feels he deserves from the other students. It wouldn't be difficult for one to cook up ricin and use it to effect a mass killing during a school assembly.

Maybe we need to make being a loner illegal. That seems to be a common thread in some of the incidents. Let's outlaw bullying too. Of course schools already have rules about that. It doesn't seem to be effective locally based on some of the shunnings that were made public. We can stop that by putting federal agents in all of the schools to prevent bullying. *We can never be too safe. Can we?* 

Maybe we can use the TSA to do that. Who thought twelve years ago, people would have to be groped before they got on an airplane? But we can never be too safe. Can we? Yes, we can. Because at some point we won't like the totalitarian society we create. 

Those brought up in the more socialist countries, like Canada, have been acclimated to government control of more aspects of their lives. To you I suggest being patient. Amerika is not far behind. The TSA and the effort to ban large capacity drinks proves that.

Obviously the government always knows best. We just need to ignore the folly of government going to extremes. Fast and furious is one. Who would think that those in the highest levels would be party to an operation that gave assault weapons to murderous drug dealers? Who couldn't predict the deaths that resulted from that? 

Still think we can't be too safe? I do.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Can you imagine setting there inside a theater and you look around and everyone is holding a AR/Ak in their lap and a couple of clocks on their side just waiting for a loony to stand up and fire a shot.
> 
> 
> > **********************
> > but is there something that we don't know; that chunking a couple of 'clocks' @ the bad guy(s) will cause them harm; i.e. perhaps it will cause them to miss their appointed time for the next scheduled mayhem!?!!!:smack


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

copperkid3 said:


> Oldcountryboy said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine setting there inside a theater and you look around and everyone is holding a AR/Ak in their lap and a couple of clocks on their side just waiting for a loony to stand up and fire a shot.
> ...


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I don't think banning so called assault weapons or high capacity clips is the answer.

However I would not be averse to somebody having to go thru some sort of enhanced check or personality test in order to have the ability to buy something that holds over say, 20 rounds.

Right now you have to go thru the instant check to buy a gun but you can order a 100 round magazine without any restrictions whatsoever.

I realize some people think we have to have access to these magazines should we ever ben invaded or something but I think that's a stretch.

If a guerilla army was fighting an invading army or rebelling against a tyrranical government, I believe a scoped bolt action .308 or 30-06 could inflict way more casualties than something like an AK or AR15 which would have to be used at a closer range where the shooter could be killed.

But lets face it. The law of averages says you would be more likely to be shot by a crazy guy like this than for an army to invade or the US to be in an insurrection despite the violent fantasies of some gun owners.

Also despite the arguments by some here, there have been a number of shootings where the shooter was taken down while reloading.

The dude that shot Giffords was tackled while reloading. 

Colin Ferguson, the Long Island RR shooter was stopped when he paused to reload.


----------



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

poppy said:


> Need has nothing to do with it. Merely wanting one is reason enough to own one. I know you have things around your house you don't really need, so should you be forced to get rid of them? It really is that simple. Beyond that, they really are fun to shoot. I enjoy shooting my single shots, my semi autos, my lever actions, my pumps, and my bolt actions. The semi autos are no more or less dangerous than any of the others, just a different type gun.


Well Said!! Good answer to the Question. 
Need has nothing to do with why people buy so-called assault rifles.
Nobody Needs a Cadillac, instead of a Chevy. Or, a Lincoln instead of a Ford.
Should everyone be required to buy one kind of car?

Everyone who has the money to do it, buys things they do Not Need whether it's cars or guns ar anything else. Shooters like to shoot different platforms, different calibers and different actions.
It's pretty simple, really.


----------



## English Oliver (Jul 2, 2008)

I have a friend that personally knew one of the wounded, and she was hit twice with shotgun pellets, he doesn't know if they were 7 1/2's or 00's. Did the guys semi-automatic jam on the 1st, 5th, 20th, or 60th shot? Why don't we wait till all the information is out before making any judgement.

"O"


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't think banning so called assault weapons or high capacity clips is the answer.
> 
> However I would not be averse to somebody having to go thru some sort of enhanced check or personality test in order to have the ability to buy something that holds over say, 20 rounds.
> 
> ...


You must never fired many guns a practiced shooter will just drop the mag.on the ground and pop another one in or drop that gun and grab another one . You must missed the videos of some practiced shooters . Or got your mind made up years ago .:smack:awh:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!


That sounds a bit like an infringement upon my God given, Constitutionally guaranteed, right to bear arms.... but it could just be me. :shrug:


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I second what she said and so does many more people across America.
> 
> !


It does not matter what you or her or "many more people across America" think.

None of you have the right to take anothers right.

Myself and many other people across America think that anyone that does not own a firearm should not be allowed to vote. Not very reasonable, but who cares. Your threatening others lives, IMO.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Interesting? More like tragic. But that's what happens when Canadian gangsters get their hands on restricted guns that are smuggled in from America where it's so easy to get them.


Goes to show, restricting guns does not prevent gangsters from getting them.

We have a simular problem here with mexico and drugs.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

pancho said:


> Exactly what is an assualt weapon?


I have a .22 pistol(Ruger) which is considered an assault weapon in some states. It's stupid gun laws like that which we don't NEED.
BTW, to the OP, why are you asking why we need anything? You do live in the US, don't you? Last time I checked my copy of the Constitution, there is nothing in there which says I NEED to prove to you(or anybody) I NEED something before I can own it. If your copy says otherwise, I'd like to read it.:hrm:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Big reason to own lots of guns and other equipment is all these people that think they know best for us gun owners and have no respect for the law abiding citizen at large :grumble:

Keep your powder dry folks the South is going to rise again :bouncy::clap::happy:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!"

So you want to "limit" the guns we already own, but you don't want to take them away from us? How do you plan to do that? Gonna come to our houses and "limit" our guns?
BTW, if you don't mind taking away some of *our* freedoms "incase we turn loony on you", then you shouldn't mind if we take some of your freedoms away "in case you turn loony on us". I'd recommend restricting the driver's license of anybody who wants to "limit" our rights, "in case you turn more loony on us". Since a car is a much more dangerous weapon than any gun, we need to control them better.:grumble:
I'm sure I could think of a few more precautions that would make us all safer from "in case you turn more loony on us". Let's just ignore the fact that the Constitution says nothing about that notion.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Just when I think my family has all the firearms and ammo they need, or want, someone like Paumon comes along and helps me to realize that there is no such thing. I'd like to thank Paumon for helping stimulate the American economy today, mama's going shopping for a new tool, maybe 2, depending on what trips her trigger. She said she sure is glad she is American


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Trader thanks for using the word TOOL that is what it is. One works to use a tool to improve skills (target shooting, classes, and practiceing) One uses a tool for what it is meant to do. Any tool can be misused as what happened in CO but tools aid people and society but not everyone uses every tool some people are specialist --Craftmen ==Craftmen do no abuse or misuse their tools but are respected for the results of their person interaction with a tool.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

TraderBob said:


> Just when I think my family has all the firearms and ammo they need, or want, someone like Paumon comes along and helps me to realize that there is no such thing. I'd like to thank Paumon for helping stimulate the American economy today, mama's going shopping for a new tool, maybe 2, depending on what trips her trigger. She said she sure is glad she is American


Yes and those drill indexes that hold lots of drills are a handy thing to have also . :clap: :happy:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> But if we keep it as it is, then the next time we all go to a theater to watch a good movie, don't forget to pack your assult rifles and your side arms in case a loony opens up. Can you imagine setting there inside a theater and you look around and everyone is holding a AR/Ak in their lap and a couple of clocks on their side just waiting for a loony to stand up and fire a shot. Holy Moly, next thing you know everyone is shooting at everyone cause no one knows for sure just who the real loony is.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!


I have set in a theater with 400 people with loaded M 16 and never felt in danger. I did not think anybody was going to go looney their because it would be an instant death sentence. 
In your mind it is OK if they only have 10 rounds in the magazine so that it takes some time to reload? I fail to see that is acceptably OK in any person mind. It only takes one shot to break any law about shooting. Only 1! Any more than the 1 shot doesn't make it any worse only more tragic.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Interesting? More like tragic. But that's what happens when Canadian gangsters get their hands on restricted guns that are smuggled in from America where it's so easy to get them.


Can we infer then, that the Canadian police are incapable of protecting you from those criminals who have access to guns? Seems like a good reason to own a few.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Can we infer then, that the Canadian police are incapable of protecting you from those criminals who have access to guns? Seems like a good reason to own a few.


Naw just get Dudley Dorite a faster horse to get to the crime sean 

You did take note that it still an't bad people causing their problems but was spun and shifted to the bad Americans letting good folks smuggle guns into Canada . :shrug::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> This is true. Including not to be trusted with the un-checked power of big guns that fire off 100 rounds or more. * They will abuse it. Just ask Holmes.*


By "They will abuse it." were you inferring that owning an evil large capacity magazine, automatically causes the owner to go nuts and use it for a criminal act?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

time said:


> Sure. I suggest wearing goggles.
> 
> And keep yer head down. The paintballs will be comming at a steady stream. And aimed.


I've been paint balling, you can aim them but they will go where ever they wish. 

I showed this by firing a series of three round burst in the air. You could see each ball following a course all its own after about 10 feet. That's why you never see anyone trying to snipe at a paint ball event. Its spray and pray all the way.

Its also why trying to use paint balling for firearms/combat training is next to useless. About the only thing it can do is teach patrolling (how you need to be quite so you don't get shot) and ambush (how he who puts the most rounds down ranges wins).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) that held 100 rounds of ammunition .... plus he had another 1,000 rounds stashed in his car. He used it to mow down 70 people.
> 
> The question asked about them was; are firearms that hold that many rounds really needed by people who aren't in the military or police?
> 
> ...


Let me answer your question; "Are they _needed_" differently by stating it differently.

"Are they needed _now_?" Well no they are not needed _now_. 

Now let me ask you some questions.

Is the smoke detector and fire extinguisher in your home needed _now_" (you do have both don't you?)

If you are driving is the seat belt and/or airbags in your care _now_?

I'm willing to bet the answer to each of those questions is no. But think about this. What happens if/when you do need them and you didn't have them?

What happens your house catches fire and you don't have a smoke dector or fire extinguisher _now_? What happens if someone crosses the center line and you don't have your seat belt on _now_? Canada goes the way of Yugoslavia (remember when the 84 winter Olympics were held there? Remember what happened there in the 90s?) and you don't have any to protect yourself _now_?

To me besides being fun (remember my motorcycle statement) I view them as tools I hope to never need to use as intended (just as my fire extinguishers, seat belt and air bags) but are good to have.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Forgive me if this has been said.

Why do we need huge RV's the size of city buses? Why do we need sports cars? Why do we need powered weed eaters? Why do we need any number of dangerous things that we could do without?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> James, I don't want your guns or your right to own them. I'm more than happy with the ones I have.
> 
> Weren't you in the Navy at one time - or some branch of the military - if I seem to recall correctly? If so, didn't you and your cohorts get proper training and vetting for mental stability and the handling of such kinds of weapons and when they need to be used? Do you really believe that any mentally ill, immature and dysfunctional young person with no military training or qualifications in dealing death out to others should be able to have such easy access to the weapons he got, and all the ammunition that he got so easily off internet?
> 
> ...


Don't take this wrong, its really not meant to be snarky. 

But IMO there is a much larger danger, to me individually and society as a whole, in letting people vote without showing they have the mental ability to understand what they are doing and how the government works, have a working knowledge of what the people they are going to vote for and can read a ballot than allowing anyone who wishes to be able to walk into a store, plop down cash and walk out with a firearm, even a fully automatic firearm, and ammo with no questions asked.

A nut with a firearm can only harm a relatively small number of people. Its fairly easy to defend oneself and others from a nut with a firearm. The same can not be said about a government put into power by ignorant people.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Can we infer then, that the Canadian police are incapable of protecting you from those criminals who have access to guns? Seems like a good reason to own a few.


No, you can't infer that. I think they try to stay of top of things but I don't think it's easy for any law enforcers to stop smuggling. The gangsters all kill each other in their gunfights and then after the shooting is over the police go arrest whoever is left alive and confiscate their remaining guns. Gangsters aren't a reason for law abiding Canadians to get more guns, the majority of Canadians already have enough guns anyway. Why would they want to own more? So they can interfere with gangsters who don't interfere with them? That would be pointless. 

It's all mostly gangsters killing gangsters - with the occasional innocent victims getting caught in the crossfires, which up until just recently didn't happen often. If it wasn't for the innocents getting caught in the crossfire - (like what happened last week with the 2 gangsters shooting it out with each other at a childrens block party and 22 people got shot) - I'd say let them kill each other off. Why interfere with gangsters killing each other? I think they should fill their boots and let them all slaughter each other until there's none of them left. But not with the semi-autos and automatic guns they're bringing in from America for their gunfights because too many bystanders get killed with those things. When the gangsters have to be more conservative with their ammunition and have to take aim at each other then bystanders don't get shot. 




Sawmill Jim said:


> Naw just get Dudley Dorite a faster horse to get to the crime sean
> 
> You did take note that it still an't bad people causing their problems but was spun and shifted to the bad Americans letting good folks smuggle guns into Canada . :shrug::hysterical::hysterical:


Do you have a problem with comprehension of just a twisted imagination? Where do you get the idea that "good" folks are smuggling guns?

