As a gun owner, how do you feel about...

[fishhugger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348677
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about#post_3348466
I have a single .22 at home, which is simply for protection, which I shoot maybe twice a year. So I by no means am an expert on handguns...
If you are serious about using it for home protection, I would choose a different round. A .22 can kill, but it just doesn't transfer enough energy to be real effective in a situation where you need it to protect your life or someone elses life. Great for target and plinking, but not so great for stopping an intruder with 1 shot. Just something to think about.
I agree a .22 might not be as intimidating looking but its definitely going to be lethal under circumstance. I someone breaks into your home, how far away is that person going to be? 5 yards, tops? And where are you going to point it? Probably their head.
If someone breaks into your house you have the edge, because you will have an idea where they are coming from, and they likely have no idea where you are. Unless your using subsonic ammo, your going to penetrate the skull at least on one side, and even if it doesnt that person is NOT going to be retaliating any time soon. And your typical burglar probably wont be armed with anything more then his fists or a knife.
And it all goes back to the gun control laws, do you really NEED anything larger then a .22? Should the rest be banned? I dont think so, but thats just me. : / But all reason I have for it have been previously stated.
Fun fact of the day: in most states (at least in new york)where extended mags are illegal, its not illegal to own an extended mag that was manufactured before the year that the law was inacted (dont remember the exact year).....yet in new york you still cant have any 'assault rifle looking' hardware/stock on your Rugar ....even though it does not increase the lethality of the gun AT ALL.
The stock i have on my ruger

I would LOVE to get a 30rd banana clip, a silencer, and a nice laser scope for it though....you know....for plinking.....seriously
Another fun fact, drop $400 in NY and you can add a silencer to your gun legally =l

 

[fishhugger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348837
Tell that to our forfathers, the great men who molded our counrty into a world power. They knew we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from threats both foregn and domestic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
Oh let's not start the constitution argument. Any rational person can tell you that the constitution drafted over 200 years ago was clearly written for that time period. There are certain things that are and always will be timeless, i.e. The right to free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, defense against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. However, there are clearly some ones that were written for the time period, including:
2nd amendment - Right to bear arms. Written to protect themselves from foreign soldiers and anyone else who may directly endanger their lives in a new country that was worried about security. It was never intended for people 200 years later to own crazy assault rifles and the like.
3rd amendment - Prohibits the forced quartering on soldiers. Self explanatory.
14th amendment - Born here, you're considered a citizen. Anchor babies were never meant to be part of this.
You really feel all these are still needed and/or interpreted as something we need in 2011?
Short answer, YES.
Longer answer:
2nd amendment - Prohibition of anything is a bad idea, Im beating a dead horse here, but prohibition only ever leads to more problem. I don't agree that we should have full automatic nuclear weapons with satellite targeting in the hands of the public....or even really any full automatic weapon, they are nearly useless for plinking and it doesnt take that much fire power for home defence....but HONEST people do own them, and DISHONEST people own them...there's really not much more to it.
3rd amendment - Feel free to differ, but if we forget the past it will be bound to happen again in the future. If this were amended out of the constitution it willl probably happen again, maybe not this decade, maybe not this century....but it wont be fair for the people when it does happen
14th - since when are liberals for kicking out the Canadians? (just kidding there)
OK I see your point on the 14th....

 

[1snapple]

I want to get a grip laser, and a silencer for a .22 pistol and just plink, w/ a 50rd mag. (less reloading)

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348853
Oh let's not start the constitution argument. Any rational person can tell you that the constitution drafted over 200 years ago was clearly written for that time period. There are certain things that are and always will be timeless, i.e. The right to free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, defense against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. However, there are clearly some ones that were written for the time period, including:
2nd amendment - Right to bear arms. Written to protect themselves from foreign soldiers and anyone else who may directly endanger their lives in a new country that was worried about security. It was never intended for people 200 years later to own crazy assault rifles and the like.
3rd amendment - Prohibits the forced quartering on soldiers. Self explanatory.
14th amendment - Born here, you're considered a citizen. Anchor babies were never meant to be part of this.
You really feel all these are still needed and/or interpreted as something we need in 2011?
I'm just dumbfounded with this statement... I particularly like I'm going to pick and choose which laws I like, say any person with common sense, and ignore everything else because it is old. brilliant!

