# Join the NRA



## Cooky

If you aren’t already a member now is a good time. They are the best voice we have. Don’t think your deer rifles are safe.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!

NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons. 

I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall. 

Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is. 

NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.


----------



## Cooky

Time will tell. I hope I am wrong and after we have given up our guns all the would-be murderers disappear. No weapons ban has ever decreased the use of that weapon by criminals.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Cooky said:


> Time will tell. I hope I am wrong and after we have given up our guns all the would-be murderers disappear. No weapons ban has ever decreased the use of that weapon by criminals.


No kidding. But a nut (criminals rob banks) with a regular weapons won't be able to quickly kills dozens.

Get over the Boogie Man tactic and act like an adult. Tell the NRA to be reasonable just as they were in 1932 to ban automatic weapons.


----------



## Cooky

I don’t want to play “Boogie Man” any more than I want the people who would ban all guns to play that role. I am afraid than attempt at reasonable negotiation (by giving a little) will be met with being run over. The people who pretend to speak for us (on either side) don’t seem to be able to see any solution that includes middle ground. Until everyone calms down I think I will side with the ones who are defending my rights. Rights should be grudgingly given up because they can almost never be regained.


----------



## Huge29

I really applaud the NRA in how they have treated this in making no comment yet in respect for laying the deceased to rest and letting the families grieve in stark contrast to what Barry has done. 


Dukes_Daddy said:


> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how f%&*# up the world is.


Never watched Southpark, but that does explain your position and how you got there. 


> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. -Franklin


Which other Constitutionally granted freedoms are you willing to give up? Religion, back to prohibition, speech, press, search and seizure...??
If you really want to reduce such crimes let's not look at superficial, knee-jerk reaction solutions! Let's really look at facts and history.
1-The Aurora nut job did not go to the closest theater, he did not even go the largest theater. He had about 6 theaters and chose one of the farthest ones away from him and this chosen one had a very unique quality. The theater he chose was the only one with a firearm prohibition, why would he do that? Which type of firearms was he using? Were they "assault weapons?"
2-Switzerland, contrary to most of Europe, has liberal gun ownership laws and experiences a very low crime rate with the most crime ridden areas being gun free zones, why?
3-Crime rates in DC and Chicago decreased after the Supreme Court struck down the bans as unconstitutional, why did they drop or why did crime rates not sharply increase as some politicians prophesied? Why were these such crime ridden areas while the bans were in place?
4-Why did the crime rate (violent crime and property crime) hit a 49-year low in 2009 (clearly including lower rates than the time the ban was in place from 1994-2004), 5 years after the original gun ban expired, again contrary to politicians prophesying sharp crime rate increases?
5-Why did the CT incident include the shooting in a gun free zone? Why not at home or at any of numerous other places?
6-Have you heard of criminals having a hard time getting weapons? Do they do so legally? Which type of weapons did the Trolley Square shooter use? Which type of weapon did the Triad Center shooter use in 1999 (during the ban)?
Draw your own conclusions! What did I miss?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes_Daddy said:


> NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** up the world is.
> 
> NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.


You sir ........!!! Give up FUN?????? Please.......

MY FREEDOM ISNT FUN!! Its an unalienable right handed down to me through the constitution, go ahead and sell out.....I FOR ONE WILL NOT!!!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

