I have a carry permit, am a former police officer and a long time NRA member. I own a shotgun, several hunting rifles and handguns. I do not and have never had a desire or need to own a military style assault weapon.

I'm all for the general public being able to own/possess sensible weapons for hunting and protection, but there is not one good reason for a civilian to possess a military style assault weapon.
Military style assault weapons should be limited to the military and law enforcement. Assault weapons were not intended for target practice, home protection or hunting. Their reason for being is to kill PEOPLE.

If you beieive you need an assault weapon, you've really got a problem. IMHO many (not all) people who gotta own assault weapons: 1. Have not served in the military 2. Are hooked on playing violent video games 3. Enjoy violent movies.

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 ? You just "enjoy" shooting them at the range, etc.,etc.,etc.

Yes guns don't kill people, people kill people and you have rights ! Other people have rights also. Do you beleive as many would have been killed at the school if the weapon used had a limited magazine capacity and was designed primarily for hunting ?

Rant over.........now fire away.

I'm keeping this civil and logical, I would hope others would as well, but can't expect that.

(12-17-2012 06:33 PM)MG61 Wrote:  I'm all for the general public being able to own/possess sensible weapons for hunting and protection, but there is not one good reason for a civilian to possess a military style assault weapon.

IMO, the founders' intent was that the citizens would be able to possess the top-of-the line weaponry (granted, they didn't envision tomahawk missiles, and nukes, but we're nowhere near that category here). They had just come out of a war against a government that was limiting their freedoms. They fought for these rights and were able to because they had weapons on par with their government. Also, it wasn't just the militia that won the war. It was the People.

Quote:Military style assault weapons should be limited to the military and law enforcement. Assault weapons were not intended for target practice, home protection or hunting. Their reason for being is to kill PEOPLE.

Not to be a conspiracist, but should you give your government a power that the people don't have? If the govt. can mow down a row of dissenters (Boston Massacre style), would you expect the people to overcome this oppression with baseball bats and knives?

Quote:If you beieive you need an assault weapon, you've really got a problem.

If you believe you NEED one, yes. You probably have a problem. If you believe you MIGHT need one, I think that's more sensible.

Quote: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?

See above.

Quote:Yes guns don't kill people, people kill people and you have rights ! Other people have rights also.

And no one who followed the law removed anyone's rights.

Quote:Do you beleive as many would have been killed at the school if the weapon used had a limited magazine capacity and was designed primarily for hunting?

Magazine: I've seen no reports as to the size of the magazine, but either way, no. I don't think that a smaller capacity would have done anything to limit the # killed. There was nothing in the building that would have stopped him except what he carried in with him.

Hunting rifle: There's not much difference between the rifle used and one "designed primarily for hunting" except the ability to attach a light and sight quickly and easily. And it being black instead of camo.

This gun would not have been on the expired assault weapons ban list.

And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

(12-18-2012 02:46 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

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.

(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.

(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.

I think I'll skip the hyperbole on this one.

I will say that someone like me, who owns assault rifles, is no threat to anyone who isn't a threat to my family.

That being said, should someone kick in my door in the middle of the night my AK won't be the gun I grab. Does that mean I shouldn't have one? No.

Someone shot up an elementary school. Does that mean I shouldn't have one? No.

What that means is he shouldn't have had one. His mother should have been more responsible with her weapons since she knew he had issues. I'm not saying she should have seen it coming but if he was unstable, and she knew this, then it is up to her to be more responsible and lock her weapons up.

In essence, as I just stated, people are the problem. I don't know about you but my solutions normally start at the problem.

Just as an example...

Oklahoma City anyone? 19 kids and over 100 adults killed without a single bullet being fired.

(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.

The first sentence is not well thought out IMO. Neither is the childish video game remark.

I look at semi-auto long rifle as the equivalent of the Revolutionary War Musket. Governments respect a well armed citizenry, hence why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Columbine Shooting was during the last Federal Assault Weapons Ban and those two kids used high capacity pistol magazines and shotguns. Another example of laws not working.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ass...eapons_Ban

(12-18-2012 01:51 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Just as an example...

Oklahoma City anyone? 19 kids and over 100 adults killed without a single bullet being fired.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Not on par with my comparison, eh? Thousands killed with the aforementioned list. All with the purpose of DESTROYING. I don't care what the main purpose of an object is. It is the intent of the person yielding the object.

(12-18-2012 08:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

(12-18-2012 11:27 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

That says it all.

Z

(12-18-2012 02:18 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Not on par with my comparison, eh? Thousands killed with the aforementioned list. All with the purpose of DESTROYING. I don't care what the main purpose of an object is. It is the intent of the person yielding the object.

(12-18-2012 08:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

I don't agree that the sole purpose of airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars is to destroy but rather rapid transportation over long distances, aiding in biological growth, transporting cargo, and transportation. 99.999% of the time these items are used in a non-violent way. Guns are 100% intended to destroy something.

