Gun control

[chaney23 0]

Holy Crap... I missed out on this?

 

My view: too much of anything is bad. Moderation is a necessary evil that has to be placed to avoid this. 2nd Amendment was good it took account of the moderation by stating well regulated within the context of the meaning. They knew too much of guns were bad as a whole, specially for a nation barely learning how to walk.

 

When I look at the reasons that I have heard for owning a AR-15, anywhere from hunting to personal protection to the government has them why not me. I spent 6yrs in Marines and I can tell you that none of the reasons I have so far are worth the justification of owning an AR-15 or any semi-automatic weapon.

 

I know real hunters, and real rednecks what they have in common is they like to preserve as much meat as possible when hunting animals, there for they use solid rounds, single shot weapons so they dont get lead poisoning digging out 10 to 15 rounds.

 

Using a Semi-Auto for home defense is a mistake. Plenty of those that I know who own a AR-15 dont shoot on a regular basis... maybe once a year. What good is a weapon that can spit out mulitple rounds in a single trigger pull going to do you when your not proficient? Most will definitely screw up their homes and probably kill someone by accident.

 

The evil government, my favorite. Your screwed. No auto weapon will save you when there are drones, secret death squads and nukes. Lasers are being tested as we speak as well as sonic weapons.. read up on some DARPA projects.

 

Last but not least. I dont need 30 bullets to protect myself.... I dont need 20.... I dont need 10..... I just need 1. I have no problems in banning a type of weapon that isnt reasonable compared to its purpose. Like a hunting rifle for example... the specs of a weapon like that should match its intentions.

 

The Only Time I had a Automatic Assault Rifle, Was When I Was Hunting People

You are talking about assault rifles, not assault weapons. An Ar-15 is a semiautomatic rifle.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Better yet, criminals have a guide to show them which houses they are less likely to run into an armed homeowner.

 

I was thinking about this the other day and I think it brings up an interesting point.

 

What happened in that case presents essentially the same problem that the gun control debate presents: Is there a point where something which is perfectly legal presents enough of a potential threat to public safety that fine tuning of the relevant legislation is necessary?

 

What's interesting about that particular example is that it seems to have caused some contradictory reasoning on both sides. There are pro-gun control people arguing that the first amendment is more important than the threat to public safety, while anti-gun control people argue that publishing that information is a threat to public safety and therefore we should maybe look at whether or not we should allow that kind of thing.

 

That's a complete reversal of roles. Obviously there are going to be differing opinions, I'm not saying everyone takes opposing views on this. But from what I'm seeing, there's a good amount of people who do.

 

Something to think about.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I was thinking about this the other day and I think it brings up an interesting point.

 

What happened in that case presents essentially the same problem that the gun control debate presents: Is there a point where something which is perfectly legal presents enough of a potential threat to public safety that fine tuning of the relevant legislation is necessary?

 

What's interesting about that particular example is that it seems to have caused some contradictory reasoning on both sides. There are pro-gun control people arguing that the first amendment is more important than the threat to public safety, while anti-gun control people argue that publishing that information is a threat to public safety and therefore we should maybe look at whether or not we should allow that kind of thing.

 

That's a complete reversal of roles. Obviously there are going to be differing opinions, I'm not saying everyone takes opposing views on this. But from what I'm seeing, there's a good amount of people who do.

 

Something to think about.

 

I agree, and I've had sever discussions on this subject with other people and they are all over the map as to how they feel.

[For the love of the game 56]

I agree, it is pretty far-reaching. And I don't think it's a perfect solution. But, what we saw in the Sandy Hook tragedy was a legal gun owner who had her guns taken (and killed after the theft), and had those weapons turned against innocents by an evil mind. If the background checks for her had included her mentally ill son, maybe she wouldn't have been cleared to have them? I don't know. Off-topic, but this is similar to the New York Times (was it them?) who published the names and addresses of gun owners. Was it legal to do that? I think it was. Was it smart? No. Now, any criminal knows they can wait until someone goes to work, and have ready access to firearms and ammunition.

 

This is were a little common sense on the part of each individual gun owner goes a long way.

 

I have a 11 year old niece that has some kind of condition were she literally feals no pain (sounds unreal and I really did not believe it until she was in a car that was in a serious accident, broken mutiple bones and hit her head so hard she had a softball size knot yet did not cry or show any signs of pain). One time she threw a baseball at my daughters head from 3 ft away, not because she mean but because she has a warped or no idea at all what pain is, what causes pain etc. She should in no way be around a gun and when she is at my dads house they double check that all guns are locked up etc.

 

Now we do not know enough about the home setting or the storage of the gun. I have heard everything from the guy lived there to he broken into the house on the morning this happened to he did not live there but was staying over the night before. Did she have the guns in a safe. Did the guy have a history of violent behavior? I have not heard that he had, but assuming he had and was just staying the night, I sure hope the guns were locked up in a big safe inside a locked room. I somehow doubt she took every precaution, and if every precaution was taken who is to say it would have turn out diffrent.