I have never read such horse shiz........you should be smacked dukes daddy!! Im appalled!!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> I really applaud the NRA in how they have treated this in making no comment yet in respect for laying the deceased to rest and letting the families grieve in stark contrast to what Barry has done.
> 
> 
> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is.
> 
> 
> 
> Never watched Southpark, but that does explain your position and how you got there.
> 
> 
> 
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. -Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which other Constitutionally granted freedoms are you willing to give up? Religion, back to prohibition, speech, press, search and seizure...??
> If you really want to reduce such crimes let's not look at superficial, knee-jerk reaction solutions! Let's really look at facts and history.
> 1-The Aurora nut job did not go to the closest theater, he did not even go the largest theater. He had about 6 theaters and chose one of the farthest ones away from him and this chosen one had a very unique quality. The theater he chose was the only one with a firearm prohibition, why would he do that? Which type of firearms was he using? Were they "assault weapons?"
> 2-Switzerland, contrary to most of Europe, has liberal gun ownership laws and experiences a very low crime rate with the most crime ridden areas being gun free zones, why?
> 3-Crime rates in DC and Chicago decreased after the Supreme Court struck down the bans as unconstitutional, why did they drop or why did crime rates not sharply increase as some politicians prophesied? Why were these such crime ridden areas while the bans were in place?
> 4-Why did the crime rate (violent crime and property crime) hit a 49-year low in 2009 (clearly including lower rates than the time the ban was in place from 1994-2004), 5 years after the original gun ban expired, again contrary to politicians prophesying sharp crime rate increases?
> 5-Why did the CT incident include the shooting in a gun free zone? Why not at home or at any of numerous other places?
> 6-Have you heard of criminals having a hard time getting weapons? Do they do so legally? Which type of weapons did the Trolley Square shooter use? Which type of weapon did the Triad Center shooter use in 1999 (during the ban)?
> Draw your own conclusions! What did I miss?
Click to expand...

What you missed is 20 dead kindergartners. Explain why anyone "needs" an assault rifle and 30 round clip? Zombies, Helicopter Pig Hunting, Red Dawn?

An object that can cause massive death in short order should be banned to the general public.

Our society is **** up for any number of reasons and we have these young people who flip out and cause horrific carnage to others.

Your notes above are straight out of the NRA talking points. Answer "how would a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips harm your right to have arms"? And don't give me that slippery slope crap. When the NRA supported ban on machine guns in 1932 the government didn't go after other weapons.

Spend a little time at Lee Kay and see the type of people who have assault rifles. Gangsta's, Minuteman Members, Racists in Denial Talking About That #$%#$^ Black President Gonna Get My Guns, and Scariest of all some nerds who probably play Black Ops 22 hours per day and have killed 1000's in the last week in their virtual world.

Give up the pathetic justification and arguments to have these weapons in the public.


----------



## MadHunter

Dukes_Daddy said:


> NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons. Wrong way to look at it. This tells me you agree with banning sodas larger than 16oz. No need for them.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall. Wrong way to view it again. Its about principals and you sir are too willing to surrender them in the name of false security. Would you ban free speech in certain cases like when it critiques religious figures and causes revolt or conflict?
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is. I dont watch south park or know about it but you should know sir that the gun grabber agenda will not stop until all guns are banned. You should lookup "How to trap a wild pig"
> 
> NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.


I don't agree with rebel that you should be smacked. I do however think you have a flawed criteria and should re-analyze it.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I have never read such horse shiz........you should be smacked dukes daddy!! Im appalled!!


You know who I'm most pissed off at with this shooting? The kids mom.

Based on what is in the press the kid had obvious mental and emotional problems. I would hope as a mother you would keep dangerous things away from your kids if you saw they had emotional and mental problems. A WalMart locking gun box or cheap assed trigger lock would have prevented this mass murder and 20 kids would be looking forward to Santa.

Then my mind wonders if the kid was bullied and if that was the root of his issue. He was also a child of divorce and god knows that can mess kids up. That makes me sad at our society and our lack of social structure and support for kids and families. The poor little 14 year old boy who committed suicide recently could have just as easily shot up the school after being bullied. God bless these poor kids and somehow we need to take care of the vulnerable and people on the fringes.

We can't fix these problems so we have no good option except keep murder weapons away from them.

p.s You must be a pretty good dude if you like Cash.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

MadHunter said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons. Wrong way to look at it. This tells me you agree with banning sodas larger than 16oz. No need for them.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall. Wrong way to view it again. Its about principals and you sir are too willing to surrender them in the name of false security. Would you ban free speech in certain cases like when it critiques religious figures and causes revolt or conflict?
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** up the world is. I dont watch south park or know about it but you should know sir that the gun grabber agenda will not stop until all guns are banned. You should lookup "How to trap a wild pig"
> 
> NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with rebel that you should be smacked. I do however think you have a flawed criteria and should re-analyze it.
Click to expand...

