IF RedDawn breaks out, PP92 and Randy can make their way to my house. I live in a militarily advantageous spot on a mountain and am heavily armed. No ridiculous clips. Just lots and lots of ammo.

 

:lol:

 

Thanks for the invitation. I'll take you up on that. :thumb:

:lol:

 

Thanks for the invitation. I'll take you up on that. :thumb:

You'll be in charge of surveillance. And mashed potatoes.

You'll be in charge of surveillance. And mashed potatoes.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

I believe in responsible gun ownership with appropriate registrations and training. I have no problems with hand guns for personal protection or sport weapons. Semi automatic weapons is another deal all together. These weapons have no place in civilian society. Furthermore, I find the resistance by the NRA to the proliferation of these weapons both revealing and disturbing. I don't believe the NRA is about 2nd amendment protection at all. They are simply a lobby of the gun industry , and their only interest is the bottom line. The rest is spin , misdirection and manipulation.

 

I believe the NRA to be an enabler of domestic terrorism.

I believe in responsible gun ownership with appropriate registrations and training. I have no problems with hand guns for personal protection or sport weapons. Semi automatic weapons is another deal all together. These weapons have no place in civilian society. Furthermore, I find the resistance by the NRA to the proliferation of these weapons both revealing and disturbing. I don't believe the NRA is about 2nd amendment protection at all. They are simply a lobby of the gun industry , and their only interest is the bottom line. The rest is spin , misdirection and manipulation.

 

I believe the NRA to be an enabler of domestic terrorism.

 

I think that is one of the most ridiculous statements that I have ever heard. Once again, I will return to the fact that to change an amendment should take a 3/4 majority. The NRA is certainly about the second Amendment. Some citizens of this nation simply hate the fact that the amendment does protect our right to bear arms, not bear arms that they think we should be allowed to bear. Until you get your 3/4 majority and make a new amendment, you have no right to impose any type of gun control. Doing so is in violation of the Constitution. Its a shame that you think legal gun owners are domestic terrorist.

The likelyhood of taking out three intruders with three bullets is extremely small, even with the most advanced training. To think otherwise is exhibiting a high level of ignorance concerning statistics dealing with defense situations.

 

Who said take them out? I said one bullet per person. You telling me if I hit one in the leg, one in the arm and one in the chest I'll need more bullets? What if I fire one shot and they all leave? I think to assume that I would even need to shoot someone to protect my home displays a high level of ignorance in not knowing how my home is protected in the first place. The demand to be armed like the military strikes me as one of the most ignorant things a citizen can say.

Quit saying you "fully support" the second amendment but then in the same breath you'll comply with government mandates/regulations against that right to defend yourself.

 

We have that amendment for one purpose. Its been repeated on this site multiple times. You either support that reason and the second amendment, or you don't.

 

Wrong. I 'support' the Amendment and the right to bear arms. I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment as a reason to set up a fifth branch of the military and I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment just because someone wants 22 bullets in their magazine.

 

...

 

I'm just trying to truly understand why people are so bent up in arms for possibly not being allowed to arm themselves like the military anymore. Should the citizens really be armed like the military? Should my neighbor have a better arsenal than the police department? And don't give me that protect ourselves from the government crap either. The Civil War is over. Isn't it?

 

...

 

 

"Should the citizens really be armed like the military?"

 

Why not. They were in 1776. The country was able to free itself from Great Britain by armed citizens taking on the worlds strongest army.

 

"Should my neighbor have a better arsenal than the police department?"

 

Many do.

 

"And don't give me that protect ourselves from the government crap either. The Civil War is over. Isn't it? "

 

The government is a construct of the People's Constitution. The ultimate defender of the Constiution is not the government. It is the People who established it. History has shown that it is governments who are the ultimate abusers of peoples natural rights. Especially governments with standing, powerful armies - like Great Britain ni 1776 and the US today. The final defender of liberty and specifically the People's Constitution is...the People. The Constitution was established to ensure the People could control their government. Government was intentionally divided and sub-divided between branches at the Federal level and between the Federal and State to keep it in check. With more and more power being centralized the risk of abusive government continues to grow.

 

 

The practical question what one needs is not really a practical question. There are multiple instances of homeowners using semi-automatics for home defense.

 

Here is a recent story on a 15 year old protecting himself and his sister from two invaders. Is 6 rounds enough in this situation - the obvious answer is definitely not.

 

LiveLeak.com - 15 Year Old Uses Dad's AR-15 to defend his home from burglars (comments)

 

AR-15s and most 'military style assault weapons' have design point to wound from a medium range. They trade off 'fire power' (they are not really 'powerful' compared to hunting rifles) for range ('high velocity'). They are very, very flexible and multi-use tools. They are excellent home defense tools.

