(12-18-2012 12:49 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 10:41 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  I love how people seem to think more regulation/laws seem to stop something from happening. I bet that school the CT school was a gun free zone, and that didn't really stop anyone.

It makes about a much sense for a civilian to have assault weapons as it does for them to have a howitzer and/or tank in their front yard and a bunker built in the back. Certain types of weapons SHOULD be strictly regulated including military assault style weapons. Thank god that full auto weapons and machine guns are prohibited or you'd probably need to have these also.

Laws never stopped anyone, but the more assault weapons that are off the streets and out of civilian hands the better. You can still wear your cammys and war paint when playing your video games.

Two things in common for the recent multiple casualty public place/school shooting..... 1. assault weapons 2. body armor
Two things an average citizen really doesn't need.

what is the difference in these weapons?






absolutely nothing. except one is black.


whats the difference in these two cars?







absolutely nothing except one is black.

what an "assault style weapon" is is simply someones taste in the looks of the weapon. the guns above are both Ruger 10/.22s. one simply has rails to mount lights and and is painted black with an adjustable sight. it is simply like customizing your car because you want it to stand out from everyone else's. now do the guns need a hundred round magazine? No. do background checks need to always happen when buying from a dealer or gun show? yes.

as for your comment about the guns used in the CT shooting. he used only hand guns the "assault style weapon" was recovered in his car outside and was never used. look it up. i grew up around guns. i own my own. in fact i just recently purchased a .22 SAA 1873 revolver. the problem is not guns. the problem is the kids or people looking for attention. and knowing there are places in this country where guns are not allowed. when was the last time one of these shootings took place at a gun show? ( yes i know there were some accidental discharges at a couple recently) when was the last time one of these shootings took place at anywhere that sold guns? or guns were allowed to be carried by people with licenses? you want to help todays kids? spend that tax payer money that your are wanting to spend toward banning "black guns" on hiring out of work ex soldiers to guard our schools and children . i would much rather my tax dollars go to someone who risked their life to protect my freedoms promised by the constitution than to funding the taking away of them.

(12-18-2012 10:23 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  We need to have a Police officer at every school. We don't need to arm teachers or the lunch lady. Just a cop that draws school duty for the week.

With that said. If your going to ban a weapon. Ban pistols. They are conceal and kill weapons. They aren't good for hunting and aren't good for home protection either.

how are they not good for home protection? it is much easier to move quickly through a doorway holding a pistol than it is an "assault rifle".

as for your hunting remark as someone that hunts 50% of the time with my Ruger .270 and 50% of the time with my ruger blackhawk in .44 i would strongly disagree. there are people such as my grandpa that hunt exclusively with pistols. as it is more challenging.

(01-18-2013 04:50 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  So because they "only" accounted for 300 deaths, military style weapons/assault rifles/whatever should be allowed for public use? I disagree.

Why? Seriously, I'm asking.

What I haven't seen in this thread is why you or the OP think "military-style assault weapons" should not be allowed for public use. What is it about these weapons that makes them more dangerous?

And let's keep in mind that a ban on large-capacity magazines is different and separate from an "assault weapons" ban. So, assuming a 10-round magazine capacity limit is put in place, why do we still need an "assault weapons" ban?

Also, in order to limit the argument, lets not go the "no legitimate use" route. It is the best-selling style of rifle in the country, it has low recoil and is fun to shoot - it clearly has a legitimate use. I'm just asking about reasons why they should be banned in and of themselves.

(01-22-2013 04:15 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 04:50 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  So because they "only" accounted for 300 deaths, military style weapons/assault rifles/whatever should be allowed for public use? I disagree.

Why? Seriously, I'm asking.

What I haven't seen in this thread is why you or the OP think "military-style assault weapons" should not be allowed for public use. What is it about these weapons that makes them more dangerous?

And let's keep in mind that a ban on large-capacity magazines is different and separate from an "assault weapons" ban. So, assuming a 10-round magazine capacity limit is put in place, why do we still need an "assault weapons" ban?

Also, in order to limit the argument, lets not go the "no legitimate use" route. It is the best-selling style of rifle in the country, it has low recoil and is fun to shoot - it clearly has a legitimate use. I'm just asking about reasons why they should be banned in and of themselves.

he doesn't know. he is exactly like a lot of the country in that they think more laws are what people need to live. they don't know or remember what its like to actually be free. its really becoming aggravating the amount of control the government has installed just since i was a kid with wasn't very long ago.

(01-21-2013 05:39 PM)stAtecamera13 Wrote:  as for your hunting remark as someone that hunts 50% of the time with my Ruger .270 and 50% of the time with my ruger blackhawk in .44 i would strongly disagree. there are people such as my grandpa that hunt exclusively with pistols. as it is more challenging.

I recently sold my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 (Leupold 2.5-8x scope) that I used to hunt with.

At 100 yards, you'd be hard pressed to match my accuracy on a bench rest with most rifles.
I did reload for this round, and that was half of the fun.

I just found this thread, and have only read bits from the first and last page....but I can tell you this.

I don't want to be 'under-armed' against my opponent. I don't want my opponent having 30 rounds to my 10 rounds.
I don't currently own what the media deems an 'assault' rifle, but if I ever see the need arising, I want to be able to legally get one.

(12-17-2012 06:33 PM)MG61 Wrote:  I know, I know........ you've got a right to have one or a closet full of 'em. The constitution sez you have the right to bear arms, but does it have to be an assault weapon ?

The Constitution is about equality for all men. I would imagine they implied equality in arms as well. No one wants to take a slingshot to a gun fight.

(12-18-2012 12:49 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Thank god that full auto weapons and machine guns are prohibited or you'd probably need to have these also.

