|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 12:37:11 GMT -5
Started this thread to see others opinions.
I personally don't think the government has the right to ban any weapon. The second ammendment says, and I quote this off the government website, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". I think this means hat the people can have weapon they want, and te government shouldn't be able to ban them. Granted there probably shouldn't be war heads or anything like that on the market, but banning assault rifles and extended magazines?. If the government takes that away, it won't be long till they try and take all guns. Also, a senator, I dont remember his name, said that the video game industry is too violent and that they've been asked to "tone it down" before, and that now it might be time to enforce that. This is just my opinion, but that sounds like a tyrant to me. I think the government should have absolutely 0% say on what weapons are and aren't banned.
Feel free to disagree. Again, I started this thread to see what other people have to say about the subject. Oh and 1 more thing, there was something on the news about a liberal that said the president of the NRA needs to be murdered. That's just wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by parkerd13 (Shadow) on Dec 19, 2012 13:04:16 GMT -5
In my own opinion, I believe it I the person responsible for injuries and not the firearm. There are at least three rules you learn or should learn about a firearm. 1. Always treat the weapon as if its loaded. 2. Never point at anything you don't intend to shoot. And 3. Safeties don't always work.
All the massacres and accidents you hear about are the faults of the person holding the weapon. It'd be the same as me blaming a fire I started for the destruction of my property. Fire is fire, but a person can control it if they learn how. So no, I do not think the government should have the right to ban a firearm, but I do think there should be a gun safety course first time buyers should go through to purchase one.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 13:09:26 GMT -5
Like you said, it's the persons fault. if you put a gun on a table and point it at a person or animal, and tell it to kill, it's not going to kill is it? No, because people kill people, not guns. Also, you have to pay thousands and get all this special licensing to get automatic weapons and you also have I get a license for concealed carry. That sounds like infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by parkerd13 (Shadow) on Dec 19, 2012 13:43:15 GMT -5
My dad and I probably have more firearms than most, so does that make me a threat? No!? They are locked in a safe in which he and I alone know the combination to, and both of us have had tons of experience with them! I'm sure that if I wanted, I could go on a spree and know exactly how to do it, but I'm not going to nor have I ever thought of doing it. Just because I own a gun does not make me a threat. However...if you try and remove my rights....
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 14:03:14 GMT -5
if you take the time to look and research, it will eb obvious that the areas with more gun owners have a lower average crime rate. that is for a reason. the government wants us to be totally dependent on them for everything. i dont personally own a gun (want one btu cant have one. yet.), but if someone was breaking into my house and was intent on killing me, id rather be able to take care of the problem myself than wait 5 minutes for the cops to show up and find my dead body. if you heard the story about the kid that killed his mom and sister, you know the cops arent always there quickly. 23 freaking minutes. thats enough time for someine to kill you, dispose of your body, get rid of any other evidence, and get out of there before they even show up. peoplel beign able to own guns is the only thing that is keeping this monster we call a government in line. if they take guns, theyll be in complete control. and forcing the entertainment industry to conform to their rules, thats just ridiculous. and then they forced hobby lobby to go against its beliefs even though they have not a single shred of constitutuional jurisdiction in that case. and another one, its an old case, but a women bought coffee from McDonalds, and the cu had a large warning label on it that said caution, contents may be hot. so this genius puts the cup in her crotch while she drives off. know what happens? it spills and gives her 3rd degree burns. she then sued Mconalds, as if it is somehow their fault she's a complete idiot, and wins $1 million. these are all just examples of how out of cotrol the government is, and its only going to get worse if we let them ban guns. i still think that the government should not, and does not, have the right to ban any weapon, of any kind, for any reason. even though it would be bad to have missiles and things like that on the market, the government doesnt technically have the power to ban them. and the president and his family get 24/7 protetion form the secret service, who utilize many types of weapons, including automatics, and they feel that we shouldnt have the right to protect ourselves with the same weapons? i alsi think that you should not be reuuired to obtain a concealed carry licesnse because that infringes on a persons right to bear arms. people will own guns, people will shoot other people. sure its wrong, but the government needs to get over it, qutie being a bunch of cry babies, and continue "improving" the country with their crappy laws. people will never give up their rights and ill will bet 1000 to 1 odds that if the government takes away the peoples right to arm themselves, there will be a civil war.
sorry for the rant i just needed to get that out
|
|
|
|
Post by SnakeAssault on Dec 19, 2012 15:10:41 GMT -5
I actually think the system in place currently isn't too bad. It limits what you can easily do, such as but a fully automatic AR or whatever. That's not to say I want more restrictions though.
Also, I remember that one city in Kansas required all its citizens to have guns, and the crime rate dropped. Why break into a house that is going to have a gun, guaranteed?