No, they're all gangsters doing the smuggling back and forth, and it's all gangsters doing the shooting at each other. American gangsters trade American made restricted guns to Canadian gangsters for Canadian made drugs. The guns don't get smuggled in to go to ordinary, law-abiding citizens, the Canadian gangsters want the restricted guns strictly for themselves so they can kill other gangsters.


.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Nobody wants to take your guns away, just limit how many rounds and how fast you can reload it. Just incase you turn loony on us!


Wouldn't that put us at a severe disadvantage compared to the bad guys who feel no urge to follow the law?
Limiting people's ability to defend themselves doesn't make anybody safer except the nutcase.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> No, you can't infer that. I think they try to stay of top of things but I don't think it's easy for any law enforcers to stop smuggling. The gangsters all kill each other in their gunfights and then after the shooting is over the police go arrest whoever is left alive and confiscate their remaining guns. Gangsters aren't a reason for law abiding Canadians to get more guns, the majority of Canadians already have enough guns anyway. Why would they want to own more? So they can interfere with gangsters who don't interfere with them? That would be pointless.
> 
> It's all mostly gangsters killing gangsters - with the occasional innocent victims getting caught in the crossfires, which up until just recently didn't happen often. If it wasn't for the innocents getting caught in the crossfire - (like what happened last week with the 2 gangsters shooting it out with each other at a childrens block party and 22 people got shot) - I'd say let them kill each other off. Why interfere with gangsters killing each other? I think they should fill their boots and let them all slaughter each other until there's none of them left. But not with the semi-autos and automatic guns they're bringing in from America for their gunfights because too many bystanders get killed with those things. When the gangsters have to be more conservative with their ammunition and have to take aim at each other then bystanders don't get shot.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the drugs are the root of the problem, not the guns


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> No, you can't infer that. I think they try to stay of top of things but I don't think it's easy for any law enforcers to stop smuggling. The gangsters all kill each other in their gunfights and then after the shooting is over the police go arrest whoever is left alive and confiscate their remaining guns. Gangsters aren't a reason for law abiding Canadians to get more guns, the majority of Canadians already have enough guns anyway. Why would they want to own more? So they can interfere with gangsters who don't interfere with them? That would be pointless.
> 
> It's all mostly gangsters killing gangsters - with the occasional innocent victims getting caught in the crossfires, which up until just recently didn't happen often. If it wasn't for the innocents getting caught in the crossfire - (like what happened last week with the 2 gangsters shooting it out with each other at a childrens block party and 22 people got shot) - I'd say let them kill each other off. Why interfere with gangsters killing each other? I think they should fill their boots and let them all slaughter each other until there's none of them left. But not with the semi-autos and automatic guns they're bringing in from America for their gunfights because too many bystanders get killed with those things. When the gangsters have to be more conservative with their ammunition and have to take aim at each other then bystanders don't get shot.
> .


I'm confused. Are you saying that the Canadian police are capable of protecting you from the criminals who have access to guns, but they don't because it's too much trouble?


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> I've been paint balling, you can aim them but they will go where ever they wish.
> 
> I showed this by firing a series of three round burst in the air. You could see each ball following a course all its own after about 10 feet. That's why you never see anyone trying to snipe at a paint ball event. Its spray and pray all the way.
> 
> Its also why trying to use paint balling for firearms/combat training is next to useless. About the only thing it can do is teach patrolling (how you need to be quite so you don't get shot) and ambush (how he who puts the most rounds down ranges wins).


Keep turning your cases and they'll fly straighter..not a lot, but enough.
Of course, if it's just you and a friend, you can use a syringe to make sure they are completely full, then freeze em  They fly much straighter. Just hope your buddy didn't have the same idea, because they frigging hurt.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

time said:


> It does not matter what you or her or "many more people across America" think.
> 
> None of you have the right to take anothers right.
> 
> Myself and many other people across America think that anyone that does not own a firearm should not be allowed to vote. Not very reasonable, but who cares. Your threatening others lives, IMO.


Well with that said, I would still get to vote. Cause I own firearms. Have since I was 6 years old. But if I went loony all of a sudden, I wouldn't be able to shoot 70 people up with any of them. Cause none of them are capable of it. 



TraderBob said:


> Just when I think my family has all the firearms and ammo they need, or want, someone like Paumon comes along and helps me to realize that there is no such thing. I'd like to thank Paumon for helping stimulate the American economy today, mama's going shopping for a new tool, maybe 2, depending on what trips her trigger. She said she sure is glad she is American


You need to thank James Holmes also. Cause since his loony day, sales of guns and ammo has increased significantly. Probably cause people are afraid of new gun laws that might take place or suddenly feel a need to protect theirselves from loony people who own assult rifles.


A scripture in the bible says "If you live by the sword, you shall die by the sword".


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Sounds like the drugs are the root of the problem, not the guns


You about nailed it. Americans do love their drugs - probably even more than they love their guns - so there's a *HUGE* market for all kinds of Canadian drugs in America. If American drug users weren't supporting the Canadian gangsters with money and restricted guns the Cdn gangsters would probably be put out of business.



deaconjim said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that the Canadian police are capable of protecting you from the criminals who have access to guns, but they don't because it's too much trouble?


Yeah, I think you're a bit confused. The police are doing their best to protect the citizenry from all criminals but there are 2 types of criminals here - gangsters and petty. Of course gangsters are criminals too, but in Canada there's a big difference between the organized gangster type criminals and ordinary citizen type petty criminals. In Canada there are more gangster type criminals with American guns causing problems in Canada (and America) than there are ordinary citizen type petty criminals without guns. Gangsters don't commit petty crimes - they kill other gangsters and they deal in drugs that they export to America. Petty criminals don't usually kill people, they commit petty crimes without the use of guns. The gangsters here don't sell their guns to non-gangster petty criminals. That wouldn't be good for their business and they don't want the headache since they have much bigger fish to fry.

So the police do a pretty good job of protecting citizens from petty criminals and the crime rate in that regard is fairly low in Canada anyway. The biggest challenge to the police is dealing with trying to prevent the smuggling trade to and from America and the smuggling trade doesn't really interfere very much with ordinary Canadian citizens in their day to day lives. Except for when innocent bystanders in public get caught in the crossfire between warring gangs, and the police have no way of knowing when that is going to happen. There are more gangsters get killed with guns (killing each other) than there are other citizens who get killed with guns.

How good a job are the law enforcers in America doing in dealing with preventing both petty criminals and with preventing the organized American gangsters smuggling industry? I suspect not as well as the Canadian law enforcers because America has 10 times the population and even the petty criminals in America can get guns more easily.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, I think you're a bit confused. The police are doing their best to protect the citizenry from all criminals but there are 2 types of criminals here - gangsters and petty. Of course gangsters are criminals too, but in Canada there's a big difference between the organized gangster type criminals and ordinary citizen type petty criminals. In Canada there are more gangster type criminals with American guns causing problems in Canada (and America) than there are ordinary citizen type petty criminals without guns. Gangsters don't commit petty crimes - they kill other gangsters and they deal in drugs that they export to America. Petty criminals don't usually kill people, they commit petty crimes without the use of guns. The gangsters here don't sell their guns to non-gangster petty criminals. That wouldn't be good for their business and they don't want the headache since they have much bigger fish to fry.
> 
> So the police do a pretty good job of protecting citizens from petty criminals and the crime rate in that regard is fairly low in Canada anyway. The biggest challenge to the police is dealing with trying to prevent the smuggling trade to and from America and the smuggling trade doesn't really interfere very much with ordinary Canadian citizens in their day to day lives. Except for when innocent bystanders in public get caught in the crossfire between warring gangs, and the police have no way of knowing when that is going to happen. There are more gangsters get killed with guns (killing each other) than there are other citizens who get killed with guns.
> 
> ...


Ok, so now we're back to 'no, the police can't protect you from criminals'. The same thing is true here. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to do so. Their job is investigate crimes and apprehend those who committed them. The thing is, you're just as dead when a gangster shoots you as you are when a petty criminal shoots you. 

Although it's not the primary reason why our Constitution protects our right to own guns, they are quite helpful in defending yourself against criminals of any stripe.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> You need to thank James Holmes also. Cause *since his loony day, sales of guns and ammo has increased significantly. Probably cause people are afraid of new gun laws that might take place or suddenly feel a need to protect theirselves from loony people who own assult rifles.*
> 
> A scripture in the bible says "If you live by the sword, you shall die by the sword".


I was thinking the same thing when I heard more Americans are suddenly buying more guns and ammunition. Holmes actions has caused a lot of people to become more paranoid and frightened than what they already were to start with.

The more I think about it the more I think Holmes was perhaps not as deranged as we are all thinking. Considering that he's been planning this for months, acquiring firearms, ammunition and explosives supplies for several months and even took target practise sessions regularly for a month in June, I'm thinking he had a very insidious motive for what he did. It will all come out in the wash I'm sure, but I think maybe he's been inspired by the actions of Breivik in Norway and copied some of what Breivik did with the explosives and the shootings, perhaps for different motives though.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I was thinking the same thing when I heard more Americans are suddenly buying more guns and ammunition. Holmes actions has caused a lot of people to become more paranoid and frightened than what they already were to start with.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I think Holmes was perhaps not as deranged as we are all thinking. Considering that he's been planning this for months, acquiring firearms, ammunition and explosives supplies for several months and even took target practise sessions regularly for a month in June, I'm thinking he had a very insidious motive for what he did. It will all come out in the wash I'm sure, but I think maybe he's been inspired by the actions of Breivik in Norway and copied some of what Breivik did with the explosives and the shootings, perhaps for different motives though.
> 
> .


I heard today that he described his political views as "middle of the road". These moderates are getting out of hand! :grumble:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> The thing is, you're just as dead when a gangster shoots you as you are when a petty criminal shoots you.


Yes. *In America*. Because petty criminals in America have guns and petty criminals in Canada don't have guns. America has petty criminals who commit crimes with guns. 

I wonder what it would be like in America if it was made harder for petty criminals to get guns? Maybe then average Americans would have more ease of mind and less worry, not always having to carry guns to protect themselves from petty criminals with guns. Guns make it so much easier for criminals to be criminals.

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> No, you can't infer that. I think they try to stay of top of things but I don't think it's easy for any law enforcers to stop smuggling. The gangsters all kill each other in their gunfights and then after the shooting is over the police go arrest whoever is left alive and confiscate their remaining guns. Gangsters aren't a reason for law abiding Canadians to get more guns, the majority of Canadians already have enough guns anyway. Why would they want to own more? So they can interfere with gangsters who don't interfere with them? That would be pointless.
> 
> .


Something else to think about and try to answer.

There are 3 nations in North America. Canada has strict gun control laws and very little gun crime. The US has relatively lax gun control laws and has more gun crime vs Canada. Mexico has the strictest gun control laws of the three, Draconian gun when compared with the other two, and yet it has the highest amount of gun crime of the three. 

Using your logic that gun control laws prevents against gun crime why isn't Mexico safer than Canada?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Guns make it so much easier for criminals to be criminals."

They do? Do you have some proof of that?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

InvalidID said:


> Forgive me if this has been said.
> 
> Why do we need huge RV's the size of city buses? Why do we need sports cars? Why do we need powered weed eaters? Why do we need any number of dangerous things that we could do without?


Nobody NEEDS booze, cigarettes, pizza, and many other things, but you don't hear people asking why anybody needs them, do you? :hrm:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yes. *In America* Guns make it so much easier for criminals to be criminals.


Petty crimes in our country do not involve guns. Thats why they are called petty crimes instead of felonies. I would hazard a guess that most of US felonies are not crimes committed with guns. While the US has a somewhat higher crime rate that of Canada there are several other factors at play. When comparing the stats I think you will find that poverty makes a huge difference in crime rates... particularly so in violent crimes. Is poverty the cause? Probably not in and of itself, since violent crime rates seem to go down during poor economic times. I think you will find that culture has a lot more to do with violent crime than does economics or gun ownership. When looking at the crime stats one soon sees that particular cultures within the US geographic areas have tremendously higher violent crime than other cultures. These cultures also tend to produce higher rates of poverty, child abuse and neglect and overall socially unacceptable behaviors.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Paumon said:


> This is true. Including not to be trusted with the un-checked power of big guns that fire off 100 rounds or more. They will abuse it. Just ask Holmes.


So, once power has been abused you have to ask yourself is it proper(in a Democratic repulblic) to limit the rights of ALL people because some people have abused those rights? If you think so, maybe you'd prefer a different form of government, one which controlled everybody more. Authoritarian governments are often much safer for the people(at least from each other), but they do tend to get a bit dangerous for people on the government's "bad side".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Well with that said, I would still get to vote. Cause I own firearms. Have since I was 6 years old. But if I went loony all of a sudden, I wouldn't be able to shoot 70 people up with any of them. Cause none of them are capable of it.


You own a shotgun? If so you could do it with a little practice. IIRC you can get extended mags which will allow you to have 9 3" shells to give you a total of 162 9mm balls. That means if less than 50% of your shot hit someone (a ridiculously low percentage in a crowded theater) you'd still be able to reach your goal of shooting 70 people. If you carried a second shotgun, quicker to drop the empty and switch than reload, you'd probably be able to double your total.

