Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Paradoxium]

It's very simple. Quite a few people view it as a right of life. To take any part of it away, is to say you don't have a right to life. It's grating when politicians who are against it, have personal armed guards posted to them and their family almost 24/7. Something the average Joe doesn't have the luxury of. Why do they have more of a right to life, than anyone else?

So until the White House has this posted everywhere and enforce it on all their own guards and security:

... they can kindly shove a hot iron rod up their you know what.

 

[Grievous]

You are far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in public than you are in your own home.

When CCW laws were first introduced, the anti-gun people would scream at the top of their lungs that blood would run in the streets and that people would shoot each other over the smallest things. In Florida among a few other states, they tracked the actual instances of a CCW holder committing a crime. They stopped after a few years due to the fact that there were so few crimes committed by them.

Even if you would rather "shoot" someone than take a beating, the legal repercussions (which should be taught when taking the CCW training courses) are enough to scare anybody away from using their gun except for defense of life or serious bodily harm. Over the past 20 or so years, CCW holders have proven themselves to be a law abiding and responsible group of people. If they haven't started "snapping" and shooting people yet, they probably won't in the future either.

I guess with knowing that some people carry guns you will think before you throw a punch at someone. Not to say that person would use a gun in a simple thing like a bar fight but it is something people would keep in the back of their heads before starting the fight to begin with. I have read online about road rage and one man said he flipped someone off who then started following him and driving aggresive. The person that did the flipping off then flashed the PO driver his gun as he drove up next to him. The guy said the mad driver drove on after seeing his gun.

 

[Phallic]

I guess with knowing that some people carry guns you will think before you throw a punch at someone. Not to say that person would use a gun in a simple thing like a bar fight but it is something people would keep in the back of their heads before starting the fight to begin with. I have read online about road rage and one man said he flipped someone off who then started following him and driving aggresive. The person that did the flipping off then flashed the PO driver his gun as he drove up next to him. The guy said the mad driver drove on after seeing his gun.

While I don't advocate the brandishing of a firearm unless absolutely necessary (defensive of life), it is true that criminals fear armed civilians more than law enforcement officers. A study was actually done on this very subject. The unknown of whether or not the potential target is armed serves as an effective deterrent to many.

This also accounts for the lower instances of home invasions in the USA relative to some other countries - it's much scarier to invade someone's home when there is a 50/50 chance on average of being shot at.

 

[Phallic]

It's very simple. Quite a few people view it as a right of life. To take any part of it away, is to say you don't have a right to life. It's grating when politicians who are against it, have personal armed guards posted to them and their family almost 24/7. Something the average Joe doesn't have the luxury of. Why do they have more of a right to life, than anyone else?

So until the White House has this posted everywhere and enforce it on all their own guards and security:

... they can kindly shove a hot iron rod up their you know what.

I sometimes wonder how many of these anti-gun people would be willing to post a sign on their front door exclaiming "This house has no guns. It is a gun free zone."

 

[Sun_Down]

Want your hunting rifles? Fine. Want freaking automatic assault weapons that are designed to "hunt" only one animal? There's the line. Seems pretty simple and non-controversial to me. No, we can't stop all gun violence any more than we can stop all car accidents. But why not at least TRY to limit these weapons of mass violence that make violent incidents go from bad (a guy with a pistol or rifle) to worse (a guy with a machine gun)?

Is this country really so divided that we can't agree on that?

 

[Kable24]

Want your hunting rifles? Fine. Want freaking automatic assault weapons that are designed to "hunt" only one animal? There's the line. Seems pretty simple and non-controversial to me. No, we can't stop all gun violence any more than we can stop all car accidents. But why not at least TRY to limit these weapons of mass violence that make violent incidents go from bad (a guy with a pistol or rifle) to worse (a guy with a machine gun)?

Is this country really so divided that we can't agree on that?

Ahhh the first of a new year and another uniformed person. It's rare for anyone to own fully automatic rifles. Since the Hughes Amendment was signed in 1986, the only ones who can buy new automatic rifles are LE and military and certain ones with government contracts. A citizen can buy a pre 1986 full auto gun, but they go through a lot of red tape and thousands of dollars. A pre 1986 full auto rifle can go from $12,000 and up. Some go for $25,000.
The so called "assault rifles" the media and the government are referring to are the semi automatic rifles that look like the full automatic rifles the military use. The difference being that semi automatic rifles are one round fired for each pull of the trigger, where as on a full auto one pull of the trigger fires all of the rounds.
AR15's and the other "assault rifles" are sporting rifles and nothing more. Just because they have some black plastic furniture on them all of a sudden they are these death machines that unleash thousands of rounds a second. Maybe, if the media and the uniformed actually do some research they would realize that these rifles are no more powerful than a standard hunting rifle.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Want your hunting rifles? Fine. Want freaking automatic assault weapons that are designed to "hunt" only one animal? There's the line. Seems pretty simple and non-controversial to me. No, we can't stop all gun violence any more than we can stop all car accidents. But why not at least TRY to limit these weapons of mass violence that make violent incidents go from bad (a guy with a pistol or rifle) to worse (a guy with a machine gun)?

Is this country really so divided that we can't agree on that?

Fully automatic machine guns haven't been legal to the average citizen since 1934 unless you go through an intensive and expensive ATF vetting. There is a major difference between semi-automatic and automatic. You do yourself a disservice in an argument when you can't get basic facts straight.

 

[chaseter]

haha I like this.

