Another longer vid with detailed overview of the BM AR-15.

 

Define one. The Bushmaster certainly isn't one.

 

According to what I have read in another post it meets at least two of the criteria, and I am not the one to debate on the merits or characteristics of guns. However, IMO, the concern would be for weapons that are automatic or semi-automatic and hold more than only a few rounds.

NEVER! It's the second amendment, the Government has no right to tell me I can't own a gun if I'm a law abiding citizen.

 

Maybe they should be able to tell you which type you cannot own though.

According to what I have read in another post it meets at least two of the criteria, and I am not the one to debate on the merits or characteristics of guns. However, IMO, the concern would be for weapons that are automatic or semi-automatic and hold more than only a few rounds.

 

Automatic weapons are highly regulated and very very expensive to own. In fact only full-auto weapons manufactured prior to the law change in the mid 80's may be own by a private citizen. Due to their scarcity they are very very expensive. And there is a several month long approval process through the ATF that must be completed prior to being allowed to purchase a full-auto weapon.

 

Semi-Auto weapons (one trigger pull equals one shot) are very common in hunting, target shooting, home defense and Law Enforcement.

 

The problem is too many want to ban "Assault Weapons" which by definition are Full-Auto. (I can't recall a mass shooting in the US in which this type of gun was used. In all cases where full-auto weapons have been used all were obtained or altered to be full-auto illegally.) When they say "Ban the assault weapons" what they mean is ban the scary looking guns.

 

This is about a sick deranged individual that would have killed in another manner if firearms were not available.

Biggest school killing in US History was committed with dynamite.

 

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator killed his wife first, and later committed suicide in his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

John Yarmuth has jumped on the bandwagon.

John Yarmuth has jumped on the bandwagon.

 

I don't think he was ever off of it.

John Yarmuth has jumped on the bandwagon.

 

My man John Yarmuth has been driving that wagon since before he ever entered politics.

 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

Maybe, but he certainly mirrored his hero BHO when he made his tearful "apology" for "being silent" on the issue before and brought the wagon out of the stable. I'll say one thing for Yarmuth, he follows the Emanual playbook to a tee. There is never a high visibility issue that he won't exploit for political gain.

As far as I can see the only people trying to exploit this are the ones accusing others of the same act and refusing to discuss meaningful solutions .

Automatic weapons are highly regulated and very very expensive to own. In fact only full-auto weapons manufactured prior to the law change in the mid 80's may be own by a private citizen. Due to their scarcity they are very very expensive. And there is a several month long approval process through the ATF that must be completed prior to being allowed to purchase a full-auto weapon.

 

Semi-Auto weapons (one trigger pull equals one shot) are very common in hunting, target shooting, home defense and Law Enforcement.

 

The problem is too many want to ban "Assault Weapons" which by definition are Full-Auto. (I can't recall a mass shooting in the US in which this type of gun was used. In all cases where full-auto weapons have been used all were obtained or altered to be full-auto illegally.) When they say "Ban the assault weapons" what they mean is ban the scary looking guns.

 

This is about a sick deranged individual that would have killed in another manner if firearms were not available.

 

Thank you for the information, but I can't agree with you on all your points:

Maybe some want to ban scary looking guns...some want to ban guns that because of their characteristics, and in my mind 10's of rounds, which don't cause mass killings, but certainly make them easier.

I don't think one can say with certainty that this person or that person would have killed 26 people another way with or without guns. There may be a few, like the bomber you referenced, that can and will do this, but for some others, IMO the availability of weapon (s) and their ease of use make it too easy whereas if they had to work at it these type of killings won't be eliminated, but maybe reduced.

 

Having said that, it is clear the problem is not guns, it is the lack of mental health. The guns are just the tool of choice.

As far as I can see the only people trying to exploit this are the ones accusing others of the same act and refusing to discuss meaningful solutions .

 

I agree, both sides are politicizing it.

 

I have a couple of guns, have my concealed weapons permit (though I never keep a weapon on me), and not for the revocation of the 2nd amendment, that I know. Admittingly I am not fluent with guns, so if you are "pro-gun" for lack of a better term, is there anything you would be willing to concede? Certain types of weapons you would do away with, types of ammunition, etc.? Is there any type of weapon that you view as extreme in the sense your average Joe does not need to possess said weapon?

Full metal jacket ammo, armor piercing ammo have no place in public hands. I also see no need for any fully auto weapons in the hands of the public.

Yarmuth prefaced his tearful mia culpa with the preamble (and I paraphrase) I know that it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy but... If that's not a perfect example of exploitation then I don't know what is.

 

Sent from my Samsung Stratosphere using Forum Runner

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by All Tell

I agree, both sides are politicizing it.

 

I have a couple of guns, have my concealed weapons permit (though I never keep a weapon on me), and not for the revocation of the 2nd amendment, that I know. Admittingly I am not fluent with guns, so if you are "pro-gun" for lack of a better term, is there anything you would be willing to concede? Certain types of weapons you would do away with, types of ammunition, etc.? Is there any type of weapon that you view as extreme in the sense your average Joe does not need to possess said weapon?

 

I'm not sure I would be in favor of doing away with any weapon. However maybe there needs to be a new tier of weapons with stricter rules. Let's look at the what everyone wants to call an assault weapon. We don't treat them as a full auto but maybe there are additional checks and screening for those who want to purchase one. Same for higher capacity magazines. And maybe we limit mags to a max of 10 rounds for guns like the AR15. Or even 5 for the everyday citizen. I know guys that shoot competition prefer high capacity so maybe organizations that put on competitions could have the high capacity mags available at comps only. Same for pistols. If you can't get done what you need with 10 shots do you really need 15? Who knows. For home defense you are probably better off with a compact shotgun or a something like the Judge loaded with .410 defense loads. Most of this is me just thinking out loud.

 

With all of that, I don't think any of it matters if the only solution we look at is the guns. The guns didn't make this nut ball do what he did and that's what we need to find out. Why? Maybe if we can answer that it will lead to other solutions. Are we over medicating kids/people today? Are those meds having undesired effects? Everyone always talks about that this stuff never use to happen. Well that should lead everyone to look somewhere besides guns. Guns have always been around.