(10-10-2015 09:48 PM)ragin4u Wrote:  The 2nd Amendment was meant as a protection of the people as a defense against a tyrannical government. Not so some open-carry yahoo can strut into Applebys with an AR15. Again I dont know the answer but it CANT be "oh well. more dead kids but at least I can own a semiautomatic weapon".

The individual right to keep and bear arms has been traditional in the country since its founding. The Supreme Court has ratified that traditional understanding of the amendment in rulings in recent years. People are going to have to accept the fact that that isn't going to change.

In general, the people who carry out massacres are not 2nd Amendment activists, open-carry advocates, or NRA members, or people that are called "yahoo" or "gun-nut". It's usually some disaffected weirdo or emotionally unstable person who is not an advocate for anything and who is not a member of much and not usually connected to the world.

Perhaps you should stop worrying about 2nd Amendment rights advocates and yahoos who generally do NOT massacre people....and start worrying about disaffected weirdos and emotionally unstable people who sometimes do.

Because the 2nd Amendment....is.....not....going....away....ever....and trying to walk down that path has stopped.....and will stop....ZERO massacres.

Just my 2 cents. Regular Joes don't need assault rifles. That's where we need to draw a line. Yes, we have guns but we aren't so freaked out by some type of reform to barricade ourselves or be paranoid the government is going to come and get them or haul us off because we have them.

In my experience, (I said mine) every vet that I know (or knew) that saw actual combat are not the guys screaming about any of their rights being taken away nor are they the ones that even think anyone is trying to take away their rights. They're, for the most part, the ones that keep their guns put away and aren't getting in line for open carry or hoarding.

The OR shooters mom was one of those. She was, admittedly, stockpiling guns before the govt took them away of denied people the right to purchase. I find her partially culpable or maybe she had/has issues also.

Now, all this said, this thread has gone way off topic of any sympathy or sports talk so I'm moving it to the general discussions area.

(10-10-2015 10:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  In my experience, (I said mine) every vet that I know (or knew) that saw actual combat are not the guys screaming about any of their rights being taken away nor are they the ones that even think anyone is trying to take away their rights. They're, for the most part, the ones that keep their guns put away and aren't getting in line for open carry or hoarding.

This vet resembles that remark (though I do have a concealed carry license).

(10-10-2015 10:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Just my 2 cents. Regular Joes don't need assault rifles. That's where we need to draw a line.

An assault rifle throws lead slugs downrange. A non-assault rifle throws lead slugs downrange. A handgun throws lead slugs downrange.

We need to draw a line based on a weapon's appearance?

(10-11-2015 11:43 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 10:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Just my 2 cents. Regular Joes don't need assault rifles. That's where we need to draw a line.

An assault rifle throws lead slugs downrange. A non-assault rifle throws lead slugs downrange. A handgun throws lead slugs downrange.

We need to draw a line based on a weapon's appearance?

Don't know about you but I'd rather put 2 giant holes in an intruder with the husbands double barreled than shoot up my house (in the process)with an AK47.

(10-11-2015 10:42 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 10:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  In my experience, (I said mine) every vet that I know (or knew) that saw actual combat are not the guys screaming about any of their rights being taken away nor are they the ones that even think anyone is trying to take away their rights. They're, for the most part, the ones that keep their guns put away and aren't getting in line for open carry or hoarding.

This vet resembles that remark (though I do have a concealed carry license).

Thank you. My brother was in the Navy and had a "shoot to kill" even while off base but when he got out I never saw his guns.
My husband (Vietnam Era) has never had more than his shotgun, a 22 and a Luger and our kids didn't even know we had a WWII German Luger until their teens.
(Tons of military folks in my family history, past and present)

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" its a made up term by gun grabbers to make a standard semi auto sound scary, then they call them "military style".

As a Marine had I been on campus armed or unarmed there is no way I stay in that room. I would advise the people in there how to protect themselves and how to keep the door shut then I would have checked on every class room on the floor to either offer first aid or make sure they are OK. After that I'm looking for the active shooter period.

These mass shootings target gun free zones and to claim they don't care if their victims are armed or not then why are they not targeting gun shows? The recruiting station that was targeted was a GUN FREE ZONE. The only people allowed to carry in that location of the MP's because of military policy. So its exactly the same thing as going to any civilian gun free zone.

I don't advocate for everyone and their grandmother carrying or pulling their gun in these situations, but I do believe a 40 hour training course, paired with 20 hours a year is a good start for those who want a CCW. When I was in my teens I got a Red Cross card because I was trained in CPR and other emergency services as part of the Boy Scouts, with that training I was told if I saw a person in need I was required to stop and try to assist. Having a CCW should be the same way. IMO.

