OK I'll answer it, yes we can buy them and law abiding citizens should be allowed to own them.

 

Thank you for answering.:thumb:

OK I'll answer it, yes we can buy them and law abiding citizens should be allowed to own them.

Absolutely. I still think that's not what the original intention of the thread was, but it should be included.

Just to be clear - are you advocating that we should all be able to go out and buy fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns?

 

I think this is fear mongering.

 

People can go and put a 9mm and carry it on their side -- openly.

 

How often do you see this? Enough to scare the crap outta you?

 

Now apply that same concept to fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns.

 

I think this is fear mongering.

 

People can go and put a 9mm and carry it on their side -- openly.

 

How often do you see this? Enough to scare the crap outta you?

 

Now apply that same concept to fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns.

 

Funny story...my nephew showed up to help me move with his handgun strapped on. I couldn't stop laughing.

I own a gun, and will probably own more in the future. With that being said, some gun advocates drive me crazy talking about how they "need" so many guns and why they "need" an AR-15 with extended mags. No, you don't NEED them, you just like them and want to have them. There is a difference.

I own a gun, and will probably own more in the future. With that being said, some gun advocates drive me crazy talking about how they "need" so many guns and why they "need" an AR-15 with extended mags. No, you don't NEED them, you just like them and want to have them. There is a difference.

No one needs coffee, beer, cigarettes, a car than drive faster than the speed limit or television for that matter. But you will get people telling you they need each of those things and no one questions their need.

Funny story...my nephew showed up to help me move with his handgun strapped on. I couldn't stop laughing.

 

I'd be the same way if someone showed up in Birkenstocks driving a Prius and wearing a "Change" T-shirt, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing either.

No one needs coffee, beer, cigarettes, a car than drive faster than the speed limit or television for that matter. But you will get people telling you they need each of those things and no one questions their need.

 

Guns are different. And everyone knows it. I understand the sentiment of not wanting guns taken away, like I said I have one myself. I don't think ALL guns should be taken away, not by a long shot. But at some point it does become over kill. Outside of personal protection and hunting, anything else is unnecessary. JMO.

Guns are different. And everyone knows it. I understand the sentiment of not wanting guns taken away, like I said I have one myself. I don't think ALL guns should be taken away, not by a long shot. But at some point it does become over kill. Outside of personal protection and hunting, anything else is unnecessary. JMO.

See, I have a problem when people start telling me what guns are unnecessary for me to own. And you are correct, the other things are different, they aren't a constitutional right like guns are.

See, I have a problem when people start telling me what guns are unnecessary for me to own. And you are correct, the other things are different, they aren't a constitutional right like guns are.

 

BINGO! Although I think the founding fathers may have overlooked our inalienable right to coffee and chocolate. Just saying.

Now I do see the compromise. The Gun Control advocates want NO guns or firearms, therefore, they are not getting all they want. To compare alcohol, cigarettes whatever to guns is just not a comparison. Guns were made to kill people in warfare or animals for food or eradication, simple as that. They weren't made for target practice, some now may be, but not originally. Alcohol and cigarettes were not made to kill people or things but for enjoyment.

 

The Constitution is a living document and has been amended 27 times since its implementation, so just because it is a right doesn't mean it can't be changed. It takes 2/3 of both houses to do that, I believe. Do I believe the 2nd Amendment will be changed? Not for a long time, if ever. Even though it's intent was for state militia and at that time was needed.

 

My personal opinion is that if you want to own a gun and put it under your bed, your pillow, whatever, no problem, your house, your life. If you hunt and want to own shotguns or rifles, no problem either. If you want to carry it concealed on you in the mall around me and my grandkids, I have a problem. It just makes no sense to me either why you would need something that fires 30 rounds in 2 seconds or whatever those guns do. Owning a tank, cannon, come on that is not a need. There has to be a line drawn. I do not own a gun and don't believe I ever will. As with most things want is more than need in these things.

I own a gun, and will probably own more in the future. With that being said, some gun advocates drive me crazy talking about how they "need" so many guns and why they "need" an AR-15 with extended mags. No, you don't NEED them, you just like them and want to have them. There is a difference.

 

Your absolutely right, outside of people who hunt for feral pigs or own Baders Gas Station in Downtown Louisville (LOL), I don't think many people need AR's, AK's or other similar type rifles. But I think we need to look at it from a different stand point.

 

Often gun controllers ask that same question, that being, "why do you need high capacity magazines?" And my answer is, "I don't but why should that have any affect on whether or not they are legal???"

 

I don't NEED alcohol but should it be prohibited again? I don't think so. Sure didn't go too well almost a century ago when this country tried prohibition. It made many formerly law abiding citizens in to law breakers when the felt the law was stupid and bought alcohol on the black market and made many gangsters into extremely powerful multimillionaires.

 

I don't NEED to gamble at a casino but many states are starting to wake up and realize just because some people cannot handle their gambling it does not make it right in a free society to prohibit all from visiting a casino. My guess is soon KY will wake up.

 

I don't NEED red meat or fried foods and would probably be much thinner and healthier if the government would take that right away from me but does that mean they should?

 

So saying that, I think the need for certain types of guns or the magazines that feed them should have absolutely no bearing on their legal status.

 

Now saying that, does that mean I think everything should be legal? No, my general (notice I said general, not absolute) rule is if something is (or would be) used responsibly by 99% (use whatever percentage you see fit) of the population but not by 1%, in a free society, the rights and liberties of the 99% should not be sacrificed by the 1%.

Just to be clear - are you advocating that we should all be able to go out and buy fully automatic Thompsons or anti-tank guns?

Screw anti tank guns, I want a tank

It just makes no sense to me either why you would need something that fires 30 rounds in 2 seconds or whatever those guns do.

 

Here in lies the problem. What you are referring to (30 rounds in 2 seconds) is a fully automatic firearm which due to heavy regulation and expensive taxes is not available to the vast majority of people. Primarily only wealthy gun enthusiasts who went through extreme background checks. However, many others who want to restrict ownership of semi automatic rifles (they don't fire 30 rounds in two seconds, they can only fire once for each pull of the trigger) don't understand the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic but despite their lack of knowledge of such weapons still don't hesitate to want to regulate them. Me personally, if I don't understand something, I don't want to regulate something I don't understand till I take the time to educate myself on it and make an informed decision on regulating it. Gun control is based waaaaay too much on emotion rather than facts.

I'd be the same way if someone showed up in Birkenstocks driving a Prius and wearing a "Change" T-shirt, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing either.

 

Here's the thing about where I lived...my neighboorhood teemed with Prius', Birkenstock wearing people. That's what makes it so funny. And I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. I understand it's a Constitutional right. However, I have a few Constitutional rights of my own, and dang it, free speech is one of them. And if I want to say and support stricter regulations on weapons, I have that right. So, shoot me or move out of the way.