Moved, and merged.
I do not see why a private citizen would need a fully automatic AK-47? What is the point of that. You going to go deer hunting with that? I agreed with the assault weapons ban. I think if a person wants to buy a gun for home protection than that is great, take out a bad guy for us.
Thats what Im saying I'm all for the seond ammendment........to a point. Yes law abiding citizens who pass the reqired checks can own weapons......with in reason. The assault weapons ban was a good law for everyone. It didnt limit the military or Law Enforcement, and it didnt limit some citizens who went through the process to get a special license. But it did limit alot of weapons on our streets. Since this ban has been lifted there has been more and more assault weapons showing up on the streets and in crimes.
Again where do we draw the line, and for what reason is the line drawn there??
Ok I wrote a post reply but just as I was going to post it my computer turned itself off. ???? Oh well, I'll try it again.
I'm not a big fan of limiting the rights of law abiding citizens but I don't want to be outgunned on the street either. As law enforcement we usually answer force with one level greater force. Example as it could apply to this topic is if I am confronted with a knife I'll produce my sidearm. A shotgun would probably call out my rifle and so on. However, what do I counter a fully automatic rifle with? The RPG in my trunk? I like to have the upper hand when I need it. There are still a lot of agencies that don't authorize rifles. Shotguns are the best they get. And they can't always expect Joe Citizen to come to their rescue with his assault rifle. Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be protecting them.
Here's another thing. I don't agree with the mentality that a weapons ban keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals don't usually submit to a criminal records check prior to purchasing a weapon. Ludricous! I would love to know what it would take to make politicians, lawmakers, liberals , or whoever to understand this. The chance of a criminal using a legally obtained weapon in a crime is probably pretty slim.
Perhaps there should be less focus on what is getting out there and more on how. Weapons have to be manufactured. Then they have to be distributed. Maybe some accountability is in order. And not just on the steet. These weapons have to come from somewhere. "Perhaps" (and I only say "perhaps") a closer look on how weapons are distributed after manufacture is the ticket. A ban keeps the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It doesn't stop the manufacture does it? Or does it? Somebody somewhere is still making military grade rifles, yes? And what should be banned and not? 6 in one hand 1/2 a dozen in the other. Seems like a catch 22 situation. Weapons inspectors try to inspect and track much more dangerous weapons in other countries. We can't consistantly track a damn assault rifle here?
I'm all about education. Somebody educate me. Or re enforce what I may already know. How does the criminal come into possession of a weapon that was supposedly banned? Are there that many successful pre ban weapon thefts and burglaries? Funny, I haven't had a weapon stolen yet. Yet, being the operative word. But then again does Grandpa, who's an 83 yoa, disabled law abiding citizen, who can't see, need an AK-47? Makes ya wonder.
Does anyone else think the ban worked? Like I said before, I don't like the idea of a ban but I don't want to be outgunned on the street either. Legal or otherwise.
The NRA kinda lost my respect on the teflon coated bullet issue.
Isn't this the second time a notable and respected member has been vilified by their own, all for questioning why the average citizen needs to own a military weapon?
Wasn't there a sportsman who dared question the use of semi-autos for hunting?
What are civilians not allowed to have? Are we allowed to buy hand grenades. I'm guessing not, but I've never checked into what we're allowed to have and what we're not allowed to have.
So, what is the standard? How does the government determine which arms citizens are allowed to have, and which ones we aren't?
This discussion reminds me of a (funny? :o) story my husband told me. Years ago, when he was an lieutenant in the Army, the base he was on was having a problem with rival gangs. A person who was in charge of weapons, and was a member of one gang, handed out weapons to members of his gang on their way to confront members of the other gang on the base. Well, as you can imagine, the sound of automatic gunfire got the attention of the MPs pretty quickly. Somehow, I don't think any of those guys got honorable discharges. :doh:
Ok, here's my .02 worth.
And I'm sorry if I offend ahead of time but this is a hot button issue for me.
First of all, contrary to what anyone says, the #1 most used firearm in crimes is a handgun. FBI stats show they are the Lorcin/Raven/Sat night special type. The one long gun that made the top 10 list was a shotgun. Most gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. Why? Cause gangbangers can't buy guns legally because of their age/criminal history/or both. Also, they lump drive by shootings in with the gun deaths and that is where the media likes to spout off where "children are dying every day because of guns." They consider 18 year old gangbangers "children." If you seperated the gang related gun crimes from the rest, the numbers wouldn't be near as high. A lot of the other gun deaths are domestic violence related. If no guns were around, then the perp would (IMO) just pick another weapon because of the emotionally charged nature of the crime.
If the government started enforcing the gun laws on the books and started locking asses up, we wouldn't have near the problems we do now either. And that includes officers down in podunk USA as well as all the federal agencies. How many times have you been on a case where the DA says "oh, he'll plea to X charge if we drop the gun charge. I'm gonna do that so we get a guilty verdict and not have to go to trial." Its a crock and everyone has seen it.
And forgive me for saying this but since when did cops have a sheep mentallity? Most of the cops I know and have worked with over the years, myself included, have quite a sizable gun collection. I have never heard one say "I don't see where someone needs X type of weapon." Anyone who works the street knows that the world is going to shit. And if the 2nd Amendment isn't enough of a reason then I will give you this one: The courts are impotent, LE is having to do more with less and losing, the liberals are handing this country away to the criminals peice by peice, and one day soon America as we know it will cease to exist. Social structure will break down and anarchy will be the rule. When that happens, I fully intend to take care of me and mine. You won't be able to call 911 and you are going to be on your own. What will you do?
Don't believe me? Look at how fast things went downhill after Katrina. A populace can only be governed if it WANTS to be governed. On one side we have the "me, me, me" welfare babies who think that the world owes them and can't live without someone handing them a check. On the other side you have decent people who are sick and fuckin tired of outrageous taxes and paying for everyone elses way of life. Who are not only being worked and taxed to death, they look out their front door and see the ghetto rats hanging out on the corner selling dope and crackheads are stealing shit from his house and yard on a regular basis. Who even if they are caught, won't spend any time behind bars. People are getting tired of it.
Sorry if I kinda got off topic but something is coming. May not be today or tomorrow, but it is coming. And when it does, I plan on taking care of myself. I will be the hunter and not the hunted. So I will keep my evil assault weapons. I will keep those nasty, high capacity magazines. Hell, I may even keep a case or 3 of ammo for each one. Because I know that guns aren't the problem, they are only tools. And they only reflect the intent of the person wielding it.
And to quote a great American:
FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!
Opinion appreciated. :thumb:
why should we have heavy weapons? Thomas Jefferson said it "the tree of liberty oft needs refreshed with the blood of patriots"
Unarmed = subject
Armed = Citizen
Life's alot simpler here,
The only requirment for gun ownership is to be a criminal.
There, nice and simple!
Any care to chime in on this question =>
Why was the second amendment adopted by the founding fathers? What was their intent?