Even w/o the extended mag you'd probably still be able to reach your 70 mark. Heck with a bit of practice you could do it with a break open double barrel and trap box full of shells.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I was thinking the same thing when I heard more Americans are suddenly buying more guns and ammunition. Holmes actions has caused a lot of people to become more paranoid and frightened than what they already were to start with.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I think Holmes was perhaps not as deranged as we are all thinking. Considering that he's been planning this for months, acquiring firearms, ammunition and explosives supplies for several months and even took target practise sessions regularly for a month in June, I'm thinking he had a very insidious motive for what he did. It will all come out in the wash I'm sure, but I think maybe he's been inspired by the actions of Breivik in Norway and copied some of what Breivik did with the explosives and the shootings, perhaps for different motives though.
> 
> .


You do know that the uni bomber spent months planning his attacks and building his bombs don't you? Don't let the fact that someone has the ability to plan and execute his plan lead you to believe they aren't deranged.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Yes. *In America*. Because petty criminals in America have guns and petty criminals in Canada don't have guns. America has petty criminals who commit crimes with guns.
> 
> I wonder what it would be like in America if it was made harder for petty criminals to get guns? Maybe then average Americans would have more ease of mind and less worry, not always having to carry guns to protect themselves from petty criminals with guns. Guns make it so much easier for criminals to be criminals.
> 
> .


More like Mexico?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yes. *In America*. Because petty criminals in America have guns and petty criminals in Canada don't have guns. America has petty criminals who commit crimes with guns.


So, if a petty criminal manages to get a gun, does he automatically become a gangster or is there a probationary period?



naturelover said:


> I wonder what it would be like in America if it was made harder for petty criminals to get guns? Maybe then average Americans would have more ease of mind and less worry, not always having to carry guns to protect themselves from petty criminals with guns. Guns make it so much easier for criminals to be criminals.
> .


I have very little worry about protecting myself from petty criminals. In fact, I am much more concerned about the dangers posed by our government.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> Something else to think about and try to answer.
> 
> There are 3 nations in North America. Canada has strict gun control laws and very little gun crime. The US has relatively lax gun control laws and has more gun crime vs Canada. Mexico has the strictest gun control laws of the three, Draconian gun when compared with the other two, and yet it has the highest amount of gun crime of the three.
> 
> Using your logic that gun control laws prevents against gun crime why isn't Mexico safer than Canada?


I don't know enough about Mexico to provide an informed answer. Have never been there, don't know what it's like there and have no desire to visit there. But just speculating here - I wonder if perhaps YH's comment below about poverty explains the difference between Canada and Mexico. Most of the Mexican immigrants that I've met here have been very nice people, well educated and industrious professional people who had the financial means to immigrate legally to Canada. But from some of the things I've seen posted here on HT and other places online and in the news it's my understanding that on a per capita basis there are a great many more people in Mexico live in poverty by comparison with Canada and America. 

America ranks #1 as the richest country in the world with a population of over 312 million, Mexico ranks as the 11th richest country with a population of over 113 million and Canada ranks as the 14th richest with a population of nearly 35 million.

I think the disparity in populations and GDP between the 3 countries accounts in part for the crime rates.... at least moreso than restriction or non-restriction of firearms does. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> ........ While the US has a somewhat higher crime rate that of Canada there are several other factors at play. When comparing the stats I think you will find that poverty makes a huge difference in crime rates... particularly so in violent crimes. Is poverty the cause? Probably not in and of itself, since violent crime rates seem to go down during poor economic times. I think you will find that culture has a lot more to do with violent crime than does economics or gun ownership. When looking at the crime stats one soon sees that particular cultures within the US geographic areas have tremendously higher violent crime than other cultures. These cultures also tend to produce higher rates of poverty, child abuse and neglect and overall socially unacceptable behaviors.


.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> You about nailed it. Americans do love their drugs - probably even more than they love their guns - so there's a *HUGE* market for all kinds of Canadian drugs in America. If American drug users weren't supporting the Canadian gangsters with money and restricted guns the Cdn gangsters would probably be put out of business.


So your drug dealers and gangs are the fault of the evil American?
Do all Canadians blame your problems on others or do some actually man up and take responsibility?
Why don't you take our dopers, we don't want 'em and we'll take your guns
that way everyone will be happy


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

FourDeuce said:


> Nobody NEEDS booze, cigarettes, pizza, and many other things, but you don't hear people asking why anybody needs them, do you? :hrm:


 Exactly.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Further to my above post. Where do Mexicans get their illegal guns from? I'm assuming they must import them from other countries.

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Further to my above post. Where do Mexicans get their illegal guns from? I'm assuming they must import them from other countries.
> 
> .


One of our government agencies was involved in trying to make the case that the firearms used in Mexico were coming from the US. Obama and his attorney general, Holder, are up to their eyeballs in a congressional investigation. Turns out a US agency was allowing the firearms to be taken into Mexico. They forced a licensed firearms dealer to go along with them.

The laughable part is they were going to track the firearms in Mexico. BTW the Mexican government knew nothing about it. Hillary Clinton was caught lying about the operation.

If your gangsters need evil assault rifles, have them contact our Bureau of Alcohol, Tax and Firearms. I'm sure that agency can supply them with lots of them. They have lots of experience doing that. Just don't let the Canadian government know.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

:huh: :shocked: That's not good. I'd not heard about that.

.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> A scripture in the bible says "If you live by the sword, you shall die by the sword".


**************
there is no such verse 'exactly' worded like that in the bible. But of course that never 
stopped anyone from trying to get it pass the people. Even Satan used the 'innuendo', "Did the Lord say though shall not eat of the fruit of the tree . .?"

The closest thing to what you are alluding to, is found in Matthew 26:52, and has direct meaning at the immediate time, to those disciples (especially Peter) who were there in the garden when Christ was being betrayed and turned over to the authorities.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> :huh: :shocked: That's not good. I'd not heard about that.
> 
> .


 Really?

Fast and Furious it was called this time. There was a program under Bush jr that did the same thing, Operation Wide Receiver! Only under the Bush program, everybody knew. Atf,, nsa, fbi, doj, dea, even the Mexican government along with our congress. Fast and Furious is a completely different operation. It violates international arms treaties to boot! But Obama knows nothing about it, must be why he sealed the important information by executive order!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> America ranks #1 as the richest country in the world with a population of over 312 million, Mexico ranks as the 11th richest country with a population of over 113 million and Canada ranks as the 14th richest with a population of nearly 35 million.
> 
> I think the disparity in populations and GDP between the 3 countries accounts in part for the crime rates.... *at least moreso than restriction or non-restriction of firearms does.*


At last... you seem to be "getting it". Its not the poverty that causes crime though... its the culture... or subcultures if you will... within the countries that shows up in higher crime rates, and poverty rates. When one does minimum research into it, it get very obvious... if you take these particular "cultures" out of the equation the crime and poverty numbers revert to quite peaceful and prosperous peoples living in all three countries and even those areas of the countries where crime and poverty are rampant. Not only that... but gun ownership (per capita) will be found to be higher in those areas where crime and poverty are the lowest. Guns are not the problem here... cultures which breed contempt and hatred for fellow citizens are.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Further to my above post. Where do Mexicans get their illegal guns from? I'm assuming they must import them from other countries.
> 
> .


Eric Holder and Obama sold them some, some come from South America and some from here
Close the borders and stop trying to get the illegal vote and that would go away


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> quote of a deleted post was here
> 
> .


Honest facts are if you Canadians cracked down on your own criminals, our criminals wouldn't be buying your dope and your criminals wouldn't be getting our guns.
Instead of blaming the guns, blame the bad guys and the dope, that's where the problems are.
So much easier to tell scary lies about those bad ol guns though


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Further to my above post. Where do Mexicans get their illegal guns from? I'm assuming they must import them from other countries.
> 
> .


China


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> :huh: :shocked: That's not good. I'd not heard about that.
> 
> .


Because Obama's handlers control most of the media
Oddly enough, the DOJ refuses to prosecute it's boss 
Corruption runs pretty deep in this perverted version of our government


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Because Obama's handlers control most of the media
> Oddly enough, the DOJ refuses to prosecute it's boss
> Corruption runs pretty deep in this perverted version of our government


^^^^^^^^^ Maybe we need our guns because of carp like this!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> ^^^^^^^^^ Maybe we need our guns because of carp like this!


More and more people are beginning to agree that we will be forced to protect ourselves from our own government in the not too distant future.
Obama is trying for a civil war


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> China


 Everything comes from China these days doesn't it?

Seriously though, there are a whole list of nations that would sell weapons in bulk to pretty much anyway. And being as drug smugglers are...smugglers... they would know how to get those weapons into the country. When people blame the US for Mexico's guns I have to laugh at the idiocy of it all anyway.

Americans shouldn't be allowed to have so many guns because Mexicans break the law and use them in Mexico... Canadians shouldn't be able to tap maple trees because Americans can't say when and are getting fat...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *mnn2501*
> _How about a 10 megaton *Nuke*?_
> 
> _*I'm serious*, where does it stop?_


If you WERE "serious" you wouldn't use that TIRED, LAME argument when the topic is GUNS



> I think it's been demonstrated that it's *an ego thing* and nobody really needs them, people just want them and they can have them if they can afford them.


LOL

I think what has been demonstrated is you STILL *don't have a clue* about this topic



> I do not need the type of firepower that was the original subject of the topic and I doubt that you do either.





> *I have the firepower that's needed for that*


You don't KNOW if you "need" it until you DO need it, and then it's too late to "upgrade".

You'd be more correct if you said " I haven't needed it YET"
If you find you DO need it, you'll be sorely lacking


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The reason this topic was started was because a deranged young man had a weapon (you can call it any name you want) *that held 100 rounds* of ammunition ....


No, he didn't have that at all, which again proves my point that you DON'T KNOW this topic at all


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> Nobody NEEDS booze, cigarettes, pizza, and many other things, but you don't hear people asking why anybody needs them, do you? :hrm:


Which of the items on your list, had even one "jew" in twenty been privy, might have prevented the holocaust ?

Don't be tempted to weaken the argument.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Everything comes from China these days doesn't it?
> 
> Seriously though, there are a whole list of nations that would sell weapons in bulk to pretty much anyway. And being as drug smugglers are...smugglers... they would know how to get those weapons into the country. When people blame the US for Mexico's guns I have to laugh at the idiocy of it all anyway.
> 
> Americans shouldn't be allowed to have so many guns because Mexicans break the law and use them in Mexico... Canadians shouldn't be able to tap maple trees because Americans can't say when and are getting fat...


I have some Canadian friends that come down twice a year. Talk about beer drinkers! I love these guy's. Anyway, they(12 or so) come here to buy auto accessories because they're much cheaper here as there isn't an import tariff. They smuggle them back in. Said it was easy because nobody can patrol the whole Canadian border and they knew spots. Same here for our Mexican border, the Mexicans know all the spots and it's easy to come across!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I don't know enough about Mexico to provide an informed answer. Have never been there, don't know what it's like there and have no desire to visit there. But just speculating here - I wonder if perhaps YH's comment below about poverty explains the difference between Canada and Mexico. Most of the Mexican immigrants that I've met here have been very nice people, well educated and industrious professional people who had the financial means to immigrate legally to Canada. But from some of the things I've seen posted here on HT and other places online and in the news it's my understanding that on a per capita basis there are a great many more people in Mexico live in poverty by comparison with Canada and America.
> 
> America ranks #1 as the richest country in the world with a population of over 312 million, Mexico ranks as the 11th richest country with a population of over 113 million and Canada ranks as the 14th richest with a population of nearly 35 million.
> 
> ...


Please note I said "gun crime". We are looking very specifically looking at gun crime and gun control laws. You stand, until now, has been that the way to reduce gun crime is by stricter gun control laws. Since Mexico with the strictest gun controls in North America has the most gun crime I say that your theory has been proven wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Paumon said:


> This is true. Including not to be trusted with the un-checked power of *big guns that fire off 100 rounds or more*. They will abuse it. Just ask Holmes.


"Assualt weapons" are not, *by definiton* "big guns".

At best they are considered "medium" powered?

Unless I've missed a report, he did NOT have a *100 rd magazine.*

You're parroting instead of sticking to *the facts*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Petty crimes in our country do not involve guns. Thats why they are called petty crimes instead of felonies. I would hazard a guess that most of US felonies are not crimes committed with guns. While the US has a somewhat higher crime rate that of Canada there are several other factors at play. When comparing the stats I think you will find that poverty makes a huge difference in crime rates... particularly so in violent crimes. Is poverty the cause? Probably not in and of itself, since violent crime rates seem to go down during poor economic times. I think you will find that culture has a lot more to do with violent crime than does economics or gun ownership. When looking at the crime stats one soon sees that particular cultures within the US geographic areas have tremendously higher violent crime than other cultures. These cultures also tend to produce higher rates of poverty, child abuse and neglect and overall socially unacceptable behaviors.


I also believe if you check these areas also have stricter local gun control laws. Again proving gun controls do not result in lower gun crime.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> Everything comes from China these days doesn't it?
> 
> Seriously though, there are a whole list of nations that would sell weapons in bulk to pretty much anyway. And being as drug smugglers are...smugglers... they would know how to get those weapons into the country. When people blame the US for Mexico's guns I have to laugh at the idiocy of it all anyway.
> 
> Americans shouldn't be allowed to have so many guns because Mexicans break the law and use them in Mexico... Canadians shouldn't be able to tap maple trees because Americans can't say when and are getting fat...


well, I was thinking along the lines of Mr. Miagi in "the karate kid" when the kid asked him where all those neet old cars came from.... "Detroit". China is the basic answer when warlords need weapons.... their imitation of the Russians AK's have gotten very popular all over the world.... mexico included. How the banditos aquire them, and through which channels are pretty much moot points.... they come from China.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

For Bear:











Nit picker. 