 

What practicle purpose does limiting magazine capacity serve? It has never been shown to have an impact. But lacking higher capacity magazine can be shown to jepordize a true civilian life and death home invasion situation. Lets count the number of rounds in a theoretical situation. Rounds 1 and 2 - warning shots to ensure invaders know you are home and armed. Rounds 3 and 4 - shots fire but miss. Now you have 2 rounds for 2 or more invaders. Lets say you hit one with 2 rounds. He is likely not dead - just wounded unless you were lucky. Now your are out. But you have been retreating in hopes of avoiding a confrontation. You are not near your additional 6 round magazines. Even if you have 1 or 2 with you by lucky chance are you proficient with quick magazine change? So your defenseless and there are still potentially (likely) armed invaders in your house and now they are mad since you shot their buddy. They know you like follow the law and are now out of rounds after 6 shots and now they want revenge. And you are defenseless.

 

99.9% of use will never have to deal with this scenario. But in the gun phobic UK property crimes and home invasions are much, much more commonplace that in the US. Mexico bans citizens from owning guns but thousands of Mexican citizens die at the hands of drug cartels. These drug cartels are, without a doubt, operating in the US. And we want to basically disarm law abiding citizens of tools to protect themselves?

Who said take them out? I said one bullet per person. You telling me if I hit one in the leg, one in the arm and one in the chest I'll need more bullets? What if I fire one shot and they all leave? I think to assume that I would even need to shoot someone to protect my home displays a high level of ignorance in not knowing how my home is protected in the first place. The demand to be armed like the military strikes me as one of the most ignorant things a citizen can say.

 

Once again, that was the clear intent of the second Amendment. If people want to change it, they need to make another Amendment. Every expert in defense weapons training will tell you that wounded people fire weapons, and you should always shoot until your target is completely down. The need to shoot someone for protection is no doubt rare, yet the need presents itself somewhere in this nation every day.

I believe in responsible gun ownership with appropriate registrations and training. I have no problems with hand guns for personal protection or sport weapons. Semi automatic weapons is another deal all together. These weapons have no place in civilian society.

 

Why are semi-automatics "another deal all together?"

I believe in responsible gun ownership with appropriate registrations and training. I have no problems with hand guns for personal protection or sport weapons. Semi automatic weapons is another deal all together. These weapons have no place in civilian society. Furthermore, I find the resistance by the NRA to the proliferation of these weapons both revealing and disturbing. I don't believe the NRA is about 2nd amendment protection at all. They are simply a lobby of the gun industry , and their only interest is the bottom line. The rest is spin , misdirection and manipulation.

 

I believe the NRA to be an enabler of domestic terrorism.

with the exception of revolvers, nearly all handguns are semi-automatic weapons. You seem very ill informed. And with no intentional disrespect, that is the norm in many that support gun control. Very very typical.

Why are semi-automatics "another deal all together?"

Because we could be easily slip right back in to black powder and musket balls and we'd be far better off. Think about it, if you broke into my home and I fired at you it would be at least 3 minutes before either one of us could see if I hit you.

Wrong. I 'support' the Amendment and the right to bear arms. I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment as a reason to set up a fifth branch of the military and I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment just because someone wants 22 bullets in their magazine.

 

You are trying to make the amendment say something that it doesn't. Read it again. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I guess we need to look at the definition of infringe. in·fringe [ in frínj ] 1.disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement

2.encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep.

 

Are you still saying that you support the second Amendment?

Wrong. I 'support' the Amendment and the right to bear arms. I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment as a reason to set up a fifth branch of the military and I am not going to 'defend' that Amendment just because someone wants 22 bullets in their magazine.

 

You agree with people being able to own a handgun with capped bullets. That isn't the second amendment. You missed the last part where it states 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' You clearly support infringements.

 

 

And apparently, the more bullets, the less violent-crime.

 

 

far more lives would be saved by banning hammers and bats (496), knives (1,694), and alcohol (10,000+ drunk driving deaths), than would have been saved by banning ALL rifles, not just the so-called “assault” rifles (323, with less than 0.5% of crimes committed with “assault” rifles). Of course, there would be huge protests, but we could have saved even more lives by banning hands and feet (726 deaths from punching and kicking). However, it should be noted that, over the last twenty years, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report the violent crime rate in America has seen an approximately 50% decline, even as gun ownership has skyrocketed to an estimated 250-280 million privately owned firearms (including more than six million “assault” weapons in the last two decades).

 

Link

 

FBI Stats

 

Your logic doesn't match reality.

with the exception of revolvers, nearly all handguns are semi-automatic weapons. You seem very ill informed. And with no intentional disrespect, that is the norm in many that support gun control. Very very typical.

 

 

Exactly. I had a post wrote out similar to making this point and people in congress having the same outlook. You're spot on.