That doesn't mean we should have less of a right to them. I've made myself clear on that point. Sometimes you must destroy something to preserve another thing (it's a pretty clear line). And when that time arises, I believe we all have a right to do so.

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.

Keep pounding what the original use for something is. You can talk to a wall for all I am concerned.

For me, the questions of those who want to take away a device of protection are being answered in their knee-jerk petitions. If you are asking to take away a constitutional right to arm myself (including ARs)
then the tyranny of the gov't is being exposed.

(12-18-2012 07:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:18 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Not on par with my comparison, eh? Thousands killed with the aforementioned list. All with the purpose of DESTROYING. I don't care what the main purpose of an object is. It is the intent of the person yielding the object.

(12-18-2012 08:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

I don't agree that the sole purpose of airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars is to destroy but rather rapid transportation over long distances, aiding in biological growth, transporting cargo, and transportation. 99.999% of the time these items are used in a non-violent way. Guns are 100% intended to destroy something.

That doesn't mean we should have less of a right to them. I've made myself clear on that point. Sometimes you must destroy something to preserve another thing (it's a pretty clear line). And when that time arises, I believe we all have a right to do so.

(12-19-2012 07:03 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Keep pounding what the original use for something is. You can talk to a wall for all I am concerned.

For me, the questions of those who want to take away a device of protection are being answered in their knee-jerk petitions. If you are asking to take away a constitutional right to arm myself (including ARs)
then the tyranny of the gov't is being exposed.

(12-18-2012 07:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:18 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Not on par with my comparison, eh? Thousands killed with the aforementioned list. All with the purpose of DESTROYING. I don't care what the main purpose of an object is. It is the intent of the person yielding the object.

(12-18-2012 08:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:46 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  And while your at it ban airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars.

Silly gun grabbers coming out again.

I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

I don't agree that the sole purpose of airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars is to destroy but rather rapid transportation over long distances, aiding in biological growth, transporting cargo, and transportation. 99.999% of the time these items are used in a non-violent way. Guns are 100% intended to destroy something.

That doesn't mean we should have less of a right to them. I've made myself clear on that point. Sometimes you must destroy something to preserve another thing (it's a pretty clear line). And when that time arises, I believe we all have a right to do so.

Hey man. Never said they should be taken away. I'm saying the opposite.

But I AM saying that your argument doesn't hold any water to, I'd guess, over 95% of the population. Find something else to use as the bedrock of your views if you want to be taken seriously.

(12-19-2012 05:19 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 07:03 AM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Keep pounding what the original use for something is. You can talk to a wall for all I am concerned.

For me, the questions of those who want to take away a device of protection are being answered in their knee-jerk petitions. If you are asking to take away a constitutional right to arm myself (including ARs)
then the tyranny of the gov't is being exposed.

(12-18-2012 07:25 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 02:18 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Not on par with my comparison, eh? Thousands killed with the aforementioned list. All with the purpose of DESTROYING. I don't care what the main purpose of an object is. It is the intent of the person yielding the object.

(12-18-2012 08:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I think it's a justified complaint/frustration for "gun grabbers". And not on par with your comparison. Guns are made to destroy. Whether a clay, beer can, paper target, deer, or assailant, their purpose is to destroy that object. Planes, fertilizer, cars, baseball bats, etc. don't have that main purpose.

I don't agree that the sole purpose of airplanes, fertilizer, moving trucks, and cars is to destroy but rather rapid transportation over long distances, aiding in biological growth, transporting cargo, and transportation. 99.999% of the time these items are used in a non-violent way. Guns are 100% intended to destroy something.

That doesn't mean we should have less of a right to them. I've made myself clear on that point. Sometimes you must destroy something to preserve another thing (it's a pretty clear line). And when that time arises, I believe we all have a right to do so.

Hey man. Never said they should be taken away. I'm saying the opposite.

But I AM saying that your argument doesn't hold any water to, I'd guess, over 95% of the population. Find something else to use as the bedrock of your views if you want to be taken seriously.

Raider and I have had quite a few disagreements in the past but he isn't one to call for taking away guns.

Assault weapons were not used in last week's shooting. So isn't it a little odd that a ban on assault weapons is being discussed?

(12-19-2012 08:48 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  Assault weapons were not used in last week's shooting. So isn't it a little odd that a ban on assault weapons is being discussed?

Do you know what an "assault weapon" is? I'm fairly certain the OP doesn't.

Go look at the assault weapons ban that expired. Essentially, an "assault weapon" is a weapon that looks scary - seriously.

The only answer to school shootings is to not create an area that everyone knows is utterly free of guns. The one common characteristic of all school shooters is that they in no way want to be shot at - they always kill themselves before that happens. Create a program similar to what we did on airlines - pilots can arm themselves (with training), and we have Federal Air Marshals. Let teachers who want to get trained and arm themselves, and create a school Marshall program where a plain-clothes, armed officer is at the school (if too expensive, assign an officer to a set of schools that he shows up to on random days - just like the Federal Air Marshals).