Gun Control

[darth tang]

I have noticed we have some hunter's on here recently. This topic has come up in my family on numerous occasions I have a few NRA members in my family.
Here is the thing I do not understand. Yes, the law states you have the right to bare arms. But it doesn't state what types of arms. Most gun supporters I know belive they have the right to own automatic weapons and these should be available to the average citizen because they are classified as arms. But isn't a nuclear device also classified as an arm? How about a tank? But no civilian owns one of these that I know of.
What is wrong with only being able to own rifles, handguns, and/ or shotguns of the semi automatic state? Why do you feel you need to own a fully automatic gun? What are you hunting that requires the need to pump that many rounds out in a second? What or who are you protecting yourself from that a semi-automatic weapon or even a shotgun would'nt protect you from that you need the fully automatic version?
Just a question. I support the right to bare arms, but where does the linbe get drawn? If a fully automatic is ok to own, then why not a .50 caliber howitzer?

 

[lovethesea]

My Dad is a card carrying member of the NRA

....being the daughter of a
Colonel in the Army, guns don't bother me.....its the some of the morons that are allowed to have them. He is not a fan of semi auto or full auto weapons in the hands of the everyday citizen. And I am sure most of his buds feel the same way. I have never really looked at how the NRA stands on auto weapons in the hands of their members.

 

[dingo0722]

I believe Arnold schwarzenegger owns a tank. I don’t think people hunt with automatics and if they do they are not hunting for the sport, they are simply looking to slaughter something. If you shoot an animal in the wrong location, toxins can be released into the blood, making the meat inedible. That why when you are hunting, you aim at a specific location on the animal, one shot, kill.

 

[darth tang]

If that is the case, then why the need for the civilians to have access to automatics?

 

[dingo0722]

Dont know that. If someone was a real gun collector...maybe, but other than thatnot needed. I believe that the regulation of firearms is done on a state by state basis. When I lived in Arizona, we would go shooting in the desert at this one location. There were some others there with automatics. The police stopped by from time to time, and happen to catch these guys and arrested them for the possesion of an automatic fire arm. Here is MA gun owners are required to file for an FID card(firearms Identification) everyother year. MA and CA have some of the strictest gun laws in the US

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by dingo0722
I believe Arnold schwarzenegger owns a tank. I don’t think people hunt with automatics and if they do they are not hunting for the sport, they are simply looking to slaughter something. If you shoot an animal in the wrong location, toxins can be released into the blood, making the meat inedible. That why when you are hunting, you aim at a specific location on the animal, one shot, kill.

one shot kill is a skill. And hunting does not require a semi-auto weapon. Most semi auto's that I have fired you must have complete control.
I have a general image of what I think the average joe looks like that would have a semi/full auto weapon in their possession........and I don't like the image.

 

[jmick]

I’m not sure why anyone rational person would feel the need to own a fully automatic weapon. The only reason to own one is to kill lots of people or to go on some wild crime spree. I’d be willing to bet that most law enforcement officials would like to see these types of weapons out of the hands of civilians. I’m not against people owning weapons for hunting, protection, recreational shooting, etc but I think there should be a limit on the fire power. For protection, I’d take a 150lb guard/protection dog over a gun any day of the week!

 

[hot883]

Guns do not kill people. It's idiots that should not be allowed to breed that kills people.

 

[dennycrane]

The Second Amendment was authored for a purpose that in the modern world is no longer needed. It was utilized as an extention to the armies of the US and as a second line of defense should we be invaded (hometown militia). It was also authored at a time when firearms, more or less, were all on the same level - put the powder in, pack it, put the ball in, flint and POW! Things have changed. The only invasion the US will ever see is piggybacking on a ICBU rocket, or packed in someone's backpack. Your browning 12 gauge pump shotgun ain't gonna help.
Hey, I'm an outdoorsey kinda guy - bird hunting, fishing, etc. I'm all for sport firearms - but if you need semi or rapid fire action to take down a deer, perhaps hunting isn't your bag.
My point is, the second is archaic and primative and needs to be repealed and amended to specific sport firearms. But that will never happen, because gun lobbiests are putting too much money in politics.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by hot883
Guns do not kill people. It's idiots that should not be allowed to breed that kills people.

