Need is irrelevant and none of your or the governments business what I need. The fact is I have a right to own the weapon need is irrelevant. If we want to start nit picking rights given to us by the constitution by what other people deem we need I have a feeling a lot of our rights are in jeopardy.

 

You can say whatever you like about what my business is or isn't. You, nor any other ordinary citizen need or have a reason to possess any type of assault rifle. Save your breath, you will never convince me otherwise.

You can say whatever you like about what my business is or isn't. You, nor any other ordinary citizen need or have a reason to possess any type of assault rifle. Save your breath, you will never convince me otherwise.

 

I don't need convince you. Just like I don't need to explain to you why I need an AR-15. Like I said need is irrelevant when it comes to a right. I refuse to ever go down that path with anyone arguing for gun control because it strays from the facts at hand.

You can say whatever you like about what my business is or isn't. You, nor any other ordinary citizen need or have a reason to possess any type of assault rifle. Save your breath, you will never convince me otherwise.

 

I laugh when people label an AR-15 an assault rife.

I laugh when people label an AR-15 an assault rife.

 

I laugh when people cry about other people questioning their obsession with owning unnecessary weaponry.

I laugh when people cry about other people questioning their obsession with owning unnecessary weaponry.

 

I'm not crying . Questioning you arguing a topic when you obviously don't understand the weapon or the multiple uses it has but to each their own. You use made up terms like assualt weapon on a semi-automatic rifle which is a propaganda term made to invoke fear into general citizens. If people don't understand why people defend their rights to own these weapons it tells me they don't understand the 2nd ammendment or the history behind it being one of our basic rights. So why argue with someone that obviously doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject.

I own a few guns I enjoy shooting but am not opposed to some tightening some laws. One thing I have found myself pondering lately is why is that all of sudden they have determined we need Government ID to vote but not to buy a gun at a gun show? Anyways gotta run my cruise missile I bought on ebay just showed up.

I'm not crying . Questioning you arguing a topic when you obviously don't understand the weapon or the multiple uses it has but to each their own. You use made up terms like assualt weapon on a semi-automatic rifle which is a propaganda term made to invoke fear into general citizens. If people don't understand why people defend their rights to own these weapons it tells me they don't understand the 2nd ammendment or the history behind it being one of our basic rights. So why argue with someone that obviously doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject.

 

Then please enlighten me, since you think I'm so clueless. Explain to me the uses for an AR-15. And don't give me the "I don't have to explain anything to you" bull... If you want to stand your ground and tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about, you can at least provide your reasoning and uses for such weapons.

Then please enlighten me, since you think I'm so clueless. Explain to me the uses for an AR-15. And don't give me the "I don't have to explain anything to you" bull... If you want to stand your ground and tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about, you can at least provide your reasoning and uses for such weapons.

 

Like I said explaining to you the need is irrelevant you just stated I can't convince you I need the gun and I told you explaining a need is irrelevant to it being my right. There are multiple rights including freedom of speech that someone could come along and make an argument against to say that you don't need certain parts of that right for the general welfare of the public. If we start going down a slippery slope of determining need associated with rights then we start to restrict freedom.

 

Let's use the topic of making pot legal, which I am for. Outside of a very small minority that can use this for actual medical purpose is their really a need for this to be legal? With the way you are using the definition of need well then the answer is no. But I believe it to be a right of a free person to determine what they should consume not big brother. I could point to gambling again is there a "need" in the sense you define it, nope. Again I'm for gambling being legal, but if we want to talk about lives being lost or harmed gambling problems affect many more families in this country than gun violence.

 

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about you and others who want to ban a weapon you have personally deemed you don't need. Which is fine if you don't believe you need it then don't purchase the weapon. I just don't like getting in the business of telling other people what they deem they need to protect themselves. I don't think it is your business, my business or the governments business.

 

But just so I don't get a snarky comment about not answering your question. An AR-15 is a great tool to be had when you are in remote locations hunting and far away from civilization. Also is a great tool to protect your castle (home) as it allows for much more efficent defensive positions when protecting your possesions , family, business and your own life. I could also point out that less than 5% of all murders a rifle is used. That isn't just what you label as an assault rife that is all rifles make up less than 5% of all murders in this country. So why would want to restrict someones rights over a problem that is so small statistically . Logically speaking the stance to ban these weapons wouldn't solve the problem you are trying to solve. A vast majority of people killed in the country are in urban areas with hand guns. Why aren't you attacking the use of hand guns? Let me answer that for you because people know banning hand guns is a losing topic so those who want all guns banned decided to create a fear campaign to ban any gun they can so they can declare any type of victory.

