Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Scarlet spidey]

Wait, so you think it makes sense to own a 50 cal. bmg Sniper rifle? As a gun owner, why do you think a civilian even needs to own something like that? Please clarify?

Some say that owning a gun like that is one way to protect yourself from an out of control tyrannical government. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but yeah.

 

[Nivek]

Some say that owning a gun like that is one way to protect yourself from an out of control tyrannical government. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but yeah.

IMO, when a gun owner starts babbling about how he needs his "assault" rifles to protect himself from the Government, it's usually a good time to start cutting ties with said gun owner and getting some safe physical and emotional distance.

 

[VampElvis]

Wait, so you think it makes sense to own a 50 cal. bmg Sniper rifle? As a gun owner, why do you think a civilian even needs to own something like that? Please clarify?

I don't see why one shouldn't be allowed to own such a weapon. Do you own or are you familiar with the proper handling and use of firearms? They can be quite enjoyable for target shooting as a leisure activity. And weapons such as this, when properly equipped, can be exceptionally fun because of their high accuracy at great distances. If your argument is against weapons that can quickly cause mass damage (such as fully automatics) this doesn't qualify.

 

[Nivek]

I don't see why one shouldn't be allowed to own such a weapon. Do you own or are you familiar with the proper handling and use of firearms? They can be quite enjoyable for target shooting as a leisure activity. And weapons such as this, when properly equipped, can be exceptionally fun because of their high accuracy at great distances. If your argument is against weapons that can quickly cause mass damage (such as fully automatics) this doesn't qualify.

I grew up in a working class rural family with plenty of hunters and gun owners, so I have always had a respect and knowledge of guns from an early age. But I've also seen the dark side of gun ownership as well from inside my family (suicides, assaults, misfires/ accidents, even a hostage situation). When it comes to people owning military weaponry, IMO it comes down to the "bigger dick" mentality, and to me that goes beyond what the true responsibility of being a gun owner should be about. A gun is a killing tool, not a toy, not something that is a bad@$$ badge, not a recreational device. And if you own a precision tool that fires armor piercing tank/anti-aircraft rounds, and your not hunting tanks, planes, or people hiding behind armor plating, then you have no damn business owning it.

I've seen too many Gun owners fumble in trying to explain why they feel the need to own military small-arms and things like that 50 cal. BMG Sniper Rifle. Fun IMO is not a legitimate reason to own something like that. It's not like you need to kill or hit something 3-5 miles away anyway. And if you do, whats the point of it?

 

[VampElvis]

Well said. I don't agree with your position but I do respect the fact you can actually articulate it!

 

[Nivek]

Well said. I don't agree with your position but I do respect the fact you can actually articulate it!

Thank you, I feel very passionate about this topic. I don't want to lose the whole second amendment because some vocal minority fringe extremist gun owners feel they need an artillery cannon for home defense.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I personally don't see why stricter rules, even if it's just more hoops to jump through, would be a problem for the purchase of heavier weaponry.

 

[Nivek]

The thing about some gun owners complaining about stricter laws confuses me. Things like the uproar about serial numbers being put on brass to track the purchase of the rounds. Why would any law abiding gun owner have an issue with that?

Personally, I think most of the hub-bub comes from people who sell the ammo to known unscrupulous types who know they'll have to I.D. these guys and lose a market.

 

[Paradyme]

Wait, so you think it makes sense to own a 50 cal. bmg Sniper rifle? As a gun owner, why do you think a civilian even needs to own something like that? Please clarify?

Well, since its legal yes I think it makes sense that he had one. You are looking at the case that he had intent to kill officers or people one day but turning a blind eye to the fact that maybe he bought these weapons as a hobby and enjoyed firing them.

I would like to fire a 50 cal sniper rifle one day but I would never purchase one because of how expensive they are. Do you even know how much one of those things cost? Lets look at this from a detective standpoint, why would a well to do guy purchase so many expensive firearms? To kill police or his family? He had way to many weapons. It was unrealistic. No, I believe something else snapped in him and he realized that he might have to fight police. What did he do? He shot one cop. Apparently, some sort of sense hit him and he decided to kill himself.

