1. What about an AK47 bothers you? Capacity? the look? The ammunition?

A little thought of thing about weapons today vs weapons of then is medical advancement concerning gunshot wounds. In the day when the 2nd was framed, a gunshot would be extremely deadly whereas today you have a much better chance at being successfully treated with a gunshot wound. Yes, they're still very deadly, but the point is guns then were considered every bit as deadly as they are today.

 

2. I get your point, but I think what I proposed in another thread would be a good way to address the voter ID problem.

 

I'm sure you'll be fine in controlling your rage. :lol:

 

I have to admit that I haven't heard this argument before.

 

People should be permitted bigger and badder guns because it's getting harder and harder to kill people.

I have to admit that I haven't heard this argument before.

 

People should be permitted bigger and badder guns because it's getting harder and harder to kill people.

 

:lol:

 

Makes sense. :lol:

I gotta tell you, I blame guys like Obama and the media for spreading the hyperbole about guns like AK-47s. First off, it's painfully obvious they don't even take the time to understand the guns they're talking about. If they did they would realize the AK-47 they're speaking of is a semi-auto copy of the military one that they actually think they're talking about. It's no different (in many cases not as powerful) than most other hunting rifles he/they claim they support. They need to educate themselves, unless they know but have an agenda to begin with.

 

I didn't know that AK-47's were issued in the US military.......

And I'd probably start thinking about how many slow left-hand lane drivers I could dismiss at the same time with one clip. :lol:

 

Trust me, I have plenty of folks who can't wait to let me fire off their guns also. :lol:

 

Ha it's a shame we aren't facebook friends or you would know why this just made me laugh out loud.

So you've thought this for quite some time then? If not then what's the point in bringing it to attention now? It's as though a lot of folks are going for the feel good effect, "it may not solve the problem but at least we did something."

 

I just feel like by saying it'll happen again regardless is a defeatist attitude to take. We have to try something, right?

 

You had to have seen my post before you said this, that or you're looking to just prove mine and RTS's points all night long.

I have to admit that I haven't heard this argument before.

 

People should be permitted bigger and badder guns because it's getting harder and harder to kill people.

 

It's basically the same side the anti gun folks use, "it only takes one stray bullet to end a life", and I might get killed by a deer on the way home, perhaps we should put bounty on their heads as well....

I didn't know that AK-47's were issued in the US military.......

 

 

He never said they were.

I didn't know that AK-47's were issued in the US military.......

:lol: Too funny. I'm guessing you're kidding.

The point I was making was the president and the media (as well as some on here) keep using the AK, a military copy mind you, as their poster child for a gun ban. The president's quote:

 

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

 

It's obvious he has no clue about the very rifle he's speaking of.

Edited August 5, 201214 yr by Run To State

I have to admit that I haven't heard this argument before.

 

People should be permitted bigger and badder guns because it's getting harder and harder to kill people.

Wow, totally missed the point and decided to interject your own. The point some of you tried to make recently is our forefathers never imagined the kind of firepower we'd have today and somehow you guys pretend to know that they would have never allowed such weapons. I'm telling you other than have the ability to shoot more rounds, gunshot wounds are no more deadly than they were back then, in fact less. So guns of today likely wouldn't be viewed by our forefathers in the negative light you guys try portray. Prove me wrong. Consider it a bad argument for a really bad excuse.

I just feel like by saying it'll happen again regardless is a defeatist attitude to take. We have to try something, right?

We certainly tried something with illegal drugs, right? How'd that turn out?

 

BTW, we've tried many things, there are a ton of gun laws already.

 

You tell me how, even if we ban ALL guns tomorrow, we'd be able to stop it from happening again. I'll patiently await your answer.

I didn't know that AK-47's were issued in the US military.......

 

Maybe they should. It would combine the two elements recognized worldwide as symbols of freedom.

 

Hopefully, we all feel that way about the US forces when used.

 

But the AK?

 

Symbol of freedom?

 

So much so it is on a nations flag - Mozambique's.

 

 

Even the people of Mozambique recognize it is important for 'the People' to be armed (and ready).