(10-12-2015 07:56 AM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  As a Marine had I been on campus armed or unarmed there is no way I stay in that room. I would advise the people in there how to protect themselves and how to keep the door shut then I would have checked on every class room on the floor to either offer first aid or make sure they are OK. After that I'm looking for the active shooter period.

I agree with a lot of what you said but this isn't one of them with all due respect. Outside that door you would have to anticipate a swat team on the lookout for ANY armed "gunman" and you would naturally be right in their crosshairs since that is exactly what you would be defined as in that circumstance. Despite the fact you would have been one of the "good guys", there would be no way for the PoPo to know that until you were lit up (worst-case). Secondly, your presence would distract the swat teams while the cowardly bastard(s?) continued mowing down the defenseless students and professors.

EDITED TO ADD: Thank you for your service, brother.

About the 5th or 6th entry down in a "assault rifle" google search shows H&K calling their semi-auto rifles "assault rifles".

I certainly agree with the idea of a training course and rectification every year for any weapon except obvious hunting weapons. Ive killed my share of deer with a single shot, bolt action and a lever action. Never needed a 30 round clip, etc.
Again I dont know the answer but I'm more scared of mentally ill people with weapons than I am of the government.

Vets on the board. I appreciate your service and your sacrifice. The price of our freedom is high and I certainly appreciate you paying it.

(10-12-2015 02:49 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:56 AM)RedWolf_Rex Wrote:  As a Marine had I been on campus armed or unarmed there is no way I stay in that room. I would advise the people in there how to protect themselves and how to keep the door shut then I would have checked on every class room on the floor to either offer first aid or make sure they are OK. After that I'm looking for the active shooter period.

I agree with a lot of what you said but this isn't one of them with all due respect. Outside that door you would have to anticipate a swat team on the lookout for ANY armed "gunman" and you would naturally be right in their crosshairs since that is exactly what you would be defined as in that circumstance. Despite the fact you would have been one of the "good guys", there would be no way for the PoPo to know that until you were lit up (worst-case). Secondly, your presence would distract the swat teams while the cowardly bastard(s?) continued mowing down the defenseless students and professors.

EDITED TO ADD: Thank you for your service, brother.

Thank you for your service as well!

Being a good guy in the line of fire would be worth it to me personally and it goes hand in hand with the type of door to door training we receive. It also goes directly in line for the alpha male bullshish that gets Marines in trouble all the time.

I would be willing to take that risk armed or unarmed, I can't go word for word how an encounter like this would go down if I were there because ever situation is variable. Part of my instruction upon leaving that room would be to have someone call 911 and give them a description of me. If I saw the SWAT team even at a distance I would get on my face hands out and holler at the top of my lungs exactly were my weapon was located. The only advantage I have over most of the folks I know is having been shot at before and returning fire before I know how to take that extra moment and get to the rational thought process rather than react out of panic and fear.

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)ragin4u Wrote:  About the 5th or 6th entry down in a "assault rifle" google search shows H&K calling their semi-auto rifles "assault rifles".

I certainly agree with the idea of a training course and rectification every year for any weapon except obvious hunting weapons. Ive killed my share of deer with a single shot, bolt action and a lever action. Never needed a 30 round clip, etc.
Again I dont know the answer but I'm more scared of mentally ill people with weapons than I am of the government.

Vets on the board. I appreciate your service and your sacrifice. The price of our freedom is high and I certainly appreciate you paying it.

Sadly some gun manufacturers have starting using a nomenclature that was born in the minds of politicians and news rooms. Even if you want to subscribe to the term assault rifle being used by the Nazis during WWII it wasn't a commonly used verbiage until the late 80's and early 90's when it was used to describe any "scary" looking firearm for the purposes of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.

It is blatantly obvious that some people here don't know what an "assault" rifle is in comparison to say, a "hunting" rifle.

Anyone that says an "average Joe" shouldn't have an "assault rifle" because they will "shoot up the whole house" is sadly misinformed about assault rifles, and specifically, the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic weaponry.

I'll give you a hint. "Assault" rifle basically means, "looks scary" to those calling to take them away.

And taking certain types of guns is only the first step. If you don't fear the government, I have a few historical wars for you to read up on.

A great step toward the solution could be learned from this thread: (mostly) thoughtful, intelligent dialogue between people of all areas of the political spectrum who are willing to engage the issue.

Yeah, "assault weapon" is really a useless term. I have an "assault shotgun" simply because it has camouflage (Remington 870) and is the preferred shotgun of most police departments and swat teams. In reality it's just a pump action 12 gauge that holds 5 shells with the plug removed and is a great home protection and/or bird hunting weapon.