I could care less if the 50 cal was banned because I would never have an overall use for one other then target practice or just to say 'I've fired one' but my point being is if you ban one weapon where do you draw the line and who has the right to dictate that when there is clearly an amendment protecting that right?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But I don't think the amendment took into account that civilians could own enough weaponry to fight a small war.

I think provisions should be put on heavier weaponry. Handguns are not in that class for me.

But assault rifles, sniper rifles...the heavy ****? That should be harder to get, because of how much more potent it is, I think.

 

[Paradyme]

The thing about some gun owners complaining about stricter laws that confuses me. Things like the uproar about serial numbers being put on brass to track the purchase of the rounds. Why would any law abiding gun owner have an issue with that?

I think the obvious issue would be people at firing ranges fire copious amounts of bullets. Some are not as regulated as others therefore you might miss some of the brass that was dropped. What happens if a guy with not so good intentions reloads the brass and kills someone with it? Where does it get traced back to? You. That would be the major problem. It also costs ammo manufacturers a lot of money because they are effectively throwing away the ammo that isn't under the new law. I'm sure there are more but frankly that should be enough.

I personally don't see why stricter rules, even if it's just more hoops to jump through, would be a problem for the purchase of heavier weaponry.

It wouldn't be but who decides what heavy weaponry is? I've read that if they Holder were to reinstitute the ban on assault rifles that would include all assault, hunting rifles and shotguns. It would also limit the amount of ammunition you can hold in a handgun. There are so many things wrong with it that should be apparent.

I don't see a problem with a little more hoops to jump through as long as they are created effectively and not through the means of trying to disarm the citizens.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

WE decide.

If it isn't even open to debate, which gun worshippers don't even allow it to be...

 

[Paradyme]

But I don't think the amendment took into account that civilians could own enough weaponry to fight a small war.

I think provisions should be put on heavier weaponry. Handguns are not in that class for me.

But assault rifles, sniper rifles...the heavy ****? That should be harder to get, because of how much more potent it is, I think.

You can't compare a .223 or .556 caliber assault rifle, or my 40S&W assault rifle (which quite a few handguns use) to a .50 cal 'tank buster' sniper rifle. What is a heavier gun you can get other than a .50 cal? (I'm serious about this question because I can't think of anything heavier)

Do you see what I'm getting at? You are lumping them all into a group and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Paradyme]

WE decide.

If it isn't even open to debate, which gun worshippers don't even allow it to be...

Most gun owners I've met are just trying to keep what is theirs without any more restrictions being imposed on them. For a majority of the gun owners its a hobby in some form or another. There is always going to be a few crazies in the lot.

When a state or government passes something when was the last time they made it an open forum for the gun owners to 'debate' it? I've never heard of them having an open session. I doubt we will ever get to a gray area about this subject because the left wish to abolish firearms altogether, while the extreme right want to try to protect whats left of our rights to own a firearm.

I haven't seen any legislation proposed that would outlaw the ability of the government to institute an assault rifle ban. I haven't seen any pro-gun bills being introduced, why is that?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Then there should be a debate on it.

When we can "allow" there to be a debate on wheter people should even be allowed to get married to one another...but the moment we start questioning wheter some weapons should be controlled...and the debate is literally shot down.

I agree that weapon types shouldn't get lumped together...but I can't see any other way into the debate when nothing is allowed to be on the table for discussion with most gun owners, and the NRA.

 

[Paradyme]

Then there should be a debate on it.

When we can "allow" there to be a debate on wheter people should even be allowed to get married to one another...but the moment we start questioning wheter some weapons should be controlled...and the debate is literally shot down.

I agree that weapon types shouldn't get lumped together...but I can't see any other way into the debate when nothing is allowed to be on the table for discussion with most gun owners, and the NRA.

I'd hope one day we can get there but I, unfortunately, don't see it happening because of boths sides stubborness.

 

[Nivek]

I think the obvious issue would be people at firing ranges fire copious amounts of bullets. Some are not as regulated as others therefore you might miss some of the brass that was dropped. What happens if a guy with not so good intentions reloads the brass and kills someone with it? Where does it get traced back to? You. That would be the major problem. It also costs ammo manufacturers a lot of money because they are effectively throwing away the ammo that isn't under the new law. I'm sure there are more but frankly that should be enough.