Doc Holiday Icon + Lehi = No hope of normal thought. You are really going to compare a soft drink. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## .45

Cooky said:


> If you aren't already a member now is a good time. They are the best voice we have. Don't think your deer rifles are safe.


I wouldn't join any organization or do anything Cooky. Our government will make the right choice for us...don't worry about it. It's better to lay down and just ignore it all, like some of the guys on this forum.... :roll: :roll:


----------



## Springville Shooter

Dukes-Daddy,
I respectfully disagree with your overall position and many of your arguements. I believe that it is this type of bleeding-heart, knee-jerk reaction that defines the overall weakness of thought and resolve that prevails in our society. Look past your first little emotional thoughts,(the same one's that I had when I first heard the news), and try to logically think of a solution that will actually mitigate the situation and not just placate your sad feelings. Like it or not, gun control will do nothing to prevent these types of crimes. It is a societal problem. Use your brain power for something more beneficial than spewing anti-gun rhetoric on a site dominated by those who passionately embrace the right to bear arms. Have you even considered any other options? I can definately think of a few that have much higher prospects than some phony-ballony ban on AR-15 sporting rifles that only the righteous will obey.---SS


----------



## BPturkeys

First off this is NOT a "criminal" problem! Rarely if ever have the perpetrators been "criminals". The perpetrators ways have mental or social illness problems. The discussions should all be aimed at defining and solving these problems. 
As far as more "gun control" laws...they will simply change nothing in the mental illness genre.
Now if we are talking "criminal problems", I firmly believe that until we close certain gun purchase loop holes...and only an idiot can't see the gunshow loophole is real...criminals buying guns will continue.


----------



## DallanC

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You know who I'm most **** off at with this shooting? The kids mom.
> 
> Based on what is in the press the kid had obvious mental and emotional problems. I would hope as a mother you would keep dangerous things away from your kids if you saw they had emotional and mental problems. A WalMart locking gun box or cheap assed trigger lock would have prevented this mass murder and 20 kids would be looking forward to Santa.


You have NO idea what went on there. Do you EVER use your guns or do you keep them locked up 100% of the time? SHE WAS MURDERED. She could have gotten them out of a safe for a 100% legal trip to the shooting range when she was overcome and MURDERED. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA if she kept the guns locked up most of the time.

Rediculous... sheesh.

-DallanC


----------



## bowgy

A lot of knee-jerk emotional reaction throughout the country :roll:


----------



## Moostickles

Dukes_Daddy said:


> NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how f%&*# up the world is.
> 
> NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.


Let me ask you this: What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It's not to support hunting, gun enthusiasts and target shooters, its purpose is to prevent tyranny. Therefore law-abiding citizens should have access to the same firearms the military and police have.

If you disagree, look at it this way, in the Revolutionary War, what would have happened if the colonists only had bows and arrows and the Royal Army had their muskets? We would have lost, and would still be under that government power today. Because our side had the same weaponry as the offense, we were able to overcome tyranny. Now fast forward to today: If the citizens only have bolt action rifles and hand guns, they would have no power to defend themselves against a military that has "assault rifles," or any automatic/semi-automatic rifle with higher capacity detachable magazines.


----------



## Dodger

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is.


Are you familiar with the saying that goes "in the world of the blind, the man with one eye is king?"

Taking "assault" weapons away from the public only invites those that don't care about the law to use them MORE than they do now. The public not only needs these weapons to level the playing field, I and many others claim a RIGHT endowed upon us by God to own and use these guns in defense of myself, ourselves, my family, and our families. I withdraw my consent to be governed when the government forces me to use a single action revolver against a man who intends to do harm with an AR-15. Therefore, I demand to exercise my right to use means of similar force and power to defend myself against men who have access and always will have access to that kind of weaponry.