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Well with that said, I would still get to vote. Cause I own firearms. Have since I was 6 years old. But if I went loony all of a sudden, I wouldn't be able to shoot 70 people up with any of them. Cause none of them are capable of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hum, I guess Christ meant for his disciples to die by the sword. After all:

He said to them, âBut now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you donât have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. *Luke 22:36*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well, I was thinking along the lines of Mr. Miagi in "the karate kid" when the kid asked him where all those neet old cars came from.... "Detroit". China is the basic answer when warlords need weapons.... their imitation of the Russians AK's have gotten very popular all over the world.... mexico included. How the banditos aquire them, and through which channels are pretty much moot points.... they come from China.


From the pics I've seen from captured weapons Mexican's are more likely to be armed with M16s than AKs. The US government has poured millions of them into Mexico, Central and South America so they are readily available and cheap.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

watcher said:


> From the pics I've seen from captured weapons Mexican's are more likely to be armed with M16s than AKs. The US government has poured millions of them into Mexico, Central and South America so they are readily available and cheap.


They prefer Ak's they give less trouble than the US guns . Cops stage photo shoots . A old AK you don't have to worry about keeping it clean you can shake a pound of sand out of it and keep shooting not so with the other guns Also ammo is cheaper and old 7.62x39 every country has tons of it as surplus .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> For Bear:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Details matter.
Lies matter

Call it "nit picking" if you like.
I call it "truth"


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> At last... you seem to be "getting it". Its not the poverty that causes crime though... its the culture... or subcultures if you will... within the countries that shows up in higher crime rates, and poverty rates. When one does minimum research into it, it get very obvious... if you take these particular "cultures" out of the equation the crime and poverty numbers revert to quite peaceful and prosperous peoples living in all three countries and even those areas of the countries where crime and poverty are rampant. Not only that... but gun ownership (per capita) will be found to be higher in those areas where crime and poverty are the lowest. *Guns are not the problem here...* *cultures which breed contempt and hatred for fellow citizens are*.


Aside from the bolded part - I think what you say about culture and sub-culture is from your personal view point -maybe it's an American view point, maybe it isn't, I don't know. From my own view point living in a different country I can't agree with it because here we have more well defined and embraced cultures and sub-cultures (this is a decidedly multi-cultural society) and I do not see what you describe in my multi-cultural society, the exception to that being with the gangs. 

Here we have defined Asian gangs, Indo gangs, Latino gangs, European whites gangs, etc., etc. and then there is a cross country gang called the International gang which makes a big ballyhoo and chest thumping about being a "multicultural" gang (a very 'Canadian' thing).  The International gang is all cool with any person of any culture who is an actual member of their gang, but they all wage war against all the other gangs of other cultures. Go figure. But all the gangs are all well organized and all wealthy, and poverty in general in this country does not discriminate about cultures and sub-cultures within it's overall citizenry.

This - *Guns are not the problem here...* *cultures which breed contempt and hatred for fellow citizens are* - I think you really said a mouthful and I totally agree with that from my observations of contempt and hatred for fellow citizens that I see happening in your country. It's not just about culture, poverty, class system and racism, it's also about politics, religion, governance and geographical divisions. And xenophobia - intense hatred towards people in other countries (this topic is a good example of _that_). To me it is incomprehensible but for your country I think it must be a fact of life that you have all become accustomed to. I don't know how it happened but I worry about it because I think it might mean the inevitable downfall of a great nation that started out with a common goal and then lost sight of the common goal in favour of competitiveness, contempt and hatred towards fellow men.

Sorry - that was a terrible case of thread drift, wasn't it? But I'll let it stand.

.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Forerunner said:


> Which of the items on your list, had even one "jew" in twenty been privy, might have prevented the holocaust ?
> 
> *I'm not sure what(if anything) that has to do with my point.*
> 
> Don't be tempted to weaken the argument.


That doesn't weaken the argument at all. My argument is against the people who are asking the OP's question(Why do we need them?). It's a nonsense question. There is no requirement for anybody to prove a NEED before being "allowed" to own something.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Paumon said:


> This is true. Including not to be trusted with the un-checked power of big guns that fire off 100 rounds or more. They will abuse it. Just ask Holmes.


I always find that line of "reasoning" funny. This guy shot several dozen people, so why would I want to ask him anything? He's a mass murderer. Do you think he'd have any problem lying? Somehow I doubt lying would cause him to lose much sleep after shooting a bunch of people.
Just like people quoting Ted Bundy when he blamed porn for HIS actions. Somebody who killed a few dozen women wouldn't be high on my list of people to trust.:hrm:


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Most anyone serious would not use a high capacity magazine. Anything over 20 or thirty are too undependable. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them. I was raised shooting single shot rifles and a double barrel shotgun. I never spray. If I were going to be in a fire fight, I would probably like a pack of 10-20 round mags.. I can shoot my break action 30-30 just fine, and my double barrel even faster. I think folks should be glad that that fellow wasn't more disciplined, and a better shot. He'd have probably done more damage with a tube fed .22.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> That doesn't weaken the argument at all. My argument is against the people who are asking the OP's question(Why do we need them?). It's a nonsense question. There is no requirement for anybody to prove a NEED before being "allowed" to own something.


My point was, we _do_ need them.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

I'm coming late to this party, and I did *not* wade through all 330 posts on the discussion.

I will only say this. The saddest part of this to me is that here, on a forum dedicated to freedom and self-reliance, we have so many people advocating the taking away of freedom.

A love of guns is not why I detest restrictions on guns. I don't like those restrictions because I love freedom, and I take any attack on that freedom very seriously. It is not acceptable to me.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Pass all the laws you want: laws only apply to law abiding people. The guy who killed 32 people at Virginia tech had a Glock 22 handgun and a .22 pistol. Should we ban those too?

Assault rifles are banned in Norway. In 2011 a man killed 8 with a bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel, then went on to kill 69 children with a pistol and a hunting rifle. Perhaps we should outlaw fertilizer? 

Laws only affect the law-abiding. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. Our society is getting more violent - that's for sure. But it isn't the guns' fault. 

Why do I want the ability to own assault rifles? It's this thing called liberty. Freedom. Bad people have always, and will always use the freedom Americans enjoy to perpetrate evil - because freedom must, by definition, include the ability to choose. But that doesn't mean freedom is evil. And giving up our freedoms is too high a price to pay for safety.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing. But another 71 people either wounded or dead brings the question back of why are assult rifles legal to own?
> 
> Can you give me a case where an assault riffle was used in a mass shooting?
> The recent movie theater shooting was not done with an assault weapon regardless of what the media calls it.
> ...


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Rue assault weapons are illegal for the average citizen to own, They are fully automatic not semi auto


Nothing illegal about having full auto weapons.... Granted a bit more paperwork and LEO approval, but title 3 weapon are legal in all states except CA, DE, DC, HI, NY, WA. Now its not cheap to own one, the guns are very expensive, the taxes are expensive but you can own them.


----------



## CoonXpress (Sep 20, 2004)

I need







in case I get attacked by









If you paint it







, would it still be an assault weapon?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Gary in ohio said:


> Nothing illegal about having full auto weapons.... Granted a bit more paperwork and LEO approval, but title 3 weapon are legal in all states except CA, DE, DC, HI, NY, WA. Now its not cheap to own one, the guns are very expensive, the taxes are expensive but you can own them.


Good catch. Obviously most so-called assault rifles are not fully automatic. It helps to understand the technicalities. The media isn't interested in being accurate anymore. It's all sensationalism now.

I noticed someone has a selective fire M14 for sale through another website. For those of you that just panicked thinking machine guns are for sale on the internet, calm down. You can take steps towards buying them on the internet. You still have to go through all of the federal paperwork at one of the few dealers licensed for that and wait the six months, or longer, for federal approval.

If anyone is interested in a selective fire M14, the current owner only wants about $33,000. For that you get a legal, it's registered with the government, M14 that has been fired little if at all. For those unfamiliar with the term selective fire, the rifle can either be set to fire one shot when the trigger is pulled or as many rounds are in the magazine with one pull of the trigger.

By law all of the firearms capable of fully automatic fire have been registered with the federal government since 1934. To buy one you need to be fingerprinted. Get the approval of the head of local law enforcement. Then the dealer forwards the paperwork including the fingerprint card and $200 to the government. In about six months or maybe longer you'll find out if you're approved.

There's a lot of people that think the ugly scary guns are machine guns. They get automatic confused with semiautomatic. They don't know that the federal government and most states allow private ownership of automatic firearms. They also dont' realize that most automatic weapons are expensive collector items.

It doesn't help when the media misinforms the public. The latest being the Aurora incident featuring a mind boggling 100 round magazine. That was bogus reporting by the way. In the picture of the rifle, it looked like Holmes had a 20 round or at most a 30 round magazine. What he obviously didn't know is that some large cap magazines aren't reliable.

He must have been surprised when his brand new out of the box rifle jammed. 

The obvious effect other than the deaths and injuries has been to stir up the uninformed, think Naurelover, and provide a new incident for those with an agenda like those in government who were allowing rifles to be sent to the drug cartels in Mexico. Not to mention the usual idiots like Bloomberg, Schumer, Dodd and others.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> They prefer Ak's they give less trouble than the US guns . Cops stage photo shoots . A old AK you don't have to worry about keeping it clean you can shake a pound of sand out of it and keep shooting not so with the other guns Also ammo is cheaper and old 7.62x39 every country has tons of it as surplus .


Maybe in most parts of the world but the major supplier of weapons in the Americas was and, AFAIK, still is the US. Its just as easy, if not easier, to get M16s and 5.56X45 ammo south of the boarder.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Chuck said:


> Pass all the laws you want: laws only apply to law abiding people. The guy who killed 32 people at Virginia tech had a Glock 22 handgun and a .22 pistol. Should we ban those too?
> 
> Assault rifles are banned in Norway. In 2011 a man killed 8 with a bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel, then went on to kill 69 children with a pistol and a hunting rifle. Perhaps we should outlaw fertilizer?
> 
> ...


Welcome back Chuck. If I'm not mistaken, you just returned from a part of the world that understands what it is like to not be free, and to not be safe. I'm sure that was quite enlightening.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Forerunner said:


> My point was, we _do_ need them.


I prefer to address the whole idea that people get in their heads that they have some "right" to question whether somebody "needs" something(in THEIR opinion). Until the Constitution includes a clause in there telling me I need to justify my ownership of anything to any person who thinks they are in charge of me, I'll stick with the idea that I have no obligation to justify anything to them.
Trying to explain to people that we DO need something is just playing along with their game. It's not up to us to prove we need something until they prove they have the right to ask us whether we need something.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Looked in all my armorers books-still can't find an ASSULT rifle???


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

zant said:


> Looked in all my armorers books-still can't find an ASSULT rifle???


I looked in mine also, some of then go back to the 1950's and didn't find any either...

Funny how the anti guns idiots coined a term that they can't even describe or explain...Yet they continually tout it in the news media and their anti gun garbage...


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Chuck said:


> Pass all the laws you want: laws only apply to law abiding people. The guy who killed 32 people at Virginia tech had a Glock 22 handgun and a .22 pistol. Should we ban those too?
> 
> Assault rifles are banned in Norway. In 2011 a man killed 8 with a bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel, then went on to kill 69 children with a pistol and a hunting rifle. Perhaps we should outlaw fertilizer?
> 
> ...


 If I might add a little something. Laws against guns create new criminals when those that demand to be FREE refuse to give up a right. Otherwise law abiding, non-violent, upstanding Americans should not be made to choose between crime (owning a gun) and false liberty (not in jail but not free either).


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> Everything comes from China these days doesn't it?
> 
> Seriously though, there are a whole list of nations that would sell weapons in bulk to pretty much anyway. And being as drug smugglers are...smugglers... they would know how to get those weapons into the country. When people blame the US for Mexico's guns I have to laugh at the idiocy of it all anyway.
> 
> Americans shouldn't be allowed to have so many guns because Mexicans break the law and use them in Mexico... Canadians shouldn't be able to tap maple trees because Americans can't say when and are getting fat...


True, mexico could be getting thier weapons from numerous nations, but still they are getting weapons from here in America as well. Just about a year of so ago two illegal mexicans were stopped in Oklahoma and they had thier car trunk full of , what I call, assult weapons. No drugs were found in their car but drug dogs did detect the residue of drugs. So what's the deal? Mexican run up with a load of drugs up all through america distributing all across the nation, and on their way back they buy up weapons to take back to mexico with them. 



watcher said:


> Please note I said "gun crime". We are looking very specifically looking at gun crime and gun control laws. You stand, until now, has been that the way to reduce gun crime is by stricter gun control laws. Since Mexico with the strictest gun controls in North America has the most gun crime I say that your theory has been proven wrong.


Mexico also has the most corrupt law inforcement also.



Bearfootfarm said:


> "Assualt weapons" are not, *by definiton* "big guns".
> 
> At best they are considered "medium" powered?
> 
> ...