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348837
Tell that to our forfathers, the great men who molded our counrty into a world power. They knew we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from threats both foregn and domestic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
Oh let's not start the constitution argument. Any rational person can tell you that the constitution drafted over 200 years ago was clearly written for that time period. There are certain things that are and always will be timeless, i.e. The right to free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, defense against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. However, there are clearly some ones that were written for the time period, including:
2nd amendment - Right to bear arms. Written to protect themselves from foreign soldiers and anyone else who may directly endanger their lives in a new country that was worried about security. It was never intended for people 200 years later to own crazy assault rifles and the like.
3rd amendment - Prohibits the forced quartering on soldiers. Self explanatory.
14th amendment - Born here, you're considered a citizen. Anchor babies were never meant to be part of this.
You really feel all these are still needed and/or interpreted as something we need in 2011?
You can't be serious. So who gets to decide which parts of the constitution we ignore because we don't need it in 2011? You don't think we need the 3rd? Would you be OK if the national guard was in the area to aid in a natural disaster and kicked you and your family out of your house so they could use it for barracks? Don't need the 14th? Well there are a whole lot of "Indians" who are going to be a little annoyed when they find out they are no longer counted in the census.
As far as your idea the founders never envisioned a simi auto you are correct but tell me this. What is more radical idea based on 18th century knowledge, a musket that could fire multiple rounds without being reloaded or a person getting their "Press" information from a object in their pocket, or a radio, or TV rather than the local printing press? I dare say the founders never even envisioned a newspaper like the New York TImes being able to distribute their paper from one corner of the country to the other through syndication. The press evolved far more radically than firearms.

 

[jstdv8]

Kinda like the new Dan brown book, the lost symbol
In there he said that if our forfathers saw us today they would think we were gods.
Flying around in space ships, talking through the airwaves to people on the other side of the world, traveling in vehicles that exceed 100 MPH, using a form of currency that is transfered not from hand to hand but also through the airwaves.

 

[oscardeuce]

Quote:Originally Posted by FishHugger http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3348856
 
 
I agree a .22 might not be as intimidating looking but its definitely going to be lethal under circumstance. I someone breaks into your home, how far away is that person going to be? 5 yards, tops? And where are you going to point it? Probably their head.
If someone breaks into your house you have the edge, because you will have an idea where they are coming from, and they likely have no idea where you are. Unless your using subsonic ammo, your going to penetrate the skull at least on one side, and even if it doesnt that person is NOT going to be retaliating any time soon. And your typical burglar probably wont be armed with anything more then his fists or a knife.
And it all goes back to the gun control laws, do you really NEED anything larger then a .22? Should the rest be banned? I dont think so, but thats just me. : / But all reason I have for it have been previously stated.
 
Fun fact of the day: in most states (at least in new york)where extended mags are illegal, its not illegal to own an extended mag that was manufactured before the year that the law was inacted (dont remember the exact year).....yet in new york hardware/stock on your Rugar ....even though it does not increase the lethality of the gun AT ALL.
 
The stock i have on my ruger

 
I would LOVE to get a 30rd banana clip, a silencer, and a nice laser scope for it though....you know....for plinking.....seriously
Another fun fact, drop $400 in NY and you can add a silencer to your gun legally =l
 
What do you mean? $400 will get you a "silencer"?
Did you add the $200 NFA tax stamp. Without that you are looking at some serious time in prison.
Do you mean for $200& the $200 tax stamp you can legally own a suppressor? I guess there might be some for $200 out there, but none I'd use.
Better check your fun facts a bit.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3348905
What do you mean? $400 will get you a "silencer"?Did you add the $200 NFA tax stamp. Without that you are looking at some serious time in prison.Do you mean for $200& the $200 tax stamp you can legally own a suppressor? I guess there might be some for $200 out there, but none I'd use.Better check your fun facts a bit.
LOL! Why would you want to suppress a 22 anyway.