Guns make it a lot easier for these people.

 

[hot883]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Guns make it a lot easier for these people.
Thats like saying "Locks are for Honest People"!

 

[27mtaylor]

I am a hunter myself (not a gun nut). I have no use for a full automatic weapon. When hunting, you aim for the vitals. Ethically you owe it to the animal to take him with the first shot. Occasionally you will make a bad shot. Then you are able to ratchet another round in and try to finish the harvest. To make sure the first shot counts, a hunter "should" practice so he will be prepared for the moment that he fires his gun. Being a duck hunter also, I find that semi-auto shot guns can really helps out while hunting.
I personally don't know why people would want automatic weapons unless they are a gun nut. For some people it is a hobby and they are really into it.
I don't believe that guns kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it a little easier.

 

[37g joe]

Originally Posted by DennyCrane
The Second Amendment was authored for a purpose that in the modern world is no longer needed. It was utilized as an extention to the armies of the US and as a second line of defense should we be invaded (hometown militia). It was also authored at a time when firearms, more or less, were all on the same level - put the powder in, pack it, put the ball in, flint and POW! Things have changed. The only invasion the US will ever see is piggybacking on a ICBU rocket, or packed in someone's backpack. Your browning 12 gauge pump shotgun ain't gonna help.
Hey, I'm an outdoorsey kinda guy - bird hunting, fishing, etc. I'm all for sport firearms - but if you need semi or rapid fire action to take down a deer, perhaps hunting isn't your bag.
My point is, the second is archaic and primative and needs to be repealed and amended to specific sport firearms. But that will never happen, because gun lobbiests are putting too much money in politics.
are nation was founded on check and balaences. The natzi's, Comunists and and other dictator regiemes have restricted the right for citzens to bear arms. Why: so they can easly opress them. Our founding fathers intent with the secound amendment was to make it so that the goverment never had too much power and that if thier need be the masses could rise up and retake power. look at a country like switzerland to my knowledge they have more people own gun's per capita than any other countrie but have one of the lowest crime rates do to the fact that criminals know what well happen to them also they teach thier children about gun safty at an early age and dont have the same problems that we do in our countrie. the Criminal element wrell always have guns no mater what laws are in place its the citsens who need protection from the criminals.
NRA Sues Mayor Ray Nagin
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Fairfax, VA—The National Rifle Association (NRA ) has filed a motion for contempt against the City of New Orleans, the mayor and the acting chief of police for failure to comply with a temporary restraining order, handed down September 12, 2005, ordering an end to all illegal gun confiscations.
“With looters, rapists and other thugs running rampant in New Orleans, Ray Nagin issued an order to disarm all law-abiding citizens,” declared Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. “With no law enforcement and 911 available, he left the victims vulnerable by stripping away their only means of defending themselves and their loved ones. Now Ray Nagin thinks he’s above the law, and that’s just wrong.”
Attorneys for NRA have exhausted all efforts to cooperate with the defendants, Mayor Nagin and Chief Riley, who repeatedly ignored the court’s permanent restraining order against their illegal gun confiscations.
“Ray Nagin is a colossal disappointment,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “During a federally declared emergency, he abused his power and abandoned the very people he was sworn to protect. He took away the victims’ freedom and their basic means of self-defense during an ill-fated and perilous time.”
The motion also includes an order that all seized firearms must be returned to their rightful owners.
My own personal view is that the common man should beable to have all the same type of weapons that lawenforcement have and the avereage military grunt have at thier disposal.

 

[tizzo]

If you ban semi-automatics, then they become an underground collectors item and then EVERYBODY will hafta own one.
And then for those of us women with a bad aim... We'd need the essential 50 rounds a second popping off just to be sure we hit our target. You know... we're in the mall parking lot, a suspicious man pops out from behind a car, you KNOW his intentions and so you pull out your protection from you guitar case sized purse, and you aim. Now just becase you have no experience with this thing, your most likely gonna hit a car window at first. But with a semi automatic, your almost garanteed to get at least a shoulder shot!
One shot kill my dupah.

