Get Ready For Gun Control

[fireplug]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

This is why! Don't fall into the liberal trap. 2nd ammendment isn't about the type of firearms, it's about our ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government no matter what. We all know this isn't about guns. WE all know what the problem is. I say GUNS are the solution, not the problem. Armed guard at that school could have stopped this from happening.....at least to the level that it did. An armed teacher that chose to conceal carry or carry in her
purse could have stopped this from happening to the extent it did. WE all know that gun laws will only make this worse because we will no longer be able to
protect ourselves or our families from mad men like this evil person.

The liberals are in hawg heaven right now, because they now have even the staunchest gun rights supporters questioning their own 2nd ammendment rights.
I just want to go home and cry for my country and these poor children that are left to grow up in this world we are giving them.

[gps4]

this might not be the appropriate thread for this response, but while we are discussing the impending likelihood of unwelcomed gun control and the congressional erosion of the 2nd amendment, who will be the ones that actually put "cold,dead hands" into action. I tell clients all the time that the only rights we have are the ones we are willing to fight for. How bad do you want to exercise the right to purchase, possess, own and use the types of firearms that are likely to be outlawed?

Is anyone willing to chance keeping the banned weapons locked away in a safe, hoping the goverment won't find out about it, and if found to be in possession, are you willing to serve jail time or pay hefty fines and penalties for possession, perhaps eliminating your right to vote on the lawmakers who are entrusted with the respnsiblity of representing the country's citizen?

Is anyone willing to shed blood or take the life of the government agents who knock on the door to confiscate your weapons? I can't say that I am at that point in my life where I would rather take a bullet, or kill another person so that I can own or possess

while the right to own and bear arms is constitutional, the second amendment can be repealed just like prohibition. not likely, but possible. I do not believe guns are the problem and will not vote for someone who wishes to place more restrictions on gun ownership. i am becoming more and more concerned that my political views are not shared by more than half the voting population in what has been known as the greatest country in the world. kinda makes you wonder how far you're willing to go to protect a right that has been around since the beginning of our country.

[southdeltan]

I totally agree it's the person not the gun. However, let's be honest, had this guy not had access to a Bushmaster there is a really good chance we might ot be mourning as many children's death right now.

The ingredients to make bombs are much easier to get than a rifle. Instructions on making suicide bombs can be found using search engines. The government has tried to restrict this, but the information is out there. There are also ways to make poisons out of legal chemicals and many plants. It's not as hard as you think and many the individuals that have done this type of thing were of above average intelligence (which has nothing to do with mental well being).

If people want to do harm, they will find a way.

The prior ban on assult weapons was proactive, not retroactive - and the talks on Feinstein/etcs proposed bills indicate these bills will also grandfather in weapons already owned legally. The weapons used in this were owned legally. The "ban" is on the sale of new weapons and related accessories.

It's not a gun problem. These types of weapons were available in the 70's and 80's and you didn't see this type of mass shooting until much later.

I loved reading an article yesterday that said that a civilian with a gun had never stopped a shooter in one of these situations. They obviously don't know much about the Pearl, MS shooting.

[matador1]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

This is why! Don't fall into the liberal trap. 2nd ammendment isn't about the type of firearms, it's about our ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government no matter what. We all know this isn't about guns. WE all know what the problem is. I say GUNS are the solution, not the problem. Armed guard at that school could have stopped this from happening.....at least to the level that it did. An armed teacher that chose to conceal carry or carry in her
purse could have stopped this from happening to the extent it did. WE all know that gun laws will only make this worse because we will no longer be able to
protect ourselves or our families from mad men like this evil person.

The liberals are in hawg heaven right now, because they now have even the staunchest gun rights supporters questioning their own 2nd ammendment rights.
I just want to go home and cry for my country and these poor children that are left to grow up in this world we are giving them.

