Assault Rifle Ban

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by shilala

There was a time when my gun fed my kids. It doesn't get much more dire than "no food on the table". Unless, of course, junkies are climbing in your kitchen window to rob you. That has also happened to my family.
I don't see the "need" for anyone to have a turret mounted gatling gun on the roof of their Hummer, or a pile of full automatic ar-15's in their basement. I've never had the desire to own or even understood why guys buy so many of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.
Doesn't matter. It's their right. It's my right, too.
I won't likely own any assault rifles in my lifetime. I've played with them lots of times and they're a lot of fun, but I've never had the desire to own one.
Fortunately for me, if I come to need one, I'm sure one of my brothers will hook me up.

First, I'm sorry that I obviously touched a sore spot with some people on this thread and I won't be addressing the insults that were hurled my way. However, as already noted I am entitled to have an opinion. My statement was only meant to infer that the second ammendment is antiquated and written during a time when there were no assault rifles or machine guns. Plus, at the time people mostly lived on isolated farms and there was no police force. Firearms were much less powerful and the world was on the whole a more dangerous place.

Also, Al has nothing to do with this post.

I'm not saying no one should be allowed to own a gun and I would never say guns in general should be illegal. As Scott points out, there are people who have a definite need for a gun. I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

In the end this is just my opinion and people can take it or leave it.

[spooble]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars.

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by spooble

It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars.

Well yeah. There will always be law breakers. Otherwise we wouldn't need a police force right?

However, I think everyone can agree that if drugs, machine guns, or even Cuban cigars were legal they would be more prevalent and easier to obtain.

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

However, I think everyone can agree that if drugs, machine guns, or even Cuban cigars were legal they would be more prevalent and easier to obtain.

Just (or 7/8 of a cent after taxes and inflation)...machine guns are legal to own provided the gun was registered prior to 1986, the owner has a Class 3-accomodating permit from the BATFE, and pays the $200 transfer tax on purchase. It's been that way since 1934.

And registered legal machine guns have always been a rich man's toy...they have been described as an expensive tool for converting money into noise. (Yes, Dave, there is a hobby more expensive than aged CC's!)

[shilala]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands... So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Mikey, at a time, I was opposed to automatic weapons.
Then, for a lot of years, I watched how the government that is supposed to "protect and serve" me did what they do.
The protect me by taking away my rights and everyone else's.
If they get the gatling guns, then they go after the automatic weapons, then the semi-auto's, then the handguns, and keep on going until kids can't carry a cap gun.
I didn't pull that out of my butt. Take a look at how it's happened in England. Our ideas were born there, and you can see a never-ending string of parallels between their lawmaking and ours. They're just way ahead of us because their population density is far ahead of ours and they've had lots more time to do themselves in.

That wasn't my point at all.
My greatest fear is that some disconnected knucklehead who works in Washington and has never seen an ounce of what it's like in the "real world" will be the guy to decide if Scott Shilala has the need of a gun.
Scares me to death.

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

[Da Klugs]

How do you folks feel about the progressive tax system?

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

How do you folks feel about the progressive tax system?

Cram it hippie!

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

Cram it hippie!

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy!

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money?

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy!

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money?

I to have offered a guy food when he had a sign saying he was hungry only to get the same reaction. HOWEVER, Sunday Alina and I had to run into the clown hamburger joint for a fast bite before a hockey game. There was a guy that held the door for my wife and ask if we had any money for a meal. I said no, thanked him for holding the door and went in. We then bought him a meal and handed it to him on the way out. The smile on his face and the genuine thank you that came from that man convinced me to always at least make the offer. One, might really be hungry and be truly thankful for you taking the time.

Sorry for the thread jack.

I now return you to guns or no guns..

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Da Klugs

And that's reformed after the era former kinda like hippie to you, killer of bambi via uzi rugged individualist guy!

You prepared for more good samaritan activites this winter? I offered a couple cans of beans to the guy with the "need food god bless sign" the other day. He looked at me like I was insulting his mom and said.. I dont want that! Don't you have any money?

I can honestly say I've never killed a damn thing with any of my guns. Closest I've come is to make a mess of some beer cans I've already killed with my gullet. I'm a very odd guy (like you haven't noticed). Its the running joke that I could kill a grizzly nocking a choir boy's candle in my bow, but there won't be a chipmunk in sight when I have a gun in my hand.

I do like the rugged individualist thing though. You gotta tell my girlfriend about that. Maybe she'll think I'm one of those bad ass Davey Crockett types and...well...you know what I'm after.

And I'm always willing and hopefully always able to help anyone who needs it. But needing help is one thing....wanting it is a different.

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by shilala

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

Scott,

I agree with many of the points that you are making. However, I definitely don't agree with all of them. I don't think there's a need to debate this issue to death which is what would likely occur. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Now let's get back to talking about something we can all agree are great . . . CIGARS!!

[shilala]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

Scott,

I agree with many of the points that you are making. However, I definitely don't agree with all of them. I don't think there's a need to debate this issue to death which is what would likely occur. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Now let's get back to talking about something we can all agree are great . . . CIGARS!!

You got it, my brother.

[spectrrr]

Again, I can't post my thoughts on every post, nor would you want to read them. Mikey's post just summs em up, I'm not picking on him.

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

Said legislation actually does exist... but for some reason, most of the people that are committing crimes don't seem too inclined to follow it...

Originally Posted by MikeyC

Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions....

Amen brother. I would even take it a step further and say that its not "often" that the tools end up in the wrong hands, its "always".

Originally Posted by MikeyC

....and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Food for thought. I've met a lot of people on both sides of fence, people that grew up with guns, people that didn't, etc. 99 times out of 100, the people that are "inexperienced" or "foolish" around guns and then get into accidents are the people that have been relatively sheltered from guns for most of their life.

A firearm is something that must be treated with the utmost in respect at all times, and damned near anyone who shoots often now or grew up shooting when they were younger knows this. People that live in a house that just tries to ignore their existance, those are the majority of the "inexperienced" people that you refer to.

whats my point? my point is, as you limit guns and drive them further away from the common public eye, and make it less socially acceptable for people to be involved with guns, I would argue that you will see an INCREASE in the number of accident related shootings because the number of inexperienced people will be rising.