 

[27mtaylor]

One thing to be concerned about for home protection is that you dont' want a gun that is too powerful because you don't want to shoot the bad guy and the bullet go straight through him, through the the wall and wind up hitting a child or someone else in another room. You want the bullet to spend its energy in the person you are shooting at. You don't really want a big time pass through shot. From some research I did last year (I was wanting to get a hand gun for home defense purposes), I found out that a big caliber hand gun like a .45 will kill the bad guy by blowing a big hole in him, but a smaller caliber handgun such as a .40 S&W will be more effective because the bullet will do more damage/fragmenting inside the body. The bullet will spend all of its energy inside the body. An article I read basically stated that a shot from a .45 will allow the bad guy to get a couple more shots off before he is dead(unless it is a heart or head shot). The .40 will drop the guy quicker.

 

[tizzo]

Or maybe the m16. That has a tendency to bounce around the insides of ones rib cage.
-good lord, I need my "thinking" smiley.

 

[lovethesea]

here you go Tizz........ :thinking:

 

[dogstar]

I think the law is the law. But what is the law.
Article Two
A well-regulated militia (stop and think) being necessary to the security of a free State ( stop again), the right of the poeple ( should this say the State instead ) to keep and bears arms ( no exeptions there, I guess cannons whould be their WMD ) shall not be infringed ( no laws to prevent this ).
Its very confusing the way its written so there IMO lays the problem. Any gun law is an infringment of the rights. But does the law give the right to the individual or to the State ?
Only the people can change the law by voteing an Amendment that will change it. But first there has to be a reasonable want to do so. There are many control laws now that many people dont want and many people want more. So....
Personally it makes me sick every time I here about a murder or a child accidently being shot and this can happen with any type of weapon. But I own a SG for protection and used to hunt myself. But I dont know the answers to this either.....

 

[dennycrane]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I think the law is the law. But what is the law.
Article Two
A well-regulated militia (stop and think) being necessary to the security of a free State ( stop again), the right of the poeple ( should this say the State instead ) to keep and bears arms ( no exeptions there, I guess cannons whould be their WMD ) shall not be infringed ( no laws to prevent this ).
Its very confusing the way its written so there IMO lays the problem. Any gun law is an infringment of the rights. But does the law give the right to the individual or to the State ?
Only the people can change the law by voteing an Amendment that will change it. But first there has to be a reasonable want to do so. There are many control laws now that many people dont want and many people want more. So....
Personally it makes me sick every time I here about a murder or a child accidently being shot and this can happen with any type of weapon. But I own a SG for protection and used to hunt myself. But I dont know the answers to this either.....
Which is why this is a good debate topic - there perhaps is no "right" answer. I've sat through god knows how many Constitutional Law classes and this is one of the biggest and most polerizing talking points.
An earlier post quoted me and mentioned the checks and balances (which really speaks to the interaction of the different branches of fed gov) and how the Swiss get along as a gun nation. Actually I have no knowledge on whether or not Switzerland is a gun nation, but it would greatly shock me if it is. I can say, and having lived there, that the UK greatly restricts gun ownership. Not surprizingly, murder by gun and accidental gun death is a very very rare thing (single digits per year - here in Birmingham, we are already passing last years record death by gun which was way over 100). They perceive the US as a "wild west" gun society, and in a way, they are right. And to say that we need guns to keep our government in check borders on naive. Irregardless of how many guns we own, should the gov ever choose to "opress" us, let's face it, they could. But IMO, that isn't what the 2nd Amendment was written for. The bottom line is, guns are too easy to get here, and you choices of armament are to great.

 

[tizzo]

I would love to keep a gun, but I do not becase of the kids. I think Rottweillers are much safer for protection til the kids move out. Or at least the big headed ugliness of my 2 white boxers stickin' their big ol' shnout through the window.
Times hafta get pretty tough for me to have a gun in the house.