 

[1snapple]

silent pigeon death

 

[fishhugger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3348921
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3348905
What do you mean? $400 will get you a "silencer"?Did you add the $200 NFA tax stamp. Without that you are looking at some serious time in prison.Do you mean for $200& the $200 tax stamp you can legally own a suppressor? I guess there might be some for $200 out there, but none I'd use.Better check your fun facts a bit.
LOL! Why would you want to suppress a 22 anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3348905
What do you mean? $400 will get you a "silencer"?Did you add the $200 NFA tax stamp. Without that you are looking at some serious time in prison.Do you mean for $200& the $200 tax stamp you can legally own a suppressor? I guess there might be some for $200 out there, but none I'd use.Better check your fun facts a bit.
GIve me a break, lol, I was just throwing out an estimate. Yes there is the $200 NFA tax stamp, then you can build your own, which has to be registered for a fee, and buy one. It's not going to be cheap. Just do a quick search on .22 supressors for sale.
And the reason I would want to use a SUPRESSOR, sorry for calling it a silencer, because that is SOOO misleading, is because utilizing subsonic ammo on a .22 will make it sound like not much more then a 'CLICK'.

 

[meowzer]

Just read this on my FB
To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws , may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!! Repost if you agree

 

[jstdv8]

Hahaha, meo, exactly!

 

[dmanatee]

Dmanatee's boyfriend here:
First of all, glocks use a magazine, not a clip. A magazine is designed to store shells in manor that makes them easy to feed into the chamber. There are fixed magazines that are a perminant part of the gun, and removeable magazines that can be removed when empty and exchanged for a full magazine. A clip on the other hand is designed to clip several shells together to make them easier to load them into a magazine. As a basic rule of thumb, if the shell is contained inside of a box or container of some sort, it is a magazine. If the shell is mostly exposed, but is clipped to another shell, that is a clip. Very few if any modern weapons use clips.
I challenge any gun control supporter to name a gun control act that resulted in a verifyable reduction in crime. I've spent a good deal of time trying to find anything of the sort, and I can't find it. The Gun Control Act of 1934 was certainly followed by a reduction in crime, but it is difficult to say what portion of that was due to the GCA and what portion was due to other anti-crime laws passed at the same time. Following gun bans in England, many studies have found it easier to get guns than before the ban, provided that you are not afraid to break the law. On the other hand, a number of states have in recent years passed laws for "shall issue" concealed carry laws, making it easier to aquire a concealed carry licenses. In every instance that I have seen, the crime rate either does not change, or it reduces. I can not find a single instance where crime got worse after it was made easier to legally carry a weapon.
If gun control does not work, then legal gun ownership does not negitively impact crime (and often has a postive affect). America was founded on the concept that you are free to persue happyness in whatever way you see fit, provided it does not affect others in a negitive way. Since legal gun ownership does not have negitive affects, there should be nothing to stop me from enjoying the sport of shooting in whatever way I see fit, including full auto, if I want to (which is a heck of a lot of fun by the way).
Also, to the person that asked why anyone would want to suppress a 22, I prefer not to wear hearing protection if I don't have to. A suppressed 22 is an excellent hearing safe plinker.

 

[jstdv8]

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

 

[ironeagle2006]

Look what happened in Washington DC when their Residents were able to carry firearms for Self Protection. Their Voilent Crime Rate DROPPED. Why because the peole did not know if the person they were mugging had a pistol on them and would kill them. Then there is Chicago had a Ban on all guns for Years and becme one of the Most Dangerous Cities in America. The City loses a Supreme court Decision on the Ban so Dlae tha Mayor passes all kinds of laws that basically redid the Ban yet allowed people to own guns. Guess what Voilence is still high. Because the peole that had the GUNS akak the GANGS they do not care about a law. The people that obey the laws are the ones that are SCREWED.

