I say go after the nuts, not the guns!

Not having served in the military, I really didn't know that. Even so, that gets the military better able to...

 

I think of the Uzi sub-machine gun as a nasty little 'military-only' weapon. Also a .50 cal sniper rifle. And any fully automatic as purely military.

 

But I acknowledge that the point of any rifle is to do harm to what ever it is aimed at - people, animals or targets. It just that there nothing really more lethal or different about ARs or even Kalashnikovs (AK without the A) than other weapons. They are just a more general purpose rifle.

It all boils down to the same questions. How will the proposed assault weapons ban stop someone from shooting up the next gun free zone? How will teachers like TB&G and the kids in her class be protected by the ban from some nut shooting up the school they're at? How will the ban stop gun murders in cities like Chicago and New York? How will the ban affect criminals? Why is it these bans only pin point law abiding citizens?

 

Roughly there are 12,000 gun related homicides a year. 3% of those or roughly 360 are from rifles. Of those these 'so-called assault rifles' make a subset of that - probably a small subset.

 

Are they fixing anything with the overall gun violence problem? No.

Are they shamelessly using a single incident for enact an agenda that they kept hidden for 4 years? Yes.

Our government has been arming the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria and several more with automatic weapons the last couple of years.. What for? Hunting? Target shooting? Anyone care to take a guess as why?

D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges - Washington Times

When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy.

 

......

 

The man could face a host of charges depending on the specifics of the case, including whether the gun used is a registered firearm that the man was legally permitted to own, Mr. Gross said. Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine, and determining whether the man legally possessed the gun used will likely have greater bearing on the way the case is handled, Mr. Gross said.

 

But those laws are there to protect the children.

I hear you. I guess for me the whole gun control thing comes off to me as the government being fed up with mass shootings and having no logical or true solution to stop it and knee-jerking their reaction and going after guns.

 

There is a solution: restore every individuals natural right to properly and adequately protect themselves, their family, and their country. Not doing so defeats the whole purpose of our government, which is to protect our natural rights: our right to life, liberty, and our property. If they are not allowing or giving me the privilege to defend all three, and it becomes a crime to do so, we should be worried.

 

I don't feel like 'restricting freedom' is their intent even though in essence that is what they are doing. And I think they are going about it the wrong way as well.

 

You can look at governments throughout history that took away guns from their citizens. When you do, check to see who was/is subservient to who.

 

I'd rather see them properly research all guns so law abiding citizens aren't the victims but I will still question why anyone needs an AK-47 or any big gun. Collector or not. I know a guy who is a collector and he very very rarely shoots any of his guns.

 

Again, this is where gun control arguments cease to have any logic or reason in them. If the point of gun control is to stop violent crime or gun crime, then AK's or AR's are not the weapons you should be going after. That would be handguns. I have posted numerous links on this thread that show that. So what exactly is the point of gun control legislation? Someone please remind me?

 

I do have a ton of friends and family like Spin so when Red Dawn comes I'll be good and my wife will have her gun soon so when the 3 ninjas attack we'll be safe.

 

And you will be the first to grab an 'assault' rifle to protect your wife and kids, I am sure.

I know people that collect all kinds of things and show them off. That's not unusual at all.

 

You think people in the times when the 2nd Amendment was framed didn't own guns for protection? I think the wording of it to stop a tyrannical government is enough, though.

 

Hey, I don't trust anyone I don't know. I trust the government even less, though. It's hard for me to think you're supportive of the 2nd when I see you saying things like "I'm willing to conform to the parameters of whatever law they push forward" or "I would conform to the law. It honestly wouldn't bother me if every house and vehicle was searched and all guns confiscated. PP92 would survive." Those comments certainly don't come off as pro 2nd Amendment, so it should be easy to see why some of us make that statement.

 

So, by all means, lets just do away with the whole damn thing. Hell, this is 2013, we don't need some stupid, out of date piece of paper telling us what rights we have. Screw it, let's rewrite history while we're at it.

 

I am completely and totally against marijuana being illegal but I follow the law everyday. Guns are the same for me. I am not pro-marijuana-should-be-illegal. I am pro-keep-PP92-out-of-jail.