No one is questioning concealed carry effectiveness or what the problem is. The question was why does a citizen need an assault type weapon and by that I mean more than 10 round capability. Do you personally have any valid reason to need an AR 15 with a 100 round clip other than to get out on Saturday and have a good time? Again, not saying you don't, just want to hear why?

[tombstone]

Need has nothing to do with it. People buy sports cars all the time with way more horsepower than needed to do the speed limit of 65.

[camlock]

this might not be the appropriate thread for this response, but while we are discussing the impending likelihood of unwelcomed gun control and the congressional erosion of the 2nd amendment, who will be the ones that actually put "cold,dead hands" into action. I tell clients all the time that the only rights we have are the ones we are willing to fight for. How bad do you want to exercise the right to purchase, possess, own and use the types of firearms that are likely to be outlawed?

Is anyone willing to chance keeping the banned weapons locked away in a safe, hoping the goverment won't find out about it, and if found to be in possession, are you willing to serve jail time or pay hefty fines and penalties for possession, perhaps eliminating your right to vote on the lawmakers who are entrusted with the respnsiblity of representing the country's citizen?

Is anyone willing to shed blood or take the life of the government agents who knock on the door to confiscate your weapons? I can't say that I am at that point in my life where I would rather take a bullet, or kill another person so that I can own or possess

while the right to own and bear arms is constitutional, the second amendment can be repealed just like prohibition. not likely, but possible. I do not believe guns are the problem and will not vote for someone who wishes to place more restrictions on gun ownership. i am becoming more and more concerned that my political views are not shared by more than half the voting population in what has been known as the greatest country in the world. kinda makes you wonder how far you're willing to go to protect a right that has been around since the beginning of our country.

I think you present the exact conundrum that is the reason that in the end, we will do what they say. Most of us aren't willing, can't be willing...in a world in which those decision had to be made, I couldn't risk leaving my sons or wife to fend without me. Therefore I couldn't risk being put away or killed over a gun, even though in such an instance a gun might be the only material symbolism of hope in such a world. And I don't believe very many people could be any different, regardless what they might say today in a world they can still afford and without resistance carry, purchase, and stock guns and ammo. Our world and way of life will have to get to a point where it was when people originally gave their lives for a cause of freedom before we reverse the general erosion of anything we currently face...that's the harsh reality...and that erosion and cycle will be far beyond the real life expectancy of anyone reading this...God willing it goes that far.

My feeling...today is the best it's every gonna be...it's never gonna be better than today, and Wednesday won't be better than tomorrow and so on...

[gps4]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

This is why! Don't fall into the liberal trap. 2nd ammendment isn't about the type of firearms, it's about our ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government no matter what. We all know this isn't about guns. WE all know what the problem is. I say GUNS are the solution, not the problem. Armed guard at that school could have stopped this from happening.....at least to the level that it did. An armed teacher that chose to conceal carry or carry in her
purse could have stopped this from happening to the extent it did. WE all know that gun laws will only make this worse because we will no longer be able to
protect ourselves or our families from mad men like this evil person.

The liberals are in hawg heaven right now, because they now have even the staunchest gun rights supporters questioning their own 2nd ammendment rights.
I just want to go home and cry for my country and these poor children that are left to grow up in this world we are giving them.

No one is questioning concealed carry effectiveness or what the problem is. The question was why does a citizen need an assault type weapon and by that I mean more than 10 round capability. Do you personally have any valid reason to need an AR 15 with a 100 round clip other than to get out on Saturday and have a good time? Again, not saying you don't, just want to hear why?

i need more than 10 round capability cuz my .22 autoloaders hold 14-15 and i'd prefer not to have to scrap perfectly good small game guns because some nutcase decided to break laws that have been on the books for decades, if not centuries.

[matador1]

I totally agree it's the person not the gun. However, let's be honest, had this guy not had access to a Bushmaster there is a really good chance we might ot be mourning as many children's death right now.

It's not a gun problem. These types of weapons were available in the 70's and 80's and you didn't see this type of mass shooting until much later.