[barnettej 263]

You are talking about assault rifles, not assault weapons. An Ar-15 is a semiautomatic rifle.

 

Sigh..... Really... Where do you think the AR-15 inspiration came from?

[Crazyhorse81 251]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, but why are so many veterans in here apparently not knowing what "semi-automatic" means? I swear, I know next to nothing about guns (knew a sniper in my last unit though that was trying to square me away on some things), but I know what semi-automatic means. Each trigger squeeze fires a round, and chambers the next. One squeeze, one shot, one reload (assuming your magazine isn't crap). I'm kinda disappointed that my fellow veterans are getting this confused.

 

Another thing I'd like to have answered is why so many in here honestly believe that our own government would never do us harm? That they'd never take our rights? Because we can vote? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a question of 'if' our government turns on us, but 'when'. Maybe tomorrow, maybe 150 years, maybe 1000. But it will happen.

[Crazyhorse81 251]

Sigh..... Really... Where do you think the AR-15 inspiration came from?

 

Inspiration, sure. But the AR-15 doesn't have a "burst" selector like the M4 does. Nor does it have an "auto" selector like the M4A1. All it is is a semi-automatic rifle dolled up to look like the M16 family of weapons. And people are freaking out over that. Which means we, as a people, have now apparently become more worried about the LOOK of something rather than the performance.

[chaney23 0]

Sigh..... Really... Where do you think the AR-15 inspiration came from?

 

armalite, not assault rifle

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

C'mon Barnettej, you're making us (Marines) look bad! lol I can excuse Emory for not knowing since he's in the Navy Airforce and I think they get airsoft guns issued to them.

 

Semi-automatic: A self-loading firearm, which ejects the spent shell upon firing, inserts another loaded cartridge into the chamber, and locks the bolt, readying the firearm for another shot. This type of firearm will fire once for each pull of the trigger, but the trigger must be pulled for each shot.

 

Even an auto-cocking revolver that locks the hammer back during the firing sequence, thus preparing the gun to fire again (not a double action where part of the trigger pull actually locks the hammer back) isn't considered a semi-automatic because it doesn't meet all of those criteria.

[Emory889 353]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, but why are so many veterans in here apparently not knowing what "semi-automatic" means? I swear, I know next to nothing about guns (knew a sniper in my last unit though that was trying to square me away on some things), but I know what semi-automatic means. Each trigger squeeze fires a round, and chambers the next. One squeeze, one shot, one reload (assuming your magazine isn't crap). I'm kinda disappointed that my fellow veterans are getting this confused.

 

Another thing I'd like to have answered is why so many in here honestly believe that our own government would never do us harm? That they'd never take our rights? Because we can vote? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a question of 'if' our government turns on us, but 'when'. Maybe tomorrow, maybe 150 years, maybe 1000. But it will happen.

 

I assume that you are including me in this rant. I've already said that I'm not that knowledgeable about guns although I do have a working knowledge of what constitutes a semi-automatic weapon. If I were in a position where I was setting policy for gun control, I would obviously do a lot more research on the matter. Since I'm not, I really don't have the time nor the desire to educate myself.....and I never attempted to pass myself off as a subject matter expert in this thread. The main point that I made was that SOME restrictions were clearly necessary and that weapons like AR-15s really serve no functional purpose other than popping off some rounds in the woods.

 

Also, like my buddy the Captain pointed out, I'm in the Air Force. I load bombs and missiles on fighters for a living. I can tell you anything you want to know about a GBU-24. If the Air Force has to give me a gun to defend a post, we are all collectively f*****. Now, I have several friends that are very knowledgeable on this subject. I'm just not one of them.

[Emory889 353]

C'mon Barnettej, you're making us (Marines) look bad! lol I can excuse Emory for not knowing since he's in the Navy Airforce and I think they get airsoft guns issued to them.

 

 

You're a jerk but I still love you.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Another thing I'd like to have answered is why so many in here honestly believe that our own government would never do us harm? That they'd never take our rights? Because we can vote? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a question of 'if' our government turns on us, but 'when'. Maybe tomorrow, maybe 150 years, maybe 1000. But it will happen.

 

That's not it at all. They're clearly already doing us harm through other means, they just have no reason to do so militarily. And even if they did, there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it, since your rifle or machine gun or tank or whatever will amount to precisely dick when all the government has to do is order a drone strike and you'd be dead before you could even process what was happening. So the issue with that argument isn't that the government would never do us harm, it's that your guns are completely inadequate for that purpose.

 

For me, it's a superfluous argument. You don't need it. All you have to say is that you should have a right to own weapons and that the reason is nobody's business until you commit a crime. I wouldn't have any objection to that argument.