Now I don't know much about AR's and Ak's as I don't own one so therefore what the news media showed is all I can go by. They showed one that is suppose to be exactly like what J.H. used and showed the 100 round rotary clip on it. And that's how they stated it. Now they may have changed their story since then, I wouldn't know cause I purposely skip the first 10 minutes of the news cause it's gonna sound like a broken record for the next couple of weeks, talking about the theater shooting. 



tyusclan said:


> I'm coming late to this party, and I did *not* wade through all 330 posts on the discussion.
> 
> I will only say this. The saddest part of this to me is that here, on a forum dedicated to freedom and self-reliance, we have so many people advocating the taking away of freedom.
> 
> A love of guns is not why I detest restrictions on guns. I don't like those restrictions because I love freedom, and I take any attack on that freedom very seriously. It is not acceptable to me.


I love freedom too. But I'm loosing my freedom. I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. I want my freedom back. 



CoonXpress said:


> I need
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CoonXpress, I hope that's you holding the pink rifle and not the guy with the hairy back! :hrm:


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

watcher said:


> You own a shotgun? If so you could do it with a little practice. IIRC you can get extended mags which will allow you to have 9 3" shells to give you a total of 162 9mm balls. That means if less than 50% of your shot hit someone (a ridiculously low percentage in a crowded theater) you'd still be able to reach your goal of shooting 70 people. If you carried a second shotgun, quicker to drop the empty and switch than reload, you'd probably be able to double your total.
> 
> Even w/o the extended mag you'd probably still be able to reach your 70 mark. Heck with a bit of practice you could do it with a break open double barrel and trap box full of shells.


Yes I do own a shotgun and I beg to differ. Mine is a savage over&under with a .22 on top and a 20 guage on bottom. Has the words stamped on the barrel 2 3/4 inch shells only. So the 3" shells would be out unless I wanted to see why they only want 2 3/4 shells used only. But anywho, after every shot I have to manually remove the empty shell with my own hand. The barrel does not eject the shell like most shotguns do. Reason is if you shoot the .22 and need to reload, then the unshot shotgun shell will not go flying back behind you. So I don't think I would be a very fast reloader. 

But even if did own a shotgun setup for 3" shells, I still don't believe I could step into a theater and shoot up 70 people before they all exscaped for safety. Sorry, I just don't watch enough Rambo movies.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I love freedom too. But I'm loosing my freedom. I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. I want my freedom back.


You're confusing freedom with security.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm curious. Those of you who think there should be restrictions placed on guns, ammo and/or magazines, how do you propose those restrictions be put into place? Should Congress simply ignore the Constitution, or are you prepared to make the case to repeal the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> I'm curious. Those of you who think there should be restrictions placed on guns, ammo and/or magazines, how do you propose those restrictions be put into place? Should Congress simply ignore the Constitution, or are you prepared to make the case to repeal the 2nd Amendment?


No need to repeal the 2nd amendment, just simply make it a law that rifles, handguns and shot guns cannot hold more then 5 shells and cannot be reloaded so fast. Which would probably mean "no clips". Not even rotary clips for revolvers. Every shell has to be put in the firearm, one at a time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They showed one that is *suppose to be* exactly like what J.H. used and showed the 100 round rotary clip on it


I heard one report where a POLICE CHEIF stated " He used an AK 47"

The media LIES quite often.

They lied about the "body armor" too, according to the* evidence* found stating what he *actually purchased*:

BLACKHAWK! Urban Assault Vest - BLACKHAWK!

Urban Assault Vest:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No need to repeal the 2nd amendment, just simply make it a law that rifles, handguns and shot guns cannot hold more then 5 shells and cannot be reloaded so fast. Which would probably mean "no clips". Not even rotary clips for revolvers. Every shell has to be put in the firearm, one at a time.


Let's just make it illegal to shoot people, since you seem to think laws PREVENT crime



> I love freedom too. But I'm loosing my freedom. I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. *I want my freedom back*.


Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

You're more likely to be struck by lightning or killed by a drunk driver.

Are you afraid to get on the highway, or walk outside?

It's IRRATIONAL arguments like this that antigunners have to rely upon, since LOGIC doesn't apply


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I love freedom too......


No you don't. To love freedom is to desire freedom over anything else. To accept restrictions on your life or to demand restrictions on someone else's just so you can *feel* safe is shameful. The founders of our country loved freedom enough that they signed their names to a document that meant certain death if they lost. They mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for YOU, and for ME, and every time you demand or desire restrictions on that freedom, you spit on their sacrifice and their memory.

EVERY time something like this happens, we get the same old tired, emotional arguments about 'assault' rifles that statistics have proven over and over and over again simply DO NOT WORK. You can NOT make a logical argument to defend your position, because there is no logic in it. A person who has determined to commit a heinous crime will NOT be deterred because a lesser law tells him he can't have the gun he wants to do it with. If he doesn't intend to obey the law in the more serious crime, WHY would you think he would obey the law in the less serious crime?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

It honestly grieves me when good people give in to irrational emotional sentiment.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> No need to repeal the 2nd amendment, just simply make it a law that rifles, handguns and shot guns cannot hold more then 5 shells and cannot be reloaded so fast. Which would probably mean "no clips". Not even rotary clips for revolvers. Every shell has to be put in the firearm, one at a time.


That's great, but you'll have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to do that. In case you're not familiar with it, it states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That includes arms that hold 5 or more shells.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> My point was, we _do_ need them.


No there is no need to have more than a days supply of food or a fire extinguisher or a smoke detector or life insurance or a lot of the things we have. Will we need to have them in the future maybe. If you don't think so them don't buy one but I see there may be a time when you may need one. I would hate to be in the position of needing one and it be against the law.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

watcher said:


> Hum, I guess Christ meant for his disciples to die by the sword. After all:
> 
> He said to them, âBut now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you donât have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. *Luke 22:36*


*************
from your example, it was used to fulfill prophecy that HE would be numbered with
the trangressors (which is stated in the very next verse); similiar to what those who advocate gun control today and use various arguments that have nothing to do with
reality in order to make 2nd amendment adherents look bad. 

The example that I was referring to, involved HIS telling the disciples, that nothing was going to stop him from going to the cross to bear the sins of the worl & not even if they took up swords to try and prevent it. . .and if necessary, they would/could be killed and advised them to not interfer.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Oldcountryboy said:


> No need to repeal the 2nd amendment, just simply make it a law that rifles, handguns and shot guns cannot hold more then 5 shells and cannot be reloaded so fast. Which would probably mean "no clips". Not even rotary clips for revolvers. Every shell has to be put in the firearm, one at a time.


Yep that could been the one law he obeyed :bouncy::bouncy:

I bet some fifth graders could build better mags than we get from china anyway.

Also anyone with one eye and half sense can see you don't know split beans from coffee about firearms :run::bdh:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> True, mexico could be getting thier weapons from numerous nations, but still they are getting weapons from here in America as well. Just about a year of so ago two illegal mexicans were stopped in Oklahoma and they had thier car trunk full of , what I call, assult weapons. No drugs were found in their car but drug dogs did detect the residue of drugs. So what's the deal? Mexican run up with a load of drugs up all through america distributing all across the nation, and on their way back they buy up weapons to take back to mexico with them.


 So what? There are already laws against that right? So perhaps we should stick to enforcing those laws? Better yet, maybe Mexico should enforce it's OWN firearms laws, yes? We're left to deal with Mexican drugs on our own after all.

And I say again. Canadians should be banned from tapping maple trees right? After all, obesity and diabetes are at an epidemic level in the states...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I'm curious. Those of you who think there should be restrictions placed on guns, ammo and/or magazines, how do you propose those restrictions be put into place? Should Congress simply ignore the Constitution, or are you prepared to make the case to repeal the 2nd Amendment?


That's easy. Just stop making them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's easy. Just stop making them.


They don't "make" cocaine or heroin here either, but I haven't seen any drop in the supply.

Also there are MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) of them out there now.

Just more idealistic fantasies.............


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Paumon said:


> That's easy. Just stop making them.


I haven't noticed any of the gun makers announcing plans to close their doors. Even if they did, guns seem to have some lasting power. My favorite hunting rifle was made in 1917 and still works as well as ever. I don't think it will be as "easy" as you say.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> That's easy. Just stop making them.


But there are already millions of hi-cap mags out there
I've got several, everybody I know has several
Will they send Obama's jackboots door to door ransacking houses taking everything that's not approved by the regime?
Maybe they'll burn the house down to teach us a lesson while they are at it, but only after they rape our children.
Of course they'll have our weapons, the ammo supply will have been cut off, so there's not much we can do about it.
See what you are asking for?
With an America hating president who has already shown his willingness to avoid the Constitution and disobey our laws, what makes you think we can trust this government?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Isn't it nice of people to worry about everyone else enough to make the decision on what they need and don't need. What they should be able to own and what should be against the law.
Wonder what gives these nice people the power to make decisions for other people?
Would they be willing to let other people make the decision for them?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> But there are already millions of hi-cap mags out there
> I've got several, everybody I know has several


In Cali, mags are limited to 10 rounds. Several Cali residents I've met at gun schools in Nevada have told me that they disassemble their higher capacity mags to keep them at home legally. In the car, within a few minutes of leaving their state to go shooting in Nevada, they reassemble the mags. 

And the gun haters want to pass more laws that limit mag size so that would be mass murders are equally inconvenienced by, oh, 5 to 10 minutes of mag assembly time. I suppose the theory is that in those few minutes criminal might change his mind. Wow, that will make everyone safe. Problem solved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I love freedom too. But I'm loosing my freedom. I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. I want my freedom back.


You are perfectly free to walk into any theatre, restaurant, super market, or ball game without worrying about anything.... thats YOUR choice. I could make the same claim about being worried about botulism at any restaurant, or skin cancer from too much sun. Or I can simply go to the ball game, and eat my hotdogs without worrying. :shrug:

Now as to the "lunatic" portion of your comment... think about it for a moment... The theater was filled with batman "fans"!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are perfectly free to walk into any theatre, restaurant, super market, or ball game without worrying about anything.... thats YOUR choice. I could make the same claim about being worried about botulism at any restaurant, or skin cancer from too much sun. Or I can simply go to the ball game, and eat my hotdogs without worrying. :shrug:
> 
> Now as to the "lunatic" portion of your comment... think about it for a moment... The theater was filled with batman "fans"!


That is the best one yet :clap::clap:


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> It honestly grieves me when good people give in to irrational emotional sentiment.


Why not a law making it illegal for emotionally unstable people that whine and cry about fake freedom and rights to post on net/forums....Is'nt it my right not to read meaningless emotional blather??Is'nt it my right not to have illegal laws foisted on me because of brainless emotion??


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> That's easy. Just stop making them.


 Lawmakers have thought about passing laws of that ilk. Then they realize that law enforcement will always need firearms. With an estimated 240 million firearms in this country and sales booming since our socialist president assumed office, I figure thugs are looking at a decidedly more hazardous future. Is this a great country or what? Add the CCW reciprocity law and we're good to go ... anywhere in the good ole US of A.

Typically I read about several home invasions each week that go badly for the intruders. I'm not surprised by how many involve thugs thinking the elderly are easy prey. Rather than the elderly targets getting battered, killed and/or raped, the thugs often end up with additional body openings in addition to the ones they were born with.

Until you can promise a great, well paying job for everyone in this country and an end to drug abuse, we'll keep, and use our firearms, thank you very much. Contrary to all of the hand wringers, all of those firearms don't result in shoot outs. Of course paper and metal targets in this country take a licking.

BTW, if you visit this country check out the problem areas first. Tourists in some areas seem to attract thugs. A certain malevolent subclass of our society regards tourists as easy pickings. If I notice the cars with license plates from Canada. I'm sure the thugs do too.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"But I'm loosing my freedom."

If that is true, then you should fight with the person who is taking your freedom from you. You don't do that by attacking something else.

"I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. I want my freedom back."

Then take it back. The only person taking your freedom from you is YOU. You make the decision to worry, so you are the only one who can give you back your "freedom".


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

zant said:


> Why not a law making it illegal for emotionally unstable people that whine and cry about fake freedom and rights to post on net/forums....Is'nt it my right not to read meaningless emotional blather??Is'nt it my right not to have illegal laws foisted on me because of brainless emotion??


Oh, let's be fair.

Make 'em buy a permit.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

Forerunner said:


> Oh, let's be fair.
> 
> *Make 'em buy a permit.*


The 'entitled' would demand someone else pay for THEIR permit. It is only fair.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Hmmmm... it seems the high capacity magazine in the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and one person in the theater even made the statement that it saved his life. From what I understand, he did most of his shooting with a shotgun, which has to be reloaded at least every 5 rounds. So much for the "Assault Rifle with high capacity magazine" issue.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> I love freedom too. But I'm loosing my freedom. I can't freely walk into a theater, resturant, super market, ballgame, without the worry of some lunitic with a assult weapon may start shootin everyone. I want my freedom back.


You and I have the same fear. So I have a serious question, Oldcountryboy. Why do you believe your desire to be free from worry about bad guys having guns should usurp my desire to be free from worry about bad guys having guns?

Your solution is to disarm me and cause me greater worry, while my solution is to arm and train myself to reduce your need to worry by providing protection for you, me, and other good folks. Please explain how you justify that.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

I'm not surprised the high-cap mag failed. Those things aren't very reliable. From the description of the attack I read, it appears this kid had virtually no training on how to use his recently-purchased guns. One more reason a trained citizen with a weapon could have averted this tragedy.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

CesumPec said:


> You and I have the same fear. So I have a serious question, Oldcountryboy. Why do you believe your desire to be free from worry about bad guys having guns should usurp my desire to be free from worry about bad guys having guns?
> 
> Your solution is to disarm me and cause me greater worry, while my solution is to arm and train myself to reduce your need to worry by providing protection for you, me, and other good folks. Please explain how you justify that.


