This is a semi-auto. It is made to hunt Turkeys. Would this fall under the catagory of "Assult weapons"?

 

Looks really mean to me!...........don't let the "turkeys" vote on it

Oh crap! I may have to rethink this thing...

 

Not that I had anyone in particular in mind when I made that post......

I have no problem with myself and John Doe having a shotgun,deer rifle..

 

They don't need a gun that will shoot 500 rounds a minute and have a grenade launcher!!!!!

2. Doesn't Great Britain have checks and balances also? They had a national registry that turned into gun confiscation.

And Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began 100 years ago, undermining claims by ministers that they have got violent crime under control.

(What's really funny is that I was agreeing with you. But you just want to argue for the sake of argument.

For the life of me, I can't find anywhere in this thread where you were in agreement with me.

For the life of me, I can't find anywhere in this thread where you were in agreement with me.

Because you don't want to.

Because you don't want to.

:lol:

 

It must not be showing on my screen. :bunny:

:lol:

 

It must not be showing on my screen. :bunny:

Well, if you'd get that bullet hole repaired, you'd be able to see the screen better!

Well, if you'd get that bullet hole repaired, you'd be able to see the screen better!

 

Must have been a DELL compatable IBM nosed bullet !:flame:

I have no problem with myself and John Doe having a shotgun,deer rifle..

 

They don't need a gun that will shoot 500 rounds a minute and have a grenade launcher!!!!!

 

These are not legal now!!! No one on here has advocated that you should be able to buy a full auto machine gun at your local gun shop. An assault weapon that is in the assault weapons ban only looks mean, it may look like a machine gun but those are already virtually impossible to get.

Question: If the philosophical logic for having an armed citizenry is to keep the government in check (i.e. impede tyranny), which is my basis for argument at least, then how does a government go about confiscating guns? Either the confiscation of guns is not tyrannical, or having guns doesn't prevent tyranny. Thoughts?

It's a conundrum.

It's a conundrum.

No need to bring birth control into this! :irked:

She ranks among the handful of the worst “F”-rated gun banners, how can you support that?

Registration and licensing would not reduce crime, because criminals would not register guns or get gun licenses. When someone like Hillary starts talking registration, the thought of confiscation probably isn't too far back in their mind.

The Eddie Eagle Gunsafe program has been very efficient in teaching more than 15 million children to stop, don’t touch, leave the area and tell an adult when they encounter a firearm unsupervised. In other words, education.

Arguments for the assault weapons ban are founded on emotion, not fact. Assault weapons have been incorrectly portrayed as being entirely different from other firearms. Despite their appearance, they operate like any other semi-automatic firearm, use the same ammunition as other firearms, and possess no feature or characteristic not available on other firearms.

 

Is that the guy who competed in ski jumping in the Winter Olympics many years ago?

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree. Let's compromise: The purpose of guns is to harm.

 

 

Fact: Many Americans own guns without ever having taken a safety course That is true and I do agree that people should need to know how to handle a firearm safely before owning one. Being lisenced to own one I might be okay with. Similar to lisencing for driving. However I think this should not include specific registering of a firearm. I could agree to licensing. My issue is not so much with the weapons themselves, as it is with those that own them.

 

Fact: People die from the misuse of guns either by themselves or at the hands of others True however people die from the misuse of medication, cars and a number of other items as well. True in your examples as well. But those don't present a compelling argument to not take steps to prevent the misuse of firearms. Dangerous medications require prescriptions, pharmacists require licensing. Driving a car requires licensing....steps to prevent misuse.

 

Fact: There are other semi-automatic weapons than those described, and there is no plausible reason for a regular citizen to own one. You can't say "plausible" reason as fact really. That is an opinion. The first part of your comment is a fact the second is conjecture and opinion. Do not mistake the two. Strong feelings to not necessitate fact. There are a number of reasons to own them from hunting, to sport, to personal defense. Some smal semi-automatic rifles are actually as useful if nor more so than handguns for home defense.Very true that I mixed an opinion with the fact. I should have separated the sentences into two, and clarified the last statement as my opinion.

 

Fact: Legislation could be narrowed to define the semi-automatic weapons banned. That is true, but is it necessary? I believe so.

 

 

Fact: Registration of guns infringes on no one's rights. One is still allowed to own a gun. There is just a record of such ownership I don't find it to be worth the risk. There have been a number of documented cases mentioned by Run To State as to where that led to the eventual confiscation of firearms by a government. I find it a tad idealistic to say that our governement would never do it because we are "different." We are still human and still have the same failings and fears. I don't like the idea of taking that risk. Do I think it WILL happen? Most likely not, but I prefer to be cautious. This is most likely another debate. I personally believe that the structure of American government prevents such an event. Maybe I just have more faith in our ability to maintain a government "by the people, for the people."

 

 

Fact: Gun ownership is a responsibility, as well as a right. No argument here. Many other rights are responsibilities too, guns just have a more"harsh" feel to them than other rights that are as dangerous if not more so. And many of our rights have restrictions. Freedom of speech is protected, yet regulated, for instance.

 

Fact: ALL rights carry responsibilities. I agree here too. How off-kilter you must be feeling! :lol: While you have "sort of" disagreed with me, you are still agreeing with me. :lol:

 

 

Fact: Proponents of gun owners' "rights" use self-defense as an excuse for such rights...no less "fear mongering" than those who are opponents. Possibly yes. Arguments on both sides can easily be described as fear mongering. I personally would rather fall on the side of being able to protect myself with a firearm if need be. Once more, a "possible" agreement! :lol: It is fair to say, however, that the charge of "fear mongering" should not be lobbed only toward those who oppose the NRA's contention that it is their "God given right" to own a gun. :lol:

 

This is a very pretty post but Christmas ended weeks ago.:sssh: