Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
It seems natural, to me, that in the wake of tragedies like the Colorado shootings, that folks turn their attention to gun control.
It's a complicated issue for me, and I don't claim to have any brilliant answers.
First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like.
Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection.
But I don't get the availability of assault rifles. Now, I do have an assault rifle in my house that I kept from my days in the USMC. However, I tinkered with it so that it doesn't fire, and would be just about impossible to fix. I do look at it sometimes, usually on Memorial Day, when I'm feeling nostalgic. I don't keep it because it makes me feel tough, I keep it for deep sentimental reasons.
But I guess I'm not sure I see any rational reasons for anyone owning these weapons. I'd love to see them banned from public availability. They are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as short a time as possible. Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability. Seems to me that most people buy them to feel like a tough guy.
It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 07-26-2012 at 10:59 AM..
We can agree on this one to a T.
why did the AZ guy need the extended magazines for his Glocks?
why did CO shooter need the drum mag (I don't care if it jammed, he still had it)
Because people 'need' them?
As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
We can agree on this one to a T.
why did the AZ guy need the extended magazines for his Glocks?
why did CO shooter need the drum mag (I don't care if it jammed, he still had it)
Because people 'need' them?
As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....
It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
It's difficult to speculate on whether or not these rare mass-killings would be less deadly if it weren't for these weapons. But it seems like common sense to me.
I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost.
However, I don't see a big benefit to society, thanks to the availability of these guns.
It's difficult to speculate on whether or not these rare mass-killings would be less deadly if it weren't for these weapons. But it seems like common sense to me.
Obviously, we can't make bad things not happen, but we can limit the tools used to do these bad things (within reason)
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Obviously, we can't make bad things not happen, but we can limit the tools used to do these bad things (within reason)
Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.
Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.
Yes, and banning larger clips does nothing. Any good machinist can make any
size clip in no time.
Banning them will not cut down on crime or terrorism as there will always be ways to obtain anything illegal as long as human nature exists.
Whether you own a Glock with a 10 shot mag, as I do on several of my Glocks, or a 40 shot mag, it doesn't make any difference. If the guy with the gun is a nut, then people will die. I can drop a spent mag and insert another full one is 2 seconds. It immaterial how many shots you have.
Tape mags together with ends facing opposite. Then they can just be pulled and flipped. As crazy as it is, if he didn't have that drum, more people would have died. If he knew guns, he wouldn't have bought the drum. He could have even done a tone of damage with just shotguns. If he couldn't get guns, he may have bombed or nerve gassed the place. The whole problem is complicated.
It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In most cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
Fixed.
Quote:
I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost.
I think the difference is that cars are very rarely used as an offensive weapon, if they were you might see more concern. With DUI's for instance the vehicle is really an unintended weapon, but there's a stiff penalty for irresponsibility.
Which brings up the issue of responsibility. People aren't allowed some weapons not just because they don't need them but there's the risk of irresponsible use or care. Hence gun safety requirements or a clean record to own a firearm or permit to carry.
Those with legal access to automatic weapons have usually gone through more intensive police or military training and they have strict rules that govern their use.
Remember back in the 1980's the big argument was that gun control advocates were trying to bad guns that "looked" more dangerous than they really were. I always found this silly because even a semi-auto with the right stock or extended round clip changes the function dramatically.
Guns are certainly fun to shoot, but I'd agree that to own an AR-15 for instance has little value to the individual other than the cool factor. Even if it's not the military version it was still designed to be an offensive weapon.
It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.
I like them. Would like to add another to the collection. Might even build a custom I have in mind. I designed a muzzle brake for long guns ten years ago and it has been well received in its reductiion of signature, especially in dusty environments. (I could probably get your weapon operational, Jim..... as long as you did not remove mass from the action...)
That said, I would be for taking them out of the hands of the public, as long as they can assure that they have gotten them all..... only then would I be willing to put myself at a disadvantage.....
Hi Ben......I know you are reading this one......
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
Nope! But I have often said that I think for myself, I don't blindly follow any one ideology. I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage.
"Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up"
I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me.
It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
I would be interested in hearing a reasoned, well cited argument precisely laying out what the "wrong side" is and what the "correct side" is.
The appeal that it is all about NRA money is as ridiculous as saying that pro-choice people are in it just to kill babies.
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".
Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.
The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.
Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"
So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."
Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?
Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?
Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?
And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:
Quote:
I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons.
There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons. Gun Control
Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.
I believe the AR-15 was designed to be a military weapon. It has a detachable magazine so it can be rapidly reloaded. It accomidates many accessories rarely used for hunting and from what I hear is pretty easy to convert to full auto.
You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.
DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.
Oops, it's the hall monitor
Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.
It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".
Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.
The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.
Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"
So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."
Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?
Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?
Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?
And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:
There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons. Gun Control
"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"
So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.
"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"
Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.
I have no issues with handguns or hunting rifles. I'm conflicted on this, I'm not an anti-gun radical. But I have reservations about these specific weapons.
To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)
Thanks
To answer your question, it is an absolute.
Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"
So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.
So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.
Quote:
"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"
Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.
So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:
Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?
So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.
So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:
"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"
Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.
But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?
You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.
I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.
I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.
Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.
If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.
Apples and oranges, no?
You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.
As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....
The Aurora shooter did not use a "fully-auto machine gun" . . .
"Fully-auto machine guns" have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
I find it interesting that Congress knew then that they could not "ban" them.
Hmmmmm . . .
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
In all seriousness, I agree with this post. I grew up with long guns, hunting was a big part of my earlier years... But I never understood the fascination with automatic weapons, and to an extent handguns. A gun is a tool for hunting, IMHO. And while I respect the right of people to carry concealed weapons for personal protection, if handguns were illegal the need for said protection would be far less.
(But let's not go off on a tangent... I understand that if handguns were illegal, criminals would still find a way to obtain them anyway. I'm not advocating outlawing handguns)
What's extremely disconcerting to me is that Holmes was able to purchase so much unregulated ammunition (appx. $15,000) in a few months without someone taking notice. In this day and age most people are paranoid that a google search for "how to make a pipe bomb" or "jihaad" will put them on a federal watch list. While I don't know if those examples are true or not, it seems clear to me that there should be regulations on the purchase of ammunition, and if an individual is purchasing such a great quantity in a short period of time (along with body armor, knives, mag holders, etc...) it should raise some red flags.
The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Tell me about it! I was half-expecting you to shut down the thread out of sheer habit...
I thought within the hour it would escalate to the point where I probably would have to.....but everybody is being civil to each other...I'm a little confused to say the least.
Why can't everybody talk this way to each other in all the Political threads.....life would be so much easier
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
Hybrid Mode