Everywhere I go, people are a little bit safer because I am there.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Chuck said:


> I'm not surprised the high-cap mag failed. Those things aren't very reliable. .....


If they aren't very reliable then why do people want them?

.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Only people distracted by the thought of having all of those rounds lust after them. I say let them have them


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yes I do own a shotgun and I beg to differ. Mine is a savage over&under with a .22 on top and a 20 guage on bottom. Has the words stamped on the barrel 2 3/4 inch shells only. So the 3" shells would be out unless I wanted to see why they only want 2 3/4 shells used only. But anywho, after every shot I have to manually remove the empty shell with my own hand. The barrel does not eject the shell like most shotguns do. Reason is if you shoot the .22 and need to reload, then the unshot shotgun shell will not go flying back behind you. So I don't think I would be a very fast reloader.
> 
> But even if did own a shotgun setup for 3" shells, I still don't believe I could step into a theater and shoot up 70 people before they all exscaped for safety. Sorry, I just don't watch enough Rambo movies.


I have an Remington 870 WingMaster shotgun chambered for 2 3/4" shells.










That's one nasty looking assault weapon right there ain't it.

I can buy a mag extender which would allow me to carry 10 rounds. 











A 2 3/4" shell holds 9 pellets which are about the same diameter as a 9mm round. Therefore for I would only have 90 projectiles. So I might not be able to reach your 70 people but how many do you think I could hit?

But if I were going to be facing a large crowd of people I felt needed to be shot who would not be behind some kind of protection I would use #4 buckshot. More pellets and better spread. FYI, my shotgun is loaded with two #4 buckshot followed by two 00 buckshot with a slug as the last round.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> If they aren't very reliable then why do people want them?
> 
> .


Because they're "cool"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> If they aren't very reliable then why do people want them?
> .


MOST people *don't* want them, much like MOST people* never commit a crime* with their "assault weapons"

Why do you ASSUME otherwise?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So I might not be able to reach your 70 people but how many do you think I could hit?


CBS reported today there were "*12 killed and 43 wounded*", which doesn't add up to the "70" reported earlier.

I think they probably counted those injured by the CROWD among the "wounded" in the first reports


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Because they're "cool"?


Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along. It's an ego thing, not a necessity.

Like Hummers. Originally produced for military use and then so many other non-military people thought they were cool and wanted Hummers for themselves. Didn't really need it, just wanted it. "Cuz the military has it and it's cool and impressive looking and if the military can have then I want it too so I can look cool and impressive too."



Anyway .... whatever .... it's been a slice. Ciao.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along.* It's an ego thing*, not a necessity.


No, you've been saying that about the guns themselves.
They function the same no matter what size magazine you use.

Most people prefer a 20-30 rd mag, and MOST people don't shoot other people


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along. It's an ego thing, not a necessity.
> 
> Like Hummers. Originally produced for military use and then so many other non-military people thought they were cool and wanted Hummers for themselves. Didn't really need it, just wanted it. "Cuz the military has it and it's cool and impressive looking and if the military can have then I want it too so I can look cool and impressive too."
> 
> ...


I suppose everything you have is absolutely necessary?
100 round drums are not very useful but they are hardly an "ego thing" and it has nothing to do with looking "cool and impressive"
You are Canadian, you can't understand liberty


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> If they aren't very reliable then why do people want them?
> 
> .


Because the people buying them get all their weapon knowledge from movies. In the movies these hicap mags allow the shooter to shoot and shoot and shoot and, if he's the good guy or the movie is building up the bad guy, kill and kill and kill. They find out in real life the springs in such mags must be a compromise and that compromise leads to failure to feed.

Think about it. If these mags really worked don't you think the military would be using them? If not the line troopers then the specops (special operations) types, e.g. SEALS?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along. It's an ego thing, not a necessity.
> 
> Like Hummers. Originally produced for military use and then so many other non-military people thought they were cool and wanted Hummers for themselves. Didn't really need it, just wanted it. "Cuz the military has it and it's cool and impressive looking and if the military can have then I want it too so I can look cool and impressive too."
> 
> ...


If you're going to outlaw things people buy because they think the item makes them look cool how about the shirts that have the maker's name on them? I've never figured out the logic behind paying good money to wear something that provides free advertising for a company. How smart is that? If they want their name on my chest or azz they'll have to pay me. 

I prefer we allow people to buy the "cool" stuff. In some cases that's a heads up giving you some insight into the person. Holmes while supposedly intelligent, wasn't smart. The one person at the firing range he interacted with via a message on an answering machine pegged him as a nut case. His supervisor when he was an intern also noticed problems. 

This isn't a perfect world. Yet electric fence liberals think we're one law away from getting there. Meanwhile firearms are used extensively for defensive purposes in this country. Add the fact that those cities in this country with the most restrictive gun control are the most unsafe based on violent crime and any person capable of critical thinking would get the point.

Allowing emotions to cloud your decisions is not a successful life strategy. If you want that for yourself, fine. The rest of us reserve the right to use logic.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> If they aren't very reliable then why do people want them?
> 
> .


Because of Hollywood and marketing..

But then remember most of Hollywood are liberal anti-gun folks that play gun toting heroes and such.. Thus convincing themselves that they know more about guns then those of us who actually use them... Funny how that seems to work....

With over 30 rifles and shotguns in my corral there isn't a single drum magazine. The highest capacity mags I have are 30 rd mags. Even then there is FTF issues especially with the ones for the Ruger 10/22 ( a semiautomatic 22 caliber rifle). This isn't some high powered rifle in any sense of the word, but is a reliable rifle for vermin with the proper mag..


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> But there are already millions of hi-cap mags out there
> I've got several, everybody I know has several
> Will they send Obama's jackboots door to door ransacking houses taking everything that's not approved by the regime?
> Maybe they'll burn the house down to teach us a lesson while they are at it, but only after they rape our children.
> ...


Every administration in the last 25 years has done exactly what it has wanted to do. We have a Congress that is totally inept by giving too much power to the president and unwilling to protect US citizens.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

A clip is used to load a magazine, a magazine is what holds the cartridges in the firearm. With the exception of the en-bloc, which can be both. Go ahead, limit my clips to 5 rounds.....but don't even try to tell me you want to take or ban my 20 and 30 round magazines. 

To the anti gun people who want to take our rights away, don't act like the media...at least know what you are talking about before making idiotic statements.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Aside from the bolded part - I think what you say about culture and sub-culture is from your personal view point -maybe it's an American view point, maybe it isn't, I don't know. From my own view point living in a different country I can't agree with it because here we have more well defined and embraced cultures and sub-cultures (this is a decidedly multi-cultural society) and I do not see what you describe in my multi-cultural society, the exception to that being with the gangs.


It is my personal viewpoint indeed... but that viewpoint is based on statistics compiled by numerous sources over a good many years far more than it is based on personal observations ( which do seem to coincide with the numbers). I see very little difference in the overall crime stats once a few basic groups are removed from the equation... "gangs" in particular.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along. It's an ego thing, not a necessity."

Maybe we should outlaw egos then?:grin:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

FourDeuce said:


> "Which is basically the same as what I've been saying all along. It's an ego thing, not a necessity."
> 
> Maybe we should outlaw egos then?:grin:


Seems to me egos are the root of all evil


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing. But another 71 people either wounded or dead brings the question back of why are assult rifles legal to own?


Because we are a free people. As the price of freedom for everyone we cannot be totaly safe.



Oldcountryboy said:


> They should only be used in the military, ?


Nope I belive the forefathers of this nation in recognition of the power a government could amass wanted the people to be armed at least as well as the government.
Thats how it was in the days of the revalution and thats what allowed us to have our freedom.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

What those that advocate Gun control for safety forget is that anybody with a bag of nails a gallon of gas and some plumbing pipe can create a bomb.
Shall we outlaw cars, homes and plumbing?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fantasymaker said:


> What those that advocate Gun control for safety forget is that anybody with a bag of nails a gallon of gas and some plumbing pipe can create a bomb.
> Shall we outlaw cars, homes and plumbing?


Maybe we should outlaw lawmakers


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few shoes and will probably get a good royal but_ chewing.



Now hasn't this been like a really cool thread? How many times in the last 10 years have I started this same thread and set back and watch the arguments continue on and on, and on? It's even got 999 likes, maybe more by the time it's thru. Sorry Naturelover for getting you involved in this. I repeat this subject every few years or so. Usually when we have a mass shooting and I'll probably do it again the next time one happens. I know what the results will be. Another but_ chewing!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now hasn't this been like a really cool thread? How many times in the last 10 years have I started this same thread and set back and watch the arguments continue on and on, and on? It's even got 999 likes, maybe more by the time it's thru. *Sorry Naturelover for getting you involved in this. I repeat this subject every few years or so.* Usually when we have a mass shooting and I'll probably do it again the next time one happens. I know what the results will be. Another but_ chewing!


LOL. No worries, I have a bee in my bonnet about it too and have gotten involved in other threads about it over the years.

Besides which, my participation always allows an opportunity for some people here to take advantage of to get their kicks and punches in on bashing evil socialist Canada to their heart's delight, being as how they're unable to separate one person from an entire country. I think it is hilarious.

It was an interesting topic. :grin:

.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

What a great country it is when any Comrade in the world can live in a free country and try daily to destroy the very freedoms that make it a free country:fussin: . You would think they would just move to a country where according to their views they would feel much safer . These people are a enemy with in our country . :viking:

I think it was a Southern saying If your heart an't in Dixie get your _ss out :drum:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I think it was a Southern saying If your heart an't in Dixie get your _ss out :drum:


I am not sure just where that saying came from but I am pretty sure that it did not originate in Ohio nor Massachusetts .


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It comes down to the cultural differences between countries. One size fits all does not work. As much as many think you can legislate change, the law of unintended consequences ultimately disappoints them. As much as some believe the old kindergarten admonishment of "Play nice." works for adults, there are practical limits.

You can't ignore a reality that includes a multi-generational underclass that has beliefs contrary to a peaceful society. Nor can you ignore the increasing level of violence that permeates modern life. We've desensitized some of the most easily influenced members of our society.

Most Americans are not going to disagree with the above. The booming sales of firearms show that Americans have concerns about their well-being and, for some, the direction of government that subjects their lives to an increasingly intrusive degree mostly in the name of reducing risk and making our lives safer.

Those that suffer from criminal acts understand the limitations of government. When all is said and done, you and your family have to be prepared to act on their own.

The real message which the electric fence liberals have ignored is that when the SHTF, no one protected the people in that theater.

The other lesson they chose to ignore is the fallacy of the belief in the lethality of an assault rifle with the ability to accept large capacity magazines which failed the shooter. Instead a pump shotgun that was first sold in 1950 was probably the most lethal weapon the shooter used that night. Over nine million of those shotguns have been sold and used since it was first introduced in 1950. Unlike the evil assault rifle, the Remington 870 shotgun is operated manually.

The sound of the slide being operated on an 870 has been enough to cause criminals to flee. I daresay even a recording might work in some situations. No one in their right mind who looks at the half inch opening of a twelve gauge shotgun barrel is going to do much arguing. Unfortunately, Holmes wasn't interested in talk that night in the theater.

The defenseless people were slaughtered. I suspect many that escaped that night are now considering arming themselves in the future.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darren said:


> No one in their right mind who looks at the half inch opening of a twelve gauge shogun barrel is going to do much arguing.


Having had the opportunity to stare down the barrel of a twelve gauge I will agree with you... I was exceeding polite and cooperative with the grumpy old man that held it. I do have to question your "half inch opening" on that barrel though.... the one that old man had pointed at me was at least 2 feet in diameter!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If true, someone has already succeeded in "printing" the lower receiver of an AR15. This development would end the government's ability to control firearms.

3D Printed AR-15 Lower Works - Hack a Day


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Hate to be a stickler for detail......but .73 is pretty much three quarters of an inch.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Forerunner said:


> Hate to be a stickler for detail......but .73 is pretty much three quarters of an inch.


Jeez, :smack: you're right. :bow: And I've got a half full box within reach.


----------



## mplatt4 (Mar 24, 2007)

if you check I am fairly sure that IUD's killed more in Iraq than guns and the IRA killed thousands with IUD's anyone with net can make a IUD so I guess we bette outlaw everything except beans and rice and Taxes


----------



## MD Steader (Mar 11, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, yeah, I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with tools of death that can turn people into hamburger.
> 
> The more oomph the sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic tool provides the more effortless kills can be accomplished in less time.
> 
> ...












Is this an assault rifle?----^


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What Naturelover seems to have not understood is the evil assault rifle crapped out. The neither automatic nor semiautomatic Remington shotgun, which has to be operated manually to eject and load, worked fine ... unfortunately. Just like it has for millions of hunters since 1950.

So while he and the rest of the electric fence liberals bay at the evilness and outrageousness of the assault rifle it was a lowly manually manipulated shotgun that functioned best. Particularly amazing was the story of one of the victims that survived a shotgun pellet that entered her brain. A hair to the right or left and she would have died. She lived due to a defect in her brain structure.