Sorry, but I believe this is more to track criminals, no different than serial numbers on guns, or patterned grooves for identifying what type of gun you have. I really doubt the guys who pack their own rounds really are that concerned. This is more to find gang bangers who litter streets with 9mm and .380 brass in a drive by, than Joe Corn blasting caps on a range in Montana.

It wouldn't be but who decides what heavy weaponry is? I've read that if they Holder were to reinstitute the ban on assault rifles that would include all assault, hunting rifles and shotguns. It would also limit the amount of ammunition you can hold in a handgun. There are so many things wrong with it that should be apparent.

*groan* Do you really swallow this bull? The assault weapon ban was a good thing, it kept less of these guns in circulation, as soon as it dropped, problems started up again in urban and suburban areas with people having the "bigger dick" syndrome. And the shotguns they are looking to outlaw are assault shotguns like Street Sweepers, another weapon designed for killing humans in close quarters that shouldn't be commercially available. Some gun owners need to realize that some bans help keep the 2nd amendment still around. I've seen what shops try to pass as a "Hunting Rifle", and dammit if it is called a rifle and it has a pistol grip it's not for hunting game.

I don't see a problem with a little more hoops to jump through as long as they are created effectively and not through the means of trying to disarm the citizens.

Just take any news about the government trying to disarm people with a grain of salt. Gun shop owners use propaganda to move stock, and assault weapons to them bring in higher per item revenue than most handguns and shotguns. And how do you create demand? Bull$#!t your client base.

 

[Paradyme]

Sorry, but I believe this is more to track criminals, no different than serial numbers on guns, or patterned grooves for identifying what type of gun you have. I really doubt the guys who pack their own rounds really are that concerned. This is more to find gang bangers who litter streets with 9mm and .380 brass in a drive by, than Joe Corn blasting caps on a range in Montana.

Maybe, what about the ammunition manufacturers I mentioned? Is the government gonna give them money to cover their losses?

*groan* Do you really swallow this bull? The assault weapon ban was a good thing, it kept less of these guns in circulation, as soon as it dropped, problems started up again in urban and suburban areas with people having the "bigger dick" syndrome. And the shotguns they are looking to outlaw are assault shotguns like Street Sweepers, another weapon designed for killing humans in close quarters that shouldn't be commercially available. Some gun owners need to realize that some bans help keep the 2nd amendment still around. I've seen what shops try to pass as a "Hunting Rifle", and dammit if it is called a rifle and it has a pistol grip it's not for hunting game.

Just take any news about the government trying to disarm people with a grain of salt. Gun shop owners use propaganda to move stock, and assault weapons to them bring in higher per item revenue than most handguns and shotguns. And how do you create demand? Bull$#!t your client base.

I could say the same about you. You are indirectly telling me I buy into 'Propaganda' when it easily goes the other way. As far as your urban and suburban neighborhoods got worse when the ban was over, can I get some proof of that?

How many people in your mind have 'big dick' syndrome?

 

[Bill]

*groan* Do you really swallow this bull? The assault weapon ban was a good thing, it kept less of these guns in circulation, as soon as it dropped, problems started up again in urban and suburban areas with people having the "bigger dick" syndrome. And the shotguns they are looking to outlaw are assault shotguns like Street Sweepers, another weapon designed for killing humans in close quarters that shouldn't be commercially available. Some gun owners need to realize that some bans help keep the 2nd amendment still around. I've seen what shops try to pass as a "Hunting Rifle", and dammit if it is called a rifle and it has a pistol grip it's not for hunting game.

That line is going to become much more difficult to distinguish as gun manufacturers are learning two things. That the pistol grip allows for a much more stable and natural grip for shooting and gun owners are starting to like using "black rifles" for hunting. Turkey guns have already made the switch to a pistol grip and the AR15 design is being converted to hunting calibers like the .243 and .308.