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3349077
Look what happened in Washington DC when their Residents were able to carry firearms for Self Protection. Their Voilent Crime Rate DROPPED. Why because the peole did not know if the person they were mugging had a pistol on them and would kill them. Then there is Chicago had a Ban on all guns for Years and becme one of the Most Dangerous Cities in America. The City loses a Supreme court Decision on the Ban so Dlae tha Mayor passes all kinds of laws that basically redid the Ban yet allowed people to own guns. Guess what Voilence is still high. Because the peole that had the GUNS akak the GANGS they do not care about a law. The people that obey the laws are the ones that are SCREWED.
New York has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US, and has one of the lowest violent crime rates of any major city in the US at the same time. OTOH, Arizona has a very liberal set of gun laws, and nobody was able to respond to the nutjob who shot all those people. I'm sure Christina Greene is very happy that there were all those gun-carrying citizens to protect her. In other words, you can cherry pick any statistics you want to make the argument for, or against, gun carrying. But the bottom line is that society is entitled, no - required- to enact whatever laws it needs to to ensure public safety. The trick is to balance a gun-carrying culture against societal safety, and IMHO, unbridled gun carrying is not balanced.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3349098
New York has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US, and has one of the lowest violent crime rates of any major city in the US at the same time. OTOH, Arizona has a very liberal set of gun laws, and nobody was able to respond to the nutjob who shot all those people. I'm sure Christina Greene is very happy that there were all those gun-carrying citizens to protect her. In other words, you can cherry pick any statistics you want to make the argument for, or against, gun carrying. But the bottom line is that society is entitled, no - required- to enact whatever laws it needs to to ensure public safety. The trick is to balance a gun-carrying culture against societal safety, and IMHO, unbridled gun carrying is not balanced.
lol, do you have any proof that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum?
I know that cherry picking it part of your point, but for others, I'd just like to point out, that lax gun laws might be a poor causation in AZ's case, considering the illegal immigration/drug issues..

 

[acrylic51]

Curious GeriDoc.....are you a gun carrier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3349098
New York has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US, and has one of the lowest violent crime rates of any major city in the US at the same time. OTOH, Arizona has a very liberal set of gun laws, and nobody was able to respond to the nutjob who shot all those people. I'm sure Christina Greene is very happy that there were all those gun-carrying citizens to protect her. In other words, you can cherry pick any statistics you want to make the argument for, or against, gun carrying. But the bottom line is that society is entitled, no - required- to enact whatever laws it needs to to ensure public safety. The trick is to balance a gun-carrying culture against societal safety, and IMHO, unbridled gun carrying is not balanced.