So to solve the problem, the electric fence liberals want to ban the high capacity magazines that potentially have the greatest failure rate. The next mass killer with an assault rifle will have a better chance of success with five and ten round magazines. That means a killer can still carry the same amount of ammo. they'll just need more magazines which probably gives them a better chance of having more magazines that work. How smart is that?

He also still seems confused by automatic weapons. The 70,000 or so that are registered with the feds and owned by private individuals have never been used in a crime since the registration started in 1934..

You can never avoid the Law of Unintended Consequences.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> What Naturelover seems to have not understood ...... So while *he* and the rest of the .....


He? :hysterical: Surprise, surprise. You can call me a rickety gray haired old granny, but not _he_.













Darren said:


> You can never avoid the Law of Unintended Consequences


You can say that again. Truer words were never spoke. :awh:











And her LIBERTY to kill.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> =naturelover;6043699
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In that same year in *AMERICA*, they were used over 1 *MILLION* times to *STOP CRIMES*

You're comparing us to countries that aren't as large as some of our STATES, and don't have our ethnic/sociological diversity.

In other words, it means little in *REALISTIC* terms.

Check the figures on some *African* and *Central* and *South American* Countries and we look downright peaceful


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

.....and, in little bitty (at the time) nazi Germany, circa 1940-, a reported 6,000,000 ethnic "undesirables" were murdered for their lack of an equal and adequate defense against their ruling elite.

Naturelover isn't stupid. 
...and she has certainly shown no love for conservative, hardworking, liberty-loving America.

Perhaps, deep down, she'd like to see that portion of America slaughtered.

Keep plugging for that end, NL.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

oldcountryboy said:


> now hasn't this been like a really cool thread? How many times in the last 10 years have i started this same thread and set back and watch the arguments continue on and on, and on? It's even got 999 likes, maybe more by the time it's thru. Sorry naturelover for getting you involved in this. I repeat this subject every few years or so. Usually when we have a mass shooting and i'll probably do it again the next time one happens. I know what the results will be. Another but_ chewing!





naturelover said:


> lol. No worries, i have a bee in my bonnet about it too and have gotten involved in other threads about it over the years.
> 
> Besides which, my participation always allows an opportunity for some people here to take advantage of to get their kicks and punches in on bashing evil socialist canada to their heart's delight, being as how they're unable to separate one person from an entire country. I think it was hilarious.
> It was an interesting topic. :grin:
> ...


********************
trolls!!!

Someone 'remind' me again. . . What are we NOT supposed to do with them?


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

mplatt4 said:


> if you check I am fairly sure that IUD's killed more in Iraq than guns and the IRA killed thousands with IUD's anyone with net can make a IUD so I guess we bette outlaw everything except beans and rice and Taxes


I believe thats IED...but I was almost severly injured by a IUD and over zelous muscle


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

zant said:


> I believe thats IED...but I was almost severly injured by a IUD and over zelous muscle


:hysterical::hysterical:Coffee thru the nose.. Cleaning keyboard as I type!!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

So the question still stands;

Why do some here want to punish and criminalize honest hard working folks instead of blaming the criminal?

Criminals don't follow the laws to begin with.. Yet there seems to be some here that want more laws and regulations to penalize honest people..

This tells me they don't believe in freedom or liberty unless it is on their terms only..Which isn't freedom or liberty...

All I have to say about that is: If you want a country built on your terms, either move to one that exists already or build your own.. But stay the heck away from mine and the Constitution..

I can't and won't stop you from spewing the hate you have for honest Americans, but your voice may be drowned out by mine... Isn't freedom a lovely thing!


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

As Goebbels(yeah, the Nazi) said, "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a whopper."

"In one year, guns murdered:
17 in Finland
35 in Australia
39 in England and Wales
60 in Spain
194 in Germany
200 in Canada
9,484 in the United States"

So the propaganda said. The truth is, 
In one year, guns murdered:
0 in Finland
0 in Australia
0 in England and Wales
0 in Spain
0 in Germany
0 in Canada
0 in the United States

Guns have never murdered anybody. Funny how, if that argument is true:hrm:, then why does nobody go after the other things which "murder" thousands MORE people? If the goal is saving lives, somebody is confused about how to do that.
Using that "logic" 34,485 people were killed by cars. That's about 4 times more than guns.
24,792 were killed by gravity. That's twice as many as guns.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

HOT TOPIC! 

This seems to be a hot topic everywhere. With perty much the same results. Have you all heard what Rocker Ted Nugent had to say about all this? Just read it on MSN.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

naturelover said:


>



Absolutely untrue.


Not one single gun has *ever* murdered anyone. NO ONE has ever been killed BY a gun. They were killed BY another person WITH a gun. The gun can NOT hurt, maim, or kill anyone unless a live, breathing human being causes it to.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

tyusclan said:


> Absolutely untrue.
> 
> 
> Not one single gun has *ever* murdered anyone. NO ONE has ever been killed BY a gun. They were killed BY another person WITH a gun. The gun can NOT hurt, maim, or kill anyone unless a live, breathing human being causes it to.


I don't know i got some my scary ones locked up :duel:


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

The framers of the constitution must be spinning in their graves right now. 

When they wrote the 2nd amendment, they'd just overthrow an oppressive government, and wanted to ensure that citizens would be able to do so in the future.

They would not have expected us to be able to stand against fully automatic weapons with muzzle loading rifles. They wanted us to have military equivalent firearms. At that time, citizens _did _have them. It should still be that way today.

It ain't about duck huntin'.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

In the 1920s you could buy a Thompson automatic machine gun in a drug store. Now we call anything that fires one bullet when the trigger is pressed an 'assault rifle'. So what happens when we get rid of anything semi-auto and someone walks into a theater with a lever action rifle and kills 9 people...are the same people who are calling for an end to 'assault rifles' going to say "its ok, it wasn't an assault rifle and only 9 people dies instead of 12"?

Then what happens when they get rid of all bolt action, lever action, and single action pistols and someone walks into a crowded theater with a black powder gun, and a keg of powder? Are they going to say " its Ok that he lit off that keg and shot a police man because it wasn't one of those lever action assault guns"?

Then they will want to get rid of anything and everything that someone could possibly use as a firearm. Then it will be bow and arrow, then knives, bats...what else? Automobiles, kitchen utensils, steel, rocks, sling shots, razor blades, how far does this mentality take us? We need only look at England where they are trying to require government permits to buy knives. It never ends until we come to the realization that with freedom comes certain risks, but none of those risks are as great as the risk of giving up that freedom. These are old lessons, learned three hundred years ago by people who knew what it was like to live under the yoke of an omnipotent government where the individual had no rights or freedom.

Some on the left want us to go backwards.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Murder appears to be a cultural and locational thing.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intentional homicide rate *per 100,000*.

0-1 very light blue 
1-2 medium light blue 
2-5 blue
5-10 dark blue 
10-20 indigo 
>20 black 
no data for grey

 

.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Steve L. said:


> The framers of the constitution must be spinning in their graves right now.
> 
> When they wrote the 2nd amendment, they'd just overthrow an oppressive government, and wanted to ensure that citizens would be able to do so in the future.
> 
> ...


Naw it's about skunk hunting :duel:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Murder appears to be a cultural and locational thing.
> 
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


By your chart Canada and Mexico are just as bad as the US. Even though both have more stringent rules and assault guns are not allowed.But you know that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Murder appears to be a cultural and locational thing.


It would appear that you are getting it.... now... look at the maps again... and tell us which cultures are more predominate in the darkest areas. I am of the belief that its primarily culture. Note that climates really are not a determiner, and neither are gun control laws.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Remember that chart is about murders - it's not about the weapons used to commit the murders.

I think you have to look at the disparity in populations too and I think those estimates have been done kind of strange. For example, the study is based per 100,000 population and Nunavut has the 10 - 20 murders per 100,000 rating, but Nunavut doesn't have a population even approaching 100,000, the population there is 32,000. Being not good at maths I'm trying to figure that out - would that work out to something like 3 - 6 murders for the entire population of 32,000? They all have guns and all manner of other weapons in every Inuit home in Nunavut because they are all sustenance hunters but the Inuit are all a very placid and non-temperamental people. Yukon and Northwest Territories both have less than 50,000 each and both have less murders.

It is interesting that there is such a distinct line drawn across the USA separating the southern states from the more central and northern states, so that would indicate that murder is a cultural thing more prevalent in the southern states.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Remember that *chart* is about murders - *it's not about the weapons* used to commit the murders.


 
So all those countries with the *SAME murder rates* but FEWER guns *prove* one thing

More GUNS* don't* CAUSE *more* murders.


Also in your first chart, it compared us to Finland, a* country* with a population of LESS than 6 million, when *NYC alone* is over 8 million

Starting to see the light now?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

naturelover said:


> It is interesting that there is such a distinct line drawn across the USA separating the southern states from the more central and northern states, so that would indicate that murder is a cultural thing more prevalent in the southern states.
> 
> .



Do you mean the southern states that are closer to the Mexican border where thousands of *illegal* aliens cross over everyday? The states that would naturally have a higher population of *illegal* aliens that come into our state? You think maybe, just maybe, it might be *that* culture that could be the reason for the higher murder rates?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Thanks a lot!:grumble:
This stupid thread caused me to panic buy an evil black rifle :smack
I guess it's only money.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

An assult rifle is a very good investment. Any gun is a very good investment. If you are a criminal or an honest person, it don't matter, it is still a good investment.

If you are an honest person what other investment could save your life, the lives of your family, and the lives of others?

If you are a criminal, what other investment could pay for itself the same day?


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

tyusclan said:


> Do you mean the southern states that are closer to the Mexican border where thousands of *illegal* aliens cross over everyday? The states that would naturally have a higher population of *illegal* aliens that come into our state? You think maybe, just maybe, it might be *that* culture that could be the reason for the higher murder rates?


You are exactly right. The darkest states have the highest population of illegal immigrants. And the fact that there's no "data" for most of Africa is amazing. There's probably the highest murder rate of any place in the world in most parts of Africa. They seem to be slaughtering each other on a daily basis for some reason or other. Maybe there's no data because everyone is afraid to go to Africa and try to determine the murder rate.


.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Remember that chart is about murders - it's not about the weapons used to commit the murders.
> 
> I think you have to look at the disparity in populations too and I think those estimates have been done kind of strange. For example, the study is based per 100,000 population and Nunavut has the 10 - 20 murders per 100,000 rating, but Nunavut doesn't have a population even approaching 100,000, the population there is 32,000. Being not good at maths I'm trying to figure that out - would that work out to something like 3 - 6 murders for the entire population of 32,000? They all have guns and all manner of other weapons in every Inuit home in Nunavut because they are all sustenance hunters but the Inuit are all a very placid and non-temperamental people. Yukon and Northwest Territories both have less than 50,000 each and both have less murders.
> 
> ...


Oh that is interesting but not relevant to the discussion abut assault rifles. I thought you were referring to the use of assault rifles. Posting something else is a favorite trick of most liberals. When you can't have anything to answer change the subject.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

tyusclan said:


> Do you mean the southern states that are closer to the Mexican border where thousands of *illegal* aliens cross over everyday? The states that would naturally have a higher population of *illegal* aliens that come into our state? You think maybe, just maybe, it might be *that* culture that could be the reason for the higher murder rates?


Not discounting the illegal alien culture here but there are several other factors at play too. If you will notice the southeastern states (which do not have the high influx of illegals with the exception of fl.) seem to be plagued with higher than normal murder rates... as does a few northern states as well. What I have noticed is most of the high murder rates seem to have high density population areas.... (larger cities) and within those cities are the subcultures that (according to the stats) account for nearly all of the unusually high numbers. Look at illinois and michigan for example.... I think you will find the per capita murder rates in chicago and detroit to be much much greater than that of the rural areas of those states. Same thing in those southern states... inner city subcultures account for the vast majority of violent crimes, murder in particular.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

cdnnsports.com having a good sale on hi-cap mags this weekend-with $5.00 shipping.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not discounting the illegal alien culture here but there are several other factors at play too. If you will notice the southeastern states (which do not have the high influx of illegals with the exception of fl.) seem to be plagued with higher than normal murder rates... as does a few northern states as well. What I have noticed is most of the high murder rates seem to have high density population areas.... (larger cities) and within those cities are the subcultures that (according to the stats) account for nearly all of the unusually high numbers. Look at illinois and michigan for example.... I think you will find the per capita murder rates in chicago and detroit to be much much greater than that of the rural areas of those states. Same thing in those southern states... inner city subcultures account for the vast majority of violent crimes, murder in particular.


Alabama's illegal population grew by 145% in 2011. I couldn't find a number on what that brought the population up to, but that would have to be a significant number.

Georgia has the 6th highest illegal population in the nation with 444,000 illegals.

I also could not find a firm number on Louisiana's illegal population, and didn't look for Mississippi's.

I agree that higher population centers also equate to higher murder rates, but all the southern states have significant illegal populations.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

That map is racist! Considering just the US portion, and the darkest states, and taking into consideration that most murders are committed in high density population centers, and accounting for the figures that show highest non-white populations are in those areas, that map can only lead to the conclusion that we need more segregation and less diversity to be safe  

See how easy it is to change from "gun control is necessary" to "ethnic cleansing"? Or how easy it is to interpret data in a way it wasn't meant to be used? 

Gun control is hitting your target. Disarming citizens has no effect on criminals. People who don't understand that are raving lunatics, or average liberals.