Actually no they weren't as readily available in the 70s and 80s. I was in Academy Sports today at lunch and half of the guns they had left were Assault style weapons. Until 10 to 15 years ago you never saw those in gun stores.

I'm trying to make you guys think and realize that our same old arguments are not what is going to win anymore. In the general publics eyes GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE! It's not enough to use it's my right as an American. Or Guns don't kill people, people do. These are worn out cliches that don't have meat to them anymore. People have become irrational. And it's not the flaming liberals. It's the normal mid western Joe that doesn't hunt, doesn't plink at the gun range on Sundays and everytime he turns on the TV there is more gun violence. He doesn't care that the killer Friday was mentally ill or that his mom was preparing for the apocalypse by buying guns. All he cares is that this guy got his hands on a weapon whose original design was to inflict bodily harm on other human beings. His question becomes why do you need that?

[matador1]

Need has nothing to do with it. People buy sports cars all the time with way more horsepower than needed to do the speed limit of 65.

Sportscars don't kill 27 people on a friday morning.

[matador1]

i need more than 10 round capability cuz my .22 autoloaders hold 14-15 and i'd prefer not to have to scrap perfectly good small game guns because some nutcase decided to break laws that have been on the books for decades, if not centuries.[/quote]


Great point! So where is the limit? Is there a happy medium? Do you outlaw magazines that hold excess of XX bullets?

[southdeltan]

No one is questioning concealed carry effectiveness or what the problem is. The question was why does a citizen need an assault type weapon and by that I mean more than 10 round capability. Do you personally have any valid reason to need an AR 15 with a 100 round clip other than to get out on Saturday and have a good time? Again, not saying you don't, just want to hear why?

See the posts about the intent of the 2nd amendment. Many anti-gun people are posting that "the government didn't restrict these weapons because they didn't exist and they never imagined they would".

James Madison, author of the 2nd amendment, originally wrote there was no need for a 2nd amendment (to ensure that citizens were able to retain their right to bear arms - it does not give them the right, they already had that right) because there was no way the United States would ever have an army that could overcome all of the armed citizens.

There are plenty of writings by the founding fathers that explicitly state the 2nd amendment is so the people can overthrow the government if necessary. Thomas Jefferson wrote " And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

[southdeltan]

Need has nothing to do with it. People buy sports cars all the time with way more horsepower than needed to do the speed limit of 65.

Sportscars don't kill 27 people on a friday morning.

No, but a person driving one can certainly drive it straight down the sidewalk and kill that many if not more.

You're right, the car can't kill people anymore than a gun can.

[southdeltan]

i n

Great point! So where is the limit? Is there a happy medium? Do you outlaw magazines that hold excess of XX bullets?

The proposals will outlaw the SALE of weapons that can fire over 10 rounds and 10 round clips/magazines.

[1010]

It's not a gun problem. These types of weapons were available in the 70's and 80's and you didn't see this type of mass shooting until much later.

The tommy gun was around long before then. And was used to kill many folks.

[cwink]

No one is questioning concealed carry effectiveness or what the problem is. The question was why does a citizen need an assault type weapon and by that I mean more than 10 round capability. Do you personally have any valid reason to need an AR 15 with a 100 round clip other than to get out on Saturday and have a good time? Again, not saying you don't, just want to hear why?

Short answer is no, but I don't need a car that goes over 70mph either since that is the speed limit, but ever single car on the road will go over 70mph.. I think your getting hung up on the type of firearm it is. I understand your point, but if we applied that logic to everything then we should ban buses that carry more than 30 people, or trains or any other mass transit system since they have the potential to have mass deaths.

The bans won't do anything but temporarily appease the liberals. If we want to stop these things then we as responsible gun owners have to change the culture or stereotype. When the mall shooting happened in Portland ever one wondered why there were not more deaths since he had a AR.. This is why http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/196 ... ull-S.html. We need more well trained quite voices for carry like this..