 

[Phallic]

Want your hunting rifles? Fine. Want freaking automatic assault weapons that are designed to "hunt" only one animal? There's the line. Seems pretty simple and non-controversial to me. No, we can't stop all gun violence any more than we can stop all car accidents. But why not at least TRY to limit these weapons of mass violence that make violent incidents go from bad (a guy with a pistol or rifle) to worse (a guy with a machine gun)?

Is this country really so divided that we can't agree on that?

It seems the others here have covered your statement on automatic weapons.

It seems you are not aware of the true intention of the 2nd amendment. It had nothing to with hunting, but defense against tyranny. It was intended for civilians to be armed with the same weaponry that was available to the military.

And yes, we can't agree on your proposal because it doesn't work. I've pointed out plenty of statistics, many of which sourced, that have shown that the prior AWB as well as existing ones in CA, NY etc. haven't done a whole lot to reduce violent crime, if anything.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Couldn't they work their way around the amendment by banning gums but giving everyone water pistols ?

 

[Hawkingbird]

I joke, I joke...but it's an idea

 

[Destructus86]

I love how unbiased our news is.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

 

[dnno1]

Ahhh the first of a new year and another uniformed person. It's rare for anyone to own fully automatic rifles. Since the Hughes Amendment was signed in 1986, the only ones who can buy new automatic rifles are LE and military and certain ones with government contracts. A citizen can buy a pre 1986 full auto gun, but they go through a lot of red tape and thousands of dollars. A pre 1986 full auto rifle can go from $12,000 and up. Some go for $25,000.
The so called "assault rifles" the media and the government are referring to are the semi automatic rifles that look like the full automatic rifles the military use. The difference being that semi automatic rifles are one round fired for each pull of the trigger, where as on a full auto one pull of the trigger fires all of the rounds.
AR15's and the other "assault rifles" are sporting rifles and nothing more. Just because they have some black plastic furniture on them all of a sudden they are these death machines that unleash thousands of rounds a second. Maybe, if the media and the uniformed actually do some research they would realize that these rifles are no more powerful than a standard hunting rifle.

First of the year and we have another guy who thinks he knows everything just because he claims that he owns and has fired a gun.

[YT]_9sNcq5jHFY[/YT]

Study long, you study wrong!

 

[wiegeabo]

Hey guys, can we all just stop acting like *****.

And if you're gonna act all high and mighty, maybe make sure your youtube link works.

 

[dnno1]

Hey guys, can we all just stop acting like *****.

And if you're gonna act all high and mighty, maybe make sure your youtube link works.

You sure it doesn't work?

 

[wiegeabo]

yeah, I was. It didn't work before you changed it.

 

[dnno1]

yeah, I was. It didn't work before you changed it.

Whatever. Here's another video that might be interesting to watch:

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm finding this entire gun map controversy thing fairly amusing...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ided-on-news-sites-map-of-gun-permit-holders/

Some of these anti-Second Amendment people don't seem to realize how many people own guns in the country (at least half, if not more). And this is just showing handguns. Not rifles.

 

[dnno1]

I'm finding this entire gun map controversy thing fairly amusing...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ided-on-news-sites-map-of-gun-permit-holders/

Some of these anti-Second Amendment people don't seem to realize how many people own guns in the country (at least half, if not more). And this is just showing handguns. Not rifles.

Actually as of 2010 the percentage has been dropping. There are more like 32% of households that own guns. That's down from when it was as high as 54% in 1977.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm rather skeptical of that. They don't even keep track of rifle sales in most states. The FBI even admits they have no accurate estimate of how many guns are in the country.

 

[Grievous]

While I don't advocate the brandishing of a firearm unless absolutely necessary (defensive of life), it is true that criminals fear armed civilians more than law enforcement officers. A study was actually done on this very subject. The unknown of whether or not the potential target is armed serves as an effective deterrent to many.

This also accounts for the lower instances of home invasions in the USA relative to some other countries - it's much scarier to invade someone's home when there is a 50/50 chance on average of being shot at.

Yep it is nice knowing people think twice before breaking into someone's home. But not everyone uses guns for self defense sadly. I remember another road rage story I read where a couple simply just honked they're horn at a women, the women then followed them awhile before finally getting out and opening fire on their vehicle. I think the story said the couple was ok but the next day they could see multiple bullet holes in their vehicle.

 

[Kable24]

First of the year and we have another guy who thinks he knows everything just because he claims that he owns and has fired a gun.

[YT]_9sNcq5jHFY[/YT]

Study long, you study wrong!

He's bump firing the rifle and letting the recoil of the rifle perform the action of the trigger. I've done it with my rifles by looping a rubber band around the mag well and the trigger. I've also done it by looping my fingers around my belt loop. We had this discussion one this a while back.
the rifle is still semi automatic because the trigger is still being pulled for every round being fired. it's just doing it a lot faster. I personally, think it's a waste of ammo.
You can also put a small machined piece of steel over the sear and it will make the rifle be a true automatic.
As for what I own and what I have shot, I don't need to prove anything to you. You can believe what you want about me. I have a very strong opinion of you and your narrow minded way of thinking.
So, now I will put you on ignore because you annoy me.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You never see lever-action guns anymore...

 

[Kable24]

Like a Rossi Ranch Hand?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Like a Rossi Ranch Hand?

That'd be the one.

I guess it is rather impractical as a handgun.

Makes for a great rifle though. Winning the West and what not.