 

My son has the Romanian Kalashnikov. It is a good weapon. And just the sound of drawing back the bolt is an attention getter. Notice I do not use AK as the description because the 'A' stands for automatic. And you can not legally own a automatic weapon without a federal permit. What you see sold in guns shows and shop are usually just Kalashnikov copies that come from Eastern Europe. Not the full military automatic version.

We certainly tried something with illegal drugs, right? How'd that turn out?

 

BTW, we've tried many things, there are a ton of gun laws already.

 

You tell me how, even if we ban ALL guns tomorrow, we'd be able to stop it from happening again. I'll patiently await your answer.

 

I don't have an answer. That's my point. I also never specified what the fix could be. It could be extensive psychological tests to receive high powered guns. It could be more extensive licensing and testing to receive these guns. It could be an abnormal tax on ammo. I don't know what the fix could be but IMO there has to be something better than 'it's gonna happen anyways.'

I don't have an answer. That's my point. I also never specified what the fix could be. It could be extensive psychological tests to receive high powered guns. It could be more extensive licensing and testing to receive these guns. It could be an abnormal tax on ammo. I don't know what the fix could be but IMO there has to be something better than 'it's gonna happen anyways.'

 

 

So basically any hunting weapon would require those tests. As I said before the rounds used in hunting rifles are actually more powerful, in most cases, than those used in most assault rifles and those rifles that are civilian versions of your military rifles.

I don't have an answer. That's my point. I also never specified what the fix could be. It could be extensive psychological tests to receive high powered guns. It could be more extensive licensing and testing to receive these guns. It could be an abnormal tax on ammo. I don't know what the fix could be but IMO there has to be something better than 'it's gonna happen anyways.'

 

One thing could help is to not assume we can live a gun-free and armed security free-zone. Guns are 'around' in one way or another and the ability to stop someone bent on a killing spree is required.

 

Off the top of my head here are some notable multiple murders that were public and random. All of them did not have armed security present or were 'gun free' zones by law or company practice.

 

- Recent Aurora: Theater had policy and signage barring CCW in the building.

- Giffords Shooting: Armed security was not present for an even that featured a Congresswoman and a sitting and controversial Federal judge.

- Virgina Tech: Gun-free campus.

- Luby's Cafeteria Killeen (incident that Suzanna Gratia testified about to Congress): Texas did not allow CCW inside businesses.

- UT Tower sniper, 1966: UT campus - a gun free zone legally.

 

The data seems to indicate the passion for 'gun free' zones is a a common thread in mass shootings. It is the fallacy that safety comes from disarming free good men and women. Cowards, like most of these shooters are, strike at the weak and the disarmed.

 

Recently at a national combine my wife noticed a gentlemen with a holstered large caliber pistol as they were existing the car. He had on a large T-shirt and when standing it was not to noticeable. I later talked to him on the sidelines and we talked only about youth football and not about the fact that he was packing. I found out he was Chicago off-duty police officer. I assume the campus had a no-gun rule but it felt good knowing that someone was prepared if needed.

 

References:

 

Lack of security at Giffords event: Giffords Shooting: The Security Problem - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

 

Gabrielle Giffords chose to have no security at her Congress on Your Corner events, it's been well-reported by now.

 

No cops were standing by when Jared Loughner opened fire on innocent people, starting with Giffords.

 

BTW - a picture with Ms. Giffords with a Kalashnikov in the article above.

 

Of course Dr. Suzanna Gratia's testimony - maybe the best comments from an actual victim on the subject of gun free zones and on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[video=youtube;-TufS87KZYg]

So basically any hunting weapon would require those tests. As I said before the rounds used in hunting rifles are actually more powerful, in most cases, than those used in most assault rifles and those rifles that are civilian versions of your military rifles.

Precisely. :thumb:

 

I give PP92 credit though. He admits not knowing a lot about the weapons in question, which is more than I can say for some on here, the president and the vast majority of the media. I understand his wanting to do something about the killings, heck we all wish we could. Proposed bans or other attacks on the 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens are simply not the answer but Obama and the anti-gun crowd scream it so loudly it starts to sink in for many. We've seen glaring examples in this thread and in the other threads on gun control. Fear mongering has results, unfortunately.