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 15:22:08 GMT -5
The system isnt bad, necessarily, but it makes the gov. Think they Have the power to restrict guns how they want. It should be anybody's choice but the individual. And again, if the politicians get secret service, security, etc... W/ automatic weapons, they have absolutely no right to tell regular citizens they can't have automatics.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 18:19:18 GMT -5
many on the left think that the 2nd amendment means " a regulated milita" is the national guard, and that no person should own a firearm. and if you think banning guns helps, just look at Australia. they banned all semi auto hand guns, then all hand guns then all semi rifles then most other rifles then swords then long knives then crossbows then BB guns then air soft guns then all toy guns then violent video games now some want to ban meat...... no im not kidding is it working?  ?? no Sidney still has shootings all the time.. and people want to talk about the low gun crime in japan, well if you are a criminal in japan you are in JAIL, if you are a illegal in japan you are DEPORTED. and if you want to kill someone you use a sword or knife (google the amount of knife violence and you will be shocked) its not about the tool, its about the crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 18:24:24 GMT -5
thats why people need guns. wack jobs dont care if guns are illegal, their still gonna get them one way or another. all it will do is raise the amount of killing because people wont be able to protect themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 20:00:53 GMT -5
thing is with 3D printers coming out that nearly anyone can get, a gun is just a program away..... all you would need is some basic parts and the 3D printer can make the rest....
30 years ago you could make a working sub machine gun in high school shop class, its easier now....
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 20:13:32 GMT -5
I want one of those printers. But there thousands. And they weigh thousands of pounds. Any way, once that starts happening, there is no way the government will have any control at all of guns and weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 20:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 20:48:54 GMT -5
I was looking at the ones that are more advanced, like the ones that can work with a large variety of materials. Those are still cool, but not what I was thinking of. I wanted one that can make intricate parts but also bigger parts
|
|
|
|
Post by MotorMouth93 on Dec 19, 2012 21:23:12 GMT -5
Dave is right, the machine in the first link he posted could be used to mill an AR-15 lower receiver (the only part of the gun that is regulated if I recall correctly) out of aluminum. The model files are freely available on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 19, 2012 21:30:43 GMT -5
So for 400 or so dollars, + materials, I could build an AR-15?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 21:38:20 GMT -5
So for 400 or so dollars, + materials, I could build an AR-15? ....
YES, it would be a POS, but yes
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 21:39:44 GMT -5
and a felloney but most would do it to do a another crime anyway, so you would have a gun and no one else if banned
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 21:41:35 GMT -5
but what the heck why go for a AR-15, if you are breaking the law anyway (don't do it!!!!) what would make you stop at that? go M-16 or M-416, or M-60 or MAG, see what im saying. people who really want guns will get them
|
|
Joker
Full Member
Y SO SRS?
Posts: 131
|
Post by Joker on Dec 19, 2012 21:43:00 GMT -5
As trite and overplayed as the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is, the foundations of this statement is fairly accurate. A gun is a tool, an inanimate object. Granted, it is a tool whose purpose is killing things, but by itself a gun is not necessarily dangerous. It takes a person to make that gun a danger to others, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
So regulating the availability of guns is not going to do very much to protect society or individuals. We don't really need to get the second amendment as it applies to weapons involved, since it is not really the issue.
First, you have to address injuries and deaths resulting through accident. This can be solved more readily through mandating someone to have a license to have a firearm, much like a Concealed Carry license. People should probably show that they understand that they know how to treat a firearm with the care and respect that it innately deserves before being allowed to own one. For crying out loud, car accidents cause as many if not more deaths than guns, and we still require people to prove they understand how to safely drive a vehicle before we allow them on the road!
Second, we need to have a very frank discussion on the state of mental health in this country. Over the past 30 years there has been 62 mass shootings, and a vast majority of the shooters were mentally disturbed. Again, trying to curb gun rights would not address these shootings, since in over two thirds of the incidents the shooters acquired the guns legally. We need, as a society, to be more aware of the people to our left and right, and quit making mental health such a taboo subject. Mental health is still a very benighted science, but it is just as needed as ordinary medical treatment. We need to identify people who need psychological treatment and make it less scary to get it... and at the same time, stop throwing drugs at people and pretending it's the sole solution!
Anyway, that's my rant. The fight over guns is just trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease. In the end, people want to be safe. That is the crux of the argument, the fact that different people have different views of what keeps us safe. It may be harder, but guiding the hand that guides the tool inevitably will create better and longer lasting results.
But hey, we're Americans. We want things right here, right now. A generation to change the behavior of a country is waaaaaay too long for our 4G loving citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 19, 2012 21:52:43 GMT -5
joker, I agree one problem is that the lefty world wanted to close all the nut houses (for lack of a better term). so now you need a court and a mountan of paperwork, lawyers, etc to put away a nut that EVERYONE knows is going to do something like this at some point in his life.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Redkangavoosa on Dec 20, 2012 0:12:44 GMT -5
Lololol.
The term "Gun Ban" is a far stretch for things.
Since they can't outlaw guns due to something called "The Second Amendment," if anything passes, it'll just be moreof restrictions on weapons, a la California's model of bullet buttons, fixed stocks, 10 rd mags, etc. Hell, a bolt action kit for an AR wouldn't be too far fetched. There's kits available for those already.