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348837
Tell that to our forfathers, the great men who molded our counrty into a world power. They knew we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from threats both foregn and domestic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/20#post_3348812
I'm sorry but I don't even come close to buying into this whole "If he wanted her dead he would have done it with something else if a gun wasn't available".
So by that logic, we should have never went after Saddam for his weapons of mass destruction, because let's face it, if he wanted to kill us infidels he would have found other ways to do it. Same with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I mean just like guns, if most of what nuclear power is used for is good, then we shouldn't have to worry about those few bad apples who want to use it for something else.
The bottom line is guns will always do more bad than good. (Unless killing animals and shooting fifty billion rounds at the range is considered "good")
Oh let's not start the constitution argument. Any rational person can tell you that the constitution drafted over 200 years ago was clearly written for that time period. There are certain things that are and always will be timeless, i.e. The right to free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, defense against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. However, there are clearly some ones that were written for the time period, including:
2nd amendment - Right to bear arms. Written to protect themselves from foreign soldiers and anyone else who may directly endanger their lives in a new country that was worried about security. It was never intended for people 200 years later to own crazy assault rifles and the like.
3rd amendment - Prohibits the forced quartering on soldiers. Self explanatory.
14th amendment - Born here, you're considered a citizen. Anchor babies were never meant to be part of this.
You really feel all these are still needed and/or interpreted as something we need in 2011?
You are making it real hard for me to not insult your intelligence.
Ok, fine, lets go with your argument that the forefathers could not comprehend the technological advances of today and that the constitution is out dated. If this is the case, not some laws, BUT ALL of the constitution is outdated due to technology.
It (using your logic) could be said the right to freedom of speech should be hindered. The lawmakers of the time in know way could have fathomed television. Allowing people to spread an idea, dissent, and terroristic thoughts to millions in seconds. They could not fathom the web and its ability to pass on messages to terrorist cells from across the country. In the interest of national security and public safety we should curb some of the free speech opportunities afforded to us. Afterall...the free speech of the internet played a huge role in the murder of 3000 U.S. citizens.
Unreasonable search and seizure. The Forefathers could not have fathomed the mass threats to our public by Terrorists, nor the technological advances that assist in smuggling now days. Therefore, in the interest of public safety people walking down the street should be stopped randomly in their vehicles or their person and questioned whenever. Your computer should be randomly searched as well by the FBI for illegal activity. Because afterall...the forefathers could not have fathomed such a thing as the internet and the huge crime market not mention national security threat it assists in. So search and seizures of a higher level than we currently have should be done more, because after all the forefathers could not have foreseen theses things and this law is now outdated.
The 14th amendment...ok fine, this is outdated. You must take a test to be granted citizenship in this country. Until that time you are not elligible for ANY benefits afford citizens of this country. Hope you pass this by the time you are elligible towoprk at the age of 16. If you can list the cast members of The Jersey Shore, but not the county commissioner of your district, governors of all 50 states and the house majority speaker....To bad...you are getting shipped out.......actually, my sarcasm doesn't sound to bad come to think of it. You also must know the pledge of allegiance...all constitutional amendments in order, All the Presidents, and every Medal of Honor award handed out to individuals that died to afford you the new freedoms you did not previously have as a non citizen born in this country. If your parents are not legal citizens of this country either but here on work visas...to bad for you....guess your application to become a U.S. citizen will have to go through the usual channels and take 5 years to obtain...Until that time, pray you do not become disabled, or need a job, as we only hand out a certain allotment of work visas each year to ensure our true U.S. citizens have the opportunity to not have their u.s. job taken from them by some non u.s. citizen. I don't care if you were born here, to bad....
3rd amendment is outdated....cool, in the interest of cutting costs to balance our ever growing defecit we will be tearing down all military barracks...all U.S. citizens will now house one U.S. soldier and his direct family if applicable in their home now. after all, this amendment is outdated and we need to reduce our budget.
Please tell me which other amendments you feel our outdated...At this rate we will have our national debt wiped out within the year. Who cares if it inconviences you and violates certain freedoms you once had, after all our forefathers could never have fathomed out national debt and the level of retardation some of our citizens would regress too....
Darth (King) Tang

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3349098
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/40#post_3349077
Look what happened in Washington DC when their Residents were able to carry firearms for Self Protection. Their Voilent Crime Rate DROPPED. Why because the peole did not know if the person they were mugging had a pistol on them and would kill them. Then there is Chicago had a Ban on all guns for Years and becme one of the Most Dangerous Cities in America. The City loses a Supreme court Decision on the Ban so Dlae tha Mayor passes all kinds of laws that basically redid the Ban yet allowed people to own guns. Guess what Voilence is still high. Because the peole that had the GUNS akak the GANGS they do not care about a law. The people that obey the laws are the ones that are SCREWED.
New York has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US, and has one of the lowest violent crime rates of any major city in the US at the same time. OTOH, Arizona has a very liberal set of gun laws, and nobody was able to respond to the nutjob who shot all those people. I'm sure Christina Greene is very happy that there were all those gun-carrying citizens to protect her. In other words, you can cherry pick any statistics you want to make the argument for, or against, gun carrying. But the bottom line is that society is entitled, no - required- to enact whatever laws it needs to to ensure public safety. The trick is to balance a gun-carrying culture against societal safety, and IMHO, unbridled gun carrying is not balanced.
New York City, sure, New York state...no....the same gun laws are applicable through out the State of New York and their violent gun crime rate places the state of New York at 13th highest for violent gun crimes per capita. To be honest, Looking at the violent gun crime rate per state, I see NO correlation between gun laws and a lower or Higher rate of gun crime.