 

If we want to stop criminals from committing crimes, in a free society it doesn't make any sense to place more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Like I said explaining to you the need is irrelevant you just stated I can't convince you I need the gun and I told you explaining a need is irrelevant to it being my right. There are multiple rights including freedom of speech that someone could come along and make an argument against to say that you don't need certain parts of that right for the general welfare of the public. If we start going down a slippery slope of determining need associated with rights then we start to restrict freedom.

 

Let's use the topic of making pot legal, which I am for. Outside of a very small minority that can use this for actual medical purpose is their really a need for this to be legal? With the way you are using the definition of need well then the answer is no. But I believe it to be a right of a free person to determine what they should consume not big brother. I could point to gambling again is there a "need" in the sense you define it, nope. Again I'm for gambling being legal, but if we want to talk about lives being lost or harmed gambling problems affect many more families in this country than gun violence.

 

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about you and others who want to ban a weapon you have personally deemed you don't need. Which is fine if you don't believe you need it then don't purchase the weapon. I just don't like getting in the business of telling other people what they deem they need to protect themselves. I don't think it is your business, my business or the governments business.

 

But just so I don't get a snarky comment about not answering your question. An AR-15 is a great tool to be had when you are in remote locations hunting and far away from civilization. Also is a great tool to protect your castle (home) as it allows for much more efficent defensive positions when protecting your possesions , family, business and your own life. I could also point out that less than 5% of all murders a rifle is used. That isn't just what you label as an assault rife that is all rifles make up less than 5% of all murders in this country. So why would want to restrict someones rights over a problem that is so small statistically . Logically speaking the stance to ban these weapons wouldn't solve the problem you are trying to solve. A vast majority of people killed in the country are in urban areas with hand guns. Why aren't you attacking the use of hand guns? Let me answer that for you because people know banning hand guns is a losing topic so those who want all guns banned decided to create a fear campaign to ban any gun they can so they can declare any type of victory.

 

If we want to stop criminals from committing crimes, in a free society it doesn't make any sense to place more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

 

Let me start by saying this. I'm not sure if you missed my post saying that I own a gun, have owned another one in the past, and will probably own more in the future. I am completely against those people who are dead set on banning ALL guns.

 

I also disagree with the people who say that those wanting to limit what weapons people should be allowed to own are infringing on peoples right to bear arms. If someone says you have to give up all your guns you don't use for personal protection or hunting, they aren't taking away your right to own guns. You can still own them, you just can't own specific models. We have the Freedom of Speech, but if I wear a shirt to work that says "Eat Me," I'm probably going to get in trouble for it. By being reprimanded for that particular shirt, are they taking away my Freedom of Speech? In my opinion, they aren't.

 

My biggest issue with people that say they need 50 guns, or bigger guns, is that just seems like overkill to me. Just my personal opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with the crimes that are being committed, school shootings, or any other idea that people think all opposition cling to. I was brought up having to explain why I wanted or needed certain things before I got them. If I didn't have a legitimate reason, I didn't get it. When I was younger and even now, I don't have things "Just because I can." I have the right to cuss out everybody that pushes my buttons or disagrees with me, but I don't. Why? Because I see it as overkill.

 

At the end of the day, you having however many guns doesn't affect my everyday life. I honestly don't care how many guns you have, I just understand idea behind banning certain weapons, and wouldn't have a problem if it happened.

Let me start by saying this. I'm not sure if you missed my post saying that I own a gun, have owned another one in the past, and will probably own more in the future. I am completely against those people who are dead set on banning ALL guns.

 

I also disagree with the people who say that those wanting to limit what weapons people should be allowed to own are infringing on peoples right to bear arms. If someone says you have to give up all your guns you don't use for personal protection or hunting, they aren't taking away your right to own guns. You can still own them, you just can't own specific models. We have the Freedom of Speech, but if I wear a shirt to work that says "Eat Me," I'm probably going to get in trouble for it. By being reprimanded for that particular shirt, are they taking away my Freedom of Speech? In my opinion, they aren't.