All the major gun companies like Remington and Shrubmaster would then ship out kits for the current owners of firearms to make their gun abide by federal laws. And, at the same time they'll be selling "legal modified firearms" for the consumers. Oh, and don't forget those 10 rd /5rd/ 1rd mags that can only be used legally, without red tape.
Point is, gun restrictions actually HELP firearm companies make a profit. Hell, every time a mass shooting occurs, guns and ammo sales spike in fear of a ban.
I wouldn't be surprised if I saw some major gun and mag makers lobby to get legislation passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 20, 2012 0:24:19 GMT -5
I still think that one of these days the gov. is gonna go to far and cause a civil war.
On a semi-related side note, idk how old the story is, but some ATF personell seized a shipment of AS guns b/c there wasn't an orange tip. The man that ordered them said that this had happened before, and he went and spray painted them, and he was allowed to take them home. This nut-job tried to say that anybody with knowledge if guns would be able to convert it to fire real ammunition in a short period if time, with a little work. That's just stupid. People that work jobs like that need to be required to learn about what their inspecting before their allowed to inspect it and make up crap like that. I'd like to see someone not only make it fire real ammunition, but on top of that, have it bot explode in their face.
|
|
Joker
Full Member
Y SO SRS?
Posts: 131
|
Post by Joker on Dec 20, 2012 0:28:29 GMT -5
'sTrue. Did a story the day after Obama got re-elected. One store sold through an entire shipment of AR-15s in a few hours. Owner of the store said that every time that there is a hint of gun control legislation, people stock up on both hardware and ammo, but nothing really changes much.
It always amazes me that people claim that the guvmint gonna force people to turn their weapons in. This is the same government that had trouble converting television over to digital. Just the logistics alone is probably beyond the fed's ability to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave OC-6 on Dec 20, 2012 1:47:50 GMT -5
On a semi-related side note, idk how old the story is, but some ATF personell seized a shipment of AS guns b/c there wasn't an orange tip. The man that ordered them said that this had happened before, and he went and spray painted them, and he was allowed to take them home. This nut-job tried to say that anybody with knowledge if guns would be able to convert it to fire real ammunition in a short period if time, with a little work. That's just stupid. People that work jobs like that need to be required to learn about what their inspecting before their allowed to inspect it and make up crap like that. I'd like to see someone not only make it fire real ammunition, but on top of that, have it bot explode in their face. ..............
they were WE gen 1 GBBR, and yes with a M-16 parts kit and a drill and file you CAN make it fire, and it fires quite well..... you can find the ATF letter on line where it shows what you need to do to make it work..... remember the ONLY thing that is a "gun" is the small lower receiver "stripped".
remember the ATF tec branch can make a bar of soap fire a round, yes they are that good.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotorMouth93 on Dec 20, 2012 16:02:29 GMT -5
Lololol. Point is, gun restrictions actually HELP firearm companies make a profit. Hell, every time a mass shooting occurs, guns and ammo sales spike in fear of a ban. I wouldn't be surprised if I saw some major gun and mag makers lobby to get legislation passed. That is an extremely lofty claim at best. Most companies would prefer a long stable set of sales figures to a spike and sudden drop off when new legislation takes effect. Sure the appreciate the little spike each time there are hints of gun control legislation in the works, but so far nothing has come of it. They realize that any serious legislation will hurt them in the long run. |
|
postal
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by postal on Dec 20, 2012 21:10:10 GMT -5
I guess I will jump on the ban wagon to pun a phrase.As far as gun restrictions this shoild be done by a body of persons that have knowledge of firearms the idustry and crimanal history.Not the ones we have now that hold the firearm to talk about how t needs to be ban with a mag in it and their figer on the trigger while pointing at everyone in the room.And if you look at two of the wost shootings that were done in Texas with bolt action rifles at exterme distances.hmm makes you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 23, 2012 8:46:06 GMT -5
The problem is that the people calling for the gun bans, are the people who are actually stupid enough to believe that guns kill. People kill. And if people kill, it doesn't matter if you take away guns, they will find another way.
|
|
postal
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by postal on Dec 25, 2012 0:15:02 GMT -5
yes thats their theory is you make guns ileagal and all law biding citizen well give up their guns and only the law and military will have them and in the real world crinimals will keep on using guns and law binding folks that wont give up their guns will be outlaws.This is what the Idiots in groups like code pink want to acheive they want to take away are rights so they can feel they made the world a safer place.we need to get these whacos disbanded before they cause alot of inocent deaths.They refuse to look at facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhawk on Dec 25, 2012 8:47:37 GMT -5
It's like the tree Hughes. Up in Alaska they weren't allowed to drill for oil because the last 5 birds of a species were living there. I'm sorry, but if we have made it this far w/out needing them, then we don't need them.
|
|
|
|
Post by SnakeAssault on Dec 25, 2012 23:32:11 GMT -5
As Franklin once said:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
|
|
?? no Sidney still has shootings all the time..