A pistol grip can't be the only thing that distinguishes an "assault" rifle from a "hunting" rifle. You'd have better luck diminishing the semi-auto large capacity capabilities for a hunting implement as opposed to the overall design of the rifle in terms of shape and grip.

 

[Mister Sinister]

In theory I'm for it, but it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Nivek]

Maybe, what about the ammunition manufacturers I mentioned? Is the government gonna give them money to cover their losses?

What losses? In stating they would lose sales over your product having a serial number, is that not indirectly saying your product is being used for illicit activity? And once again, if your a legal gun owner, what are you worried about?

I could say the same about you. You are indirectly telling me I buy into 'Propaganda' when it easily goes the other way. As far as your urban and suburban neighborhoods got worse when the ban was over, can I get some proof of that?

Honestly, many of the people spouting this "Government taking away guns" stuff really give me a bad case of face palm. I'm up for reasoned debates, but alot of these people come off as a little anti-government for my taste.

As far as info on the rise in attacks, just look at that Halloween shooting up in NC where that guy blasted the Trick or Treaters with that AK-47 for one. It really doesn't take that much research to find cases of violence that came from previously banned weapons.

How many people in your mind have 'big dick' syndrome?

Too many.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

As far as info on the rise in attacks, just look at that Halloween shooting up in NC where that guy blasted the Trick or Treaters with that AK-47 for one. It really doesn't take that much research to find cases of violence that came from previously banned weapons.

That's not evidence of rise in attacks. That is just one unfortunate event.

If it's not hard to find cases, then you should be able to find some to support your arguments.

 

[Paradyme]

What losses? In stating they would lose sales over your product having a serial number, is that not indirectly saying your product is being used for illicit activity? And once again, if your a legal gun owner, what are you worried about?

You obviously haven't read the bill very closely. It states that all ammunition that doesn't have a serial number on it has to be destroyed. Do you have any idea how much money that is down the drain?

I'm not saying they would lose sales over having a serial number, I'm saying they are going to lose tons of money because they are told to 'destroy' old ammo.

Honestly, many of the people spouting this "Government taking away guns" stuff really give me a bad case of face palm. I'm up for reasoned debates, but alot of these people come off as a little anti-government for my taste.

As far as info on the rise in attacks, just look at that Halloween shooting up in NC where that guy blasted the Trick or Treaters with that AK-47 for one. It really doesn't take that much research to find cases of violence that came from previously banned weapons.

Too many.

Where is the research to back up your claim? Because you heard it on the news? Sorry, doesn't work that way. News agencies only broadcast the negative aspect of things. Where is all the news stories of regular gun folk like myself who haven't done anything wrong? Who haven't killed innocents? By banning assault rifles for the regular folk whats gonna stop a criminal from obtaining them illegally?

From what I've read there actually was a drop in crime when the assault weapons ban expired and there was a rise in crime during the ban. I believe I posted it earlier in this topic.

You are going to see a rise in crime now because the way the economy is, its common sense. You are going to see more stories on the news because its the 'hot' thing right now. You ever noticed how you see more stories about kidnapped people when a huge story like the Natalie Holloway case breaks? Same thing. Except its the economy causing these people to lose their hold. The gun makes certain things easier but I don't think that if the guns were banned that the people that snap wouldn't find an end to their means, or means to their end.

 

[Nivek]

That's not evidence of rise in attacks. That is just one unfortunate event.

If it's not hard to find cases, then you should be able to find some to support your arguments.

well, I'm at work right now so I can't dig that far, but here is something from a quick google search. Of course, you have to weave around the crazy to find it...

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep15/0,4670,AssaultWeaponAttacks,00.html

thats from 2 years ago, and there was another case recently where a gang banger was caught at a traffic stop and was fired on with a police officer with one of those Chinese AK-47 rip-off.

It's not hard to find gang crime committed with assault weapons. If anything, look up police data, they are the main group pushing for Ban's.

 

[Nivek]

Where is the research to back up your claim? Because you heard it on the news? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Damn, my information must be slighted because I get it from the news.


Did you ever clarify why someone needs to own a 50 cal. Sniper Rifle? not that they could, why do they need that type of gun as a civilian in the U.S.?