Full auto guns are the same as machine guns....different terms for the same type of weapon.
They are totally legal to own. I know several that legally own them. All you have to do is purchase them through a class 3 firearms dealer, pay for the federal stamp, and wait for the background check.

The second amendment has ZERO to do with hunting rights, being pulled into a fight concerning a guns intended use (ie. hunting use vs non-hunting use) only strengthens their argument. The second amendment was created to mirror the English Bill of Rights. It has been ruled upon by our Supreme Court (Dist. of Columbia vs. Heller) that this was our Founding Father intent, any other interpretation is false. Don't get pulled into that argument. If we are pulled into the hunting argument it will go down as follows...handguns are banned next (need additional barrel length to make ethical accurate shot), any gun with multiple shots (should only need 1 bullet for an ethical shot), might as well do away with cartridges because of the 1 shot limit.

This right is granted to protect the citizens from government tyrany. This is the reason, IMO, that any weapon the government could posess, should be possessable by a citizen. I fully recognize the reasons for background checks and support them as well. Really, I have no problem with a reasonable waiting period as well. However, I do have a very big issue with anything that would prevent (not delay) a citizen from obtaining any weapon or weapon feature that the government has.

All of this money they are trying to spend on gun limits should be spent on the mental health system. FYI, here in AL there is only one (1) state mental health facility that is currently open (several closed last year due to funding cuts)...also beyond it's intended capacity. If you aren't aware, most people with mental health issues can't hold that job that would allow them to pay for private mental health. Treat the cause...don't get distracted by a symptom.

Well, the Feinstein gun-grab is on!!

Love the list of guns she wants to ban as it exposes how clueless she is:

"AR-15 Type Rifles including.........Beretta Cx4 Storm........" Seriously?

I feel sorry for you. Your myopic worldview that everything is stable and constant is just unfathomable for me to comprehend. Anything else and it is fear mongering. This, folks, is why America will not last. Those lines of thinking are quickly becoming popular and more popular.

America, land of the free. Home of the brave...
yeah right.

(01-17-2013 11:24 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I don't buy into this whole militia thing and big bad government (i.e. fear mongering), but regardless . . .

I would like to reiterate from a post I made a while back for those ill-informed folks/bleeding heart liberals/people who are ignorant of firearms. You continue to use "assault weapons" and "military style assault weapons" to conjure up an image of folks running around with fully automatic weapons, blasting away. To own a fully automatic weapon, you must receive a license and go through a extensive background check. The weapons that the good little politicians (and you) are talking about are semi-automatic weapons with calibers similar to any long rifle. They just look mean/cool/military...take your pick.

The AR-15 looks just like what our soldiers carry/carried. It is a 5.56mm semi-automatic weapons (meaning you pull the trigger each time). That is the equivelant of a .22 caliber round. Some difference is velocity and trajectory but basically the same round. The big, bad AK-47 that they like to show? A 7.62mm round which is roughly the equivelant of a .30 caliber round. In other words, the type of round used in a .30 .30 rifle or a 30.06 rifle. Both are very common hunting rifles. All can do the same damage.

Oh, and get rid of pistols because they are just for "hide and kill." Well, I have a .45 caliber pistol next to my bed. "Hide and Kill".....nope. You come into my house uninvited, my assumption is that you aren't there for coffee and cake. I certainly won't "hide" it and if you make one wrong move you damn sure may end up being "killed." It is for my proctection at home or in the woods. I was trained well and I can put two rounds center mass very quickly and change magazines in a matter of about 2 seconds.

(01-24-2013 05:38 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  I feel sorry for you. Your myopic worldview that everything is stable and constant is just unfathomable for me to comprehend. Anything else and it is fear mongering. This, folks, is why America will not last. Those lines of thinking are quickly becoming popular and more popular.

America, land of the free. Home of the brave...
yeah right.

(01-17-2013 11:24 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I don't buy into this whole militia thing and big bad government (i.e. fear mongering), but regardless . . .

Haha. You're a moron.

I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your circle jerk. Carry on.

I'm still laughing though at the comment that I am myopic. Haha. Again, thank god that this board, and the lunatics on it, do not represent the majority of Americans.

I can't say circle jerk? Haha.

(01-25-2013 10:48 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

....without answering the very simple, straight-forward question I asked.

Gotta love how people "bow out" of an argument without ever having actually argued their point, but cite the "radicalism" of their opponents as justification for quitting. Fallacy at its finest.

(01-25-2013 10:48 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

I'm still laughing though at the comment that I am myopic. Haha. Again, thank god that this board, and the lunatics on it, do not represent the majority of Americans.

Cool story bro...

What I find disturbing is how quick these anti gun people are to label gun owners as dangerous and as lunatics simply because they own guns. I was equated to a mass murderer on Facebook because I posted about finding those magazines.

I work full time, go to school full time, pay my taxes, and every once in a while I go shooting as a hobby.

But I'm a lunatic and a mass murderer...

Logical thinking isn't possible with people who are filled with fear and anger.

(01-18-2013 04:51 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  The car/doctor/etc analogy is so not even relevant I'm not going to bother.

It is relevant in the sense that your argument is "if we can only save one life" etc. If that were really the motivation, then "assault rifles" would be extremely, extremely low on the list. You seem to not like to bother with things that you cannot argue against. And, yes, "only" 300 as opposed to the 468 killed by hammers.

Quote: Logical thinking isn't possible with people who are filled with fear and anger.

The anti-gun rights groups are just as guilty of fear-mongering and appealing to emotions as the pro-rights groups, if not more-so.

Bow out? Now out if what? You didn't contribute anything.

[:domokun::lauramac:quote='BLEEDITRED' pid='8883431' dateline='1359128910']
I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

I'm still laughing though at the comment that I am myopic. Haha. Again, thank god that this board, and the lunatics on it, do not represent the majority of Americans.
[/quote]