There is a solution: restore every individuals natural right to properly and adequately protect themselves, their family, and their country. Not doing so defeats the whole purpose of our government, which is to protect our natural rights: our right to life, liberty, and our property. If they are not allowing or giving me the privilege to defend all three, and it becomes a crime to do so, we should be worried.

 

 

 

You can look at governments throughout history that took away guns from their citizens. When you do, check to see who was/is subservient to who.

 

 

 

Again, this is where gun control arguments cease to have any logic or reason in them. If the point of gun control is to stop violent crime or gun crime, then AK's or AR's are not the weapons you should be going after. That would be handguns. I have posted numerous links on this thread that show that. So what exactly is the point of gun control legislation? Someone please remind me?

 

 

 

And you will be the first to grab an 'assault' rifle to protect your wife and kids, I am sure.

 

 

I just don't care. That's it at the end of the day. Guns or no guns I don't care. As I stated earlier, I have made it 38 years without ever needing a gun but now I am supposed to be in a panic because the laws may change not allowing me to have a gun? Uh...no. And maybe at the end of the day that's why I may not seem pro-2nd Amendment. It doesn't affect or change my life any. I'm just trying to see if anyone had any reasons for me to care. Haven't seen anything yet.

I am completely and totally against marijuana being illegal but I follow the law everyday. Guns are the same for me. I am not pro-marijuana-should-be-illegal. I am pro-keep-PP92-out-of-jail.

 

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

 

-TJ

Our government has been arming the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria and several more with automatic weapons the last couple of years.. What for? Hunting? Target shooting? Anyone care to take a guess as why?

 

Because they are stupid? Money? Favors?

 

Not sure but it is definitely questionable.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

 

-TJ

 

I'd love to puff puff but I'll pass on that, TJ.

I just don't care. That's it at the end of the day. Guns or no guns I don't care. As I stated earlier, I have made it 38 years without ever needing a gun but now I am supposed to be in a panic because the laws may change not allowing me to have a gun? Uh...no. And maybe at the end of the day that's why I may not seem pro-2nd Amendment. It doesn't affect or change my life any. I'm just trying to see if anyone had any reasons for me to care. Haven't seen anything yet.

 

So you have no issue with other black people being sent to jail at an extremely disproportionate rate when it comes to gun laws? That doesn't upset you? You don't care that our government is perpetuating racism right in front of you and you say, you don't care? Its more than just simply being able to own a gun.

So you have no issue with other black people being sent to jail at an extremely disproportionate rate when it comes to gun laws? That doesn't upset you? You don't care that our government is perpetuating racism right in front of you and you say, you don't care? Its more than just simply being able to own a gun.

 

 

Please, nobody cares about that. Start a thread about the government and how it has perpetuated racism and you'll find out real quick not only how much people don't care but they'll call you delusional as well. Folks don't care about COINTELPRO or the influx of guns and drugs into the black community in the 1980s from which the inner cities were sent into a downward spiral searching for Obamaphones. What do you expect me to do? Better yet, we have a black president and he can't do squat either. Upset me? Yeah, when I was 21. At 38 I have accepted life for what is and do what I can to take care of my family. That's all we can do nowadays. Survive and advance like the NCAA tourney in March. Right now survival is really good to me. I can't worry about stuff I can't control.

I am completely and totally against marijuana being illegal but I follow the law everyday. Guns are the same for me. I am not pro-marijuana-should-be-illegal. I am pro-keep-PP92-out-of-jail.

Marijuana isn't a constitutional right.

Roughly there are 12,000 gun related homicides a year. 3% of those or roughly 360 are from rifles. Of those these 'so-called assault rifles' make a subset of that - probably a small subset.

 

Are they fixing anything with the overall gun violence problem? No.

Are they shamelessly using a single incident for enact an agenda that they kept hidden for 4 years? Yes.

Bingo! I said (when Obama was elected the first term) that he would go after guns in his second term. Never had any doubt about it. It sickens me that he and his cohorts are unabashedly doing so standing on the graves of children.