 

My biggest issue with people that say they need 50 guns, or bigger guns, is that just seems like overkill to me. Just my personal opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with the crimes that are being committed, school shootings, or any other idea that people think all opposition cling to. I was brought up having to explain why I wanted or needed certain things before I got them. If I didn't have a legitimate reason, I didn't get it. When I was younger and even now, I don't have things "Just because I can." I have the right to cuss out everybody that pushes my buttons or disagrees with me, but I don't. Why? Because I see it as overkill. At the end of the day, you having however many guns doesn't affect my everyday life. I honestly don't care how many guns you have, I just understand idea behind banning certain weapons, and wouldn't have a problem if it happened.

 

The bolded paragraph isn't an apples to apples comparison. If my employer tells me not to carry a gun on my job site then I listen or I'm fired. A better example to compare would be if you wore a shirt that said "Eat Me" and the government decided it wasn't in proper taste and charge you with a crime. If private citizens or private property want to to restrict what or if any weapons are allowed on their propery that is fine by me. What we are talking about is the government creating laws to restrict private citizens.

 

Againt to answer your question in the bolded paragraph. If the government created a law that said you could not wear that shirt then yes we are restricting freedom, if it's your employer saying hey idiot that isn't appropiate for work then no that isn't restricting freedom.

The bolded paragraph isn't an apples to apples comparison. If my employer tells me not to carry a gun on my job site then I listen or I'm fired. A better example to compare would be if you wore a shirt that said "Eat Me" and the government decided it wasn't in proper taste and charge you with a crime. If private citizens or private property want to to restrict what or if any weapons are allowed on their propery that is fine by me. What we are talking about is the government creating laws to restrict private citizens.

 

Againt to answer your question in the bolded paragraph. If the government created a law that said you could not wear that shirt then yes we are restricting freedom, if it's your employer saying hey idiot that isn't appropiate for work then no that isn't restricting freedom.

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. We have the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't believe it says how many or what arms we can bear. In my opinion, taking away certain weapons is not infringing on my right to bear arms. We just see it two different ways.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. We have the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't believe it says how many or what arms we can bear. In my opinion, taking away certain weapons is not infringing on my right to bear arms. We just see it two different ways.

Why is it wrong to be a collector?

I keep hearing we need stricter laws and yet all one needs to do is look to a city like Chicago that has the strictest gun laws in the books and we see that at least 9 were killed and 32 injured in Chicago just over the Easter weekend. Stricter laws affect only the law abiding. Tougher enforcement makes more sense than stricter laws.

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've said what I have bolded for years. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the time it was written, in a day when a single shot musket was the most lethal weapon and most households owned at least one. In those days nearly all abled-body men were considered militia, to be ready for battle at any time, or in a 'minute's notice'. I believe the writers were referring to a militia, or national guard, more so than individual ownership. Also, I'm sure they didn't envision the type of rapid fire weapons that we have today. If so they might have been a little more specific.

 

There's no doubt that the amount of guns in a country are directly related to the amount of gun related deaths. I'm talking about developed countries, not Third World. ABC reported on a study in 2013 about this and gave some statistics. The United States has the most gun-related deaths of any developed country in the world. 88.8 per 100 people own guns in the U.S. There's 10.2 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. On the other hand, Japan has .6 people owning guns per 100 people and .06 deaths per 100,000. Canada has 30.8 gun owners per 100 people and 2.44 gun related deaths. The United kingdom has 6.2 owners per 100 and 0.25 per 100,000 deaths by guns. Germany has 30.3 owners per 100 and 1.1 per 100,000 gun deaths. The only country of the 27 deveopled nations studied that came close to the U.S. was South Africa, which had 45.7 gun owners per 100 and 9.41 deaths per 100,000.

 

So, there's little doubt that the amount of guns and gun owners in a country has a direct relations to the gun related deaths. The United States is the leader of the developed world in that category. With that said I understand where the gun owners ( and I am one too, have a shotgun and a handgun) are coming from. The long held interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. However, I do think that as time moves on and weapons get more lethal that regulations have to be updated, reviewed, and implimented. I think the original writers of the 2nd Amendment would agree.

Why is it wrong to be a collector?

 

I don't necessarily think it's "wrong," I just understand the premise of not allowing it to happen.