----------



## mplatt4 (Mar 24, 2007)

I believe we all have the right to believe what we want and believe in what we want those rights are guaranteed to us in our constitution. We also have the right to bare and own guns. Dont be voting to give up the rights that are close to my heart if your not willing to give up those close to yours. They want our guns now and many say who cares but what if it was the right to choose your own religion and the non-church goers said who care or the right to free speech or right to free press. Willingly giving up any of the rights given us in our constitution is the same as spitting in the face of every man and women who has stood on that line and put there life on the line for those rights. We did not have a choice which rights we lost a arm or leg for or which ones we would die for we defended them all the ones we liked and the ones that we thought didnt pertain to us. And personally I dont believe anyone who has not served 1 day or put there life on the line protecting those rights has the right to give them up especially the ones that those of us who stood watch hold near and dear. Once a Marine always a Marine ............... Semper Fi


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Our rifles are a last ditch defense against tyranny, mob violence, and for general peacekeeping in the event of widespread social unrest. Just as the framers CLEARLY intended. I feel safer knowing my neighbors and I are armed.


----------



## mplatt4 (Mar 24, 2007)

Lets see how the police depts do when the audits are completed on the military arms they were sold at cheap prices or free I have heard that our finest are not so good at not misplacing there toys. Also I would like to poll how many out there feel safe waiting on the police to come to protect there wifes husbands or children in the event of a armed invasion of there home or a business there in. It is quite evident that by the time they arrive in almost every case it is to late for them to help do anything but take the waiting killers to jail. Part of this is they are spread thin at time of need and to thick when they dont have a shooting to go to and have to entertain themselfs by looking for that guy who had 1/2 a beer to many or is going 4 miles a hour to fast or has a cracked windshield. But it should be quite clear to all THEY CAN NOT PROTECT YOU 24/7 nor can they protect those you love. And most criminals do not go buy there guns they steal them or buy them on the black market or in some cases steal them from the cops lol. We are the first line of defense for our families rather we have the stomache to admit it or not


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

mplatt4 said:


> ..... But it should be quite clear to all THEY CAN NOT PROTECT YOU 24/7 nor can they protect those you love. ...... We are the first line of defense for our families rather we have the stomache to admit it or not


I agree with this. I think cops should be needed as the last line of defense. It's nice to know that when you've apprehended a burglar in your home and you phone the cops to tell them _"I've just caught a burglar in my home and he's on the floor in front of me and I've got my gun pointed at his chest. Please come to get him and take him away as soon as possible before he does something else stupid and forces me to shoot him."_ - you can be guaranteed the cops will fly to your home at top speed with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get there as soon as possible and take over the situation from there. When that happened to me I was told over the phone _"Well, we don't recommend that you shoot him."_ and my response _"Well, that will all depend on how fast you can get here so it doesn't become necessary." _They were at the house in 5 minutes.

.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I agree with this. I think cops should be needed as the last line of defense. It's nice to know that when you've apprehended a burglar in your home and you phone the cops to tell them _"I've just caught a burglar in my home and he's on the floor in front of me and I've got my gun pointed at his chest. Please come to get him and take him away as soon as possible before he does something else stupid and forces me to shoot him."_ - you can be guaranteed the cops will fly to your home at top speed with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get there as soon as possible and take over the situation from there. When that happened to me I was told over the phone _"Well, we don't recommend that you shoot him."_ and my response _"Well, that will all depend on how fast you can get here so it doesn't become necessary." _They were at the house in 5 minutes.
> 
> .


 Wasn't positive,,, but,, I knew deep down,, you actually ROCK.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I agree with this. I think cops should be needed as the last line of defense. It's nice to know that when you've apprehended a burglar in your home and you phone the cops to tell them _"I've just caught a burglar in my home and he's on the floor in front of me and I've got my gun pointed at his chest. Please come to get him and take him away as soon as possible before he does something else stupid and forces me to shoot him."_ - you can be guaranteed the cops will fly to your home at top speed with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get there as soon as possible and take over the situation from there. When that happened to me I was told over the phone _"Well, we don't recommend that you shoot him."_ and my response _"Well, that will all depend on how fast you can get here so it doesn't become necessary." _They were at the house in 5 minutes.
> 
> .


Hmmmm you may be onto something here. The last guy I had the police come pick up it took them nearly 45 minutes.... but then I just had him in the floor choking the bejeebers out of him... no gun involved.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm you may be onto something here. The last guy I had the police come pick up it took them nearly 45 minutes.... but then I just had him in the floor choking the bejeebers out of him... no gun involved.


Maybe they figured you were in better charge of the problem because you're a man? 

You tell them you're a woman alone holding somebody at gunpoint and they will be there lickety split.

.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Doesn't work that way here, we are at least 20 minutes from LEO support here and than only if they aren't tied up somewhere else. The sheriff told a couple of us women that he was talking to (who live rural) always be ready to take care of ourselves. He also said make sure we had plenty of ammo and the ability to use it.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"You tell them you're a woman alone holding somebody at gunpoint and they will be there lickety split."

Legally there is no requirement they get there "lickety split". The law only requires that they get there eventually. If most people were aware of that fact, they wouldn't be betting their lives on police protection.:hrm:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I agree with this. I think cops should be needed as the last line of defense. It's nice to know that when you've apprehended a burglar in your home and you phone the cops to tell them _"I've just caught a burglar in my home and he's on the floor in front of me and I've got my gun pointed at his chest. Please come to get him and take him away as soon as possible before he does something else stupid and forces me to shoot him."_ - you can be guaranteed the cops will fly to your home at top speed with lights flashing and sirens blaring to get there as soon as possible and take over the situation from there. When that happened to me I was told over the phone _"Well, we don't recommend that you shoot him."_ and my response _"Well, that will all depend on how fast you can get here so it doesn't become necessary." _They were at the house in 5 minutes.
> 
> .


So you agree with having a assault weapon to defend your self. I live 30 minutes from any law enforcement personnel and it usually takes at least 40 to 50 minuets if they come that day or not.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> So you agree with having a assault weapon to defend your self.....


No, I do not agree with having an assault weapon to defend yourself. I've already stated that I think assault weapons that are owned by non-military or non-police are a coward's tool used by aggressors who want to inflict harm and mayhem with them. You already know that. And I wasn't defending myself. I was simply holding an intruder under citizen's arrest until the police arrived to remove him from my property.

.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> No, I do not agree with having an assault weapon to defend yourself. I've already stated that I think assault weapons that are owned by non-military or non-police are a coward's tool used by aggressors who want to inflict harm and mayhem with them. You already know that. And I wasn't defending myself. I was simply holding an intruder under citizen's arrest until the police arrived to remove him from my property.
> 
> .


No, assault weapons that are legally owned by non-military and non-police are in the hands of collectors who have undergone background checks, police ok, and paid a fee to the government, along with an exorbitant price for the assault weapon itself. Only one registered NFA firearm has been used in a crime, and that was by a police officer.

Assault weapons that are legally owned by non-military and non-police are rarely fired as well, and usually only a couple times a year. 

Gah. AK-47's and AR-15's that civilians own are not assault weapons, they are semi-auto rifles.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Maybe they figured you were in better charge of the problem because you're a man?
> 
> You tell them you're a woman alone holding somebody at gunpoint and they will be there lickety split.
> 
> .


Naw, they knew who I was chokin.... I think they figured if they waited long enough I would solve their problem for them! 

I've been in a lot of courtrooms over the years, had never seen a judge come up out of his chair to reprimand a knothead like he did when we appeared in court to hash things out. I told my side of the story, the judge was somewhat shocked, and not sure he quite believed me, so he asked the guy his version... the little pup responded... "thats pretty well how it happened... The judge came all unglued and told him if he had ever pulled anything like that on him he woulda killed him on the spot...followed up with something about how it should have been a manslaughter charge against me.... and that he would turn me loose! :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> No, I do not agree with having an assault weapon to defend yourself. I've already stated that I think assault weapons that are owned by non-military or non-police are a coward's tool used by aggressors who want to inflict harm and mayhem with them. You already know that. And I wasn't defending myself. I was simply holding an intruder under citizen's arrest until the police arrived to remove him from my property.
> 
> .


Well now... these little trinkets are owned by a non military non police CITIZEN.










I also doubt that he is either a coward nor all that interested in being aggressive or inflicting harm and mayhem to anyone although I wouldnt really want to press the issue if he were having a bad day. You may have heard of him... he made some movies years ago, fella they call Ben Hur and Moses.... aka Charleton Heston... president of our fine gun club here in the states.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> Oh that is interesting but not relevant to the discussion abut assault rifles. I thought you were referring to the use of assault rifles. Posting something else is a favorite trick of most liberals. When you can't have anything to answer change the subject.


I think her post showed that banning assault weapons does nothing to stop people from killing people.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

so it is aright to own a gun as long as it is not used in an assault? Or in other words you may own a gun but not everybody else? I fail to see your point either you are using a gun illegal or everyone can use one. But then since you live an another country you may have the right to use one but don't think we do.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You may have heard of him... he made some movies years ago, fella they call Ben Hur and Moses.... aka Charleton Heston... president of our fine gun club here in the states.


That man would be rolling over in his grave now. Did you know that he supported the 1968 Gun Control Act?

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> That man would be rolling over in his grave now. Did you know that he supported the 1968 Gun Control Act?
> 
> .


You're right, he would be rolling in his grave over the renewed calls for gun control. He did support gun control in 1968, but came to his senses later.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> That man would be rolling over in his grave now. Did you know that he supported the 1968 Gun Control Act?
> 
> .


And you have the nerve to accuse Bearfootfarm of throwing in a Red Herring on another thread!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Rick said:


> And you have the nerve to accuse Bearfootfarm of throwing in a Red Herring on another thread!


Those two love to throw red herrings at each other. They've been exchanging herrings for a few years. Don't let it fool you though, they both actually like each other and enjoy the ongoing fencing match.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Those two love to throw red herrings at each other. They've been exchanging herrings for a few years. Don't let it fool you though, they both actually like each other and enjoy the ongoing fencing match.


 
Now you've gone and blown my cover!!!

:nono: :nono: :nono:


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

big rockpile said:


> I want to be armed the same as my opponent in a Combat situation.Plane and simple!
> 
> big rockpile



Want to be armed better!

I reiterate that term "ASSAULT WEAPON" or "ASSAULT RIFLE" is misused not only in this conversation but when ever it is used! 

Often I hear people discuss the constitution and how the country has changed.
The then like to say that it is a living document and as the country changes so do the meaning. 

I cite the Declaration Of Independence, which most Legal Experts and scholars will devalue as not being a legal Document. It is and always has been. It was a formal complaint served unto the king and set the grounds for the revolution. It further frames the Intents and wish of the founders and the citizenry.

one of the most Important passages,

"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.*--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

This demonstrates that our Rights are not granted,if they where they would be privlages. they are part of us and provided by the Creator.
The Highest power of all! 

I Cite the Ninth Amendment,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

This Echos the "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS." spoken of prior. though some rights where Listed (enumerated) they are not all of those that are protected. Only some of the most Important.Meaning there should never be any confusion upon the Governments understanding of such.

I further cite the tenth Amendment, 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No where do I see claymores,Machine guns,flame throwers,artillery or tanks as a exclusively reserved unto the government,police or military. If you can cite the passage, please enlighten me?

And ultimately I cite the 2nd Amendment, which Obviously was held in great esteem to be enumerated as the second!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Militia's are not just about defense,A militia is a military force composed of ordinary citizens. 

As such if the battlefield standard is a Ak47 or M16 I do not want to be carrying any thing less. 

By the way Our State constitution commands that we have a militia!

Yes the country has changed and so have standards but the words cited earlier still have the meaning they did then, somehow they are allowed to be twisted.

I see many here worry about the Average Joe getting these legally then flipping out, what about those tasked with protecting you? Many have some kind of power trip thing going on or that inferiority complex which led them to join the force in the first place. Add in the blue brotherhood mentality and even the worst officers are protected and allowed to continue in the profession.What about when these guys go rogue? After all they are just ordinary people performing a hard and stressful demanding and thankless job!

If you can guarantee that no one will have anything more then a flint lock, I'd may be fine with that. But there is no way anyone could.

If you don't like guns,don't have one.
Do not like to be around guns then don't.
By carrying no ones violating your rights!
Your fear limits you, not your fellow citizen practicing his rights.
You may be willing to give your right away for safety, I will use mine to provide my own safety.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

With our porous borders, it just makes sense to be able to defend ourselves. Especially since the Cartel has been armed with assault weapons by our own government. This is of course not mentioning the ability to defend the home if needed. I don't think a 22 would cut it if the pickles hit the fan.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Look how Il has a Hi rate of murder just like down south? 
How can that be with one of the stricktes huncontrol laws in the nation...and NO concealed caryy.
Could it be a Highly populated Chicago that also makes IL the second highest Host to Illegal aliens?


----------



## Cascade Failure (Jan 30, 2007)

||Downhome|| said:


> Want to be armed better!
> 
> I reiterate that term "ASSAULT WEAPON" or "ASSAULT RIFLE" is misused not only in this conversation but when ever it is used!
> 
> ...


I love this post!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

||Downhome|| said:


> Want to be armed better!
> 
> I reiterate that term "ASSAULT WEAPON" or "ASSAULT RIFLE" is misused not only in this conversation but when ever it is used!
> 
> ...


Amen!


----------