That's how **** up the world is. But, we don't un-**** it up by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that bad people don't have these weapons and won't continue to get these weapons if good people aren't allowed to have them.

If shooting is about "fun" for you, you missed the point. If you don't think the far-left wants to ban all guns, you're not paying attention. If you won't stand up for your rights under the constitution, you're a coward. And, if you think the world is **** up because good people have guns, you're insane.


----------



## bowgy

He killed less than 30 with what I am assuming was a 30 round magazine in a Bushmaster AR-15, He had with him two 9 mm pistols, now my 9mm holds 18 rounds, that is 36 rounds, yes the AR is more efficient but at close range with non combative targets he could have done just as much damage with the pistols in just about the same amount of time. And magazines are easy to chang.

Like I said, emotions are running high and seems to be taking over logical thinking. It is not the weapon it is the operator and what his problems are. In China they did a similar thing with a blade, elementary kids can't give too much of a fight to a 20 year old .....(man)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Just a thought and not an opinion relating to the 2nd amendment, but I handful of AR-15s isn't going to stop any modern government, especially not ours. Unfortunately, arms being an effective method against a tyrannical government went out the window sometime ago, IMO.


----------



## Moostickles

Dodger said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** up the world is.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the saying that goes "in the world of the blind, the man with one eye is king?"
> 
> Taking "assault" weapons away from the public only invites those that don't care about the law to use them MORE than they do now. The public not only needs these weapons to level the playing field, I and many others claim a RIGHT endowed upon us by God to own and use these guns in defense of myself, ourselves, my family, and our families. I withdraw my consent to be governed when the government forces me to use a single action revolver against a man who intends to do harm with an AR-15. Therefore, I demand to exercise my right to use means of similar force and power to defend myself against men who have access and always will have access to that kind of weaponry.
> 
> That's how **** up the world is. But, we don't un-**** it up by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that bad people don't have these weapons and won't continue to get these weapons if good people aren't allowed to have them.
> 
> If shooting is about "fun" for you, you missed the point. If you don't think the far-left wants to ban all guns, you're not paying attention. If you won't stand up for your rights under the constitution, you're a coward. And, if you think the world is **** because good people have guns, you're insane.
Click to expand...

Where's the "Like" button?


----------



## Bax*

Even if ARs, AKs, etc were banned. There are enough of them floating around the general population at this point that it will take YEARS and YEARS for them to go away. Unless the Federal Government offers a legitimate tax credit of the true value of the firearm that will genuinely motivate people to turn them in, these kinds of rifles will be around for a very long time. We may not see them as common place anymore, but they will still be around.

Just sayin'


----------



## bowgy

> Tree wrote:Just a thought and not an opinion relating to the 2nd amendment, but I handful of AR-15s isn't going to stop any modern government, especially not ours. Unfortunately, arms being an effective method against a tyrannical government went out the window sometime ago, IMO.


Yep, but look what a few thousand AK47s have done against our military in Afghanistan.

Also if the bad guys have them I want to have them for protection.


----------



## Mojo1

Giving in to fear and letting the government reduce your rights is how liberty ends. 20 or 2000 dead kids won't budge me from that stance. 
They don't want to address the real issues in this country, they just want to pursue their liberal agenda.


----------



## Dodger

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Just a thought and not an opinion relating to the 2nd amendment, but I handful of AR-15s isn't going to stop any modern government, especially not ours. Unfortunately, arms being an effective method against a tyrannical government went out the window sometime ago, IMO.


I disagree Tree. While those who would take their ARs against an army of M16s would likely lose, you don't have to win a battle to win a war.

I also believe that a tyrannical government in the United States would have a hard time raising an army. It wouldn't be the people against the USMC. It would be the people and the USMC against the parts of the USMC that were loyal to the tyrant. In other words, when the South broke from the North in 1860, the United States still had armories in the South. Those guns don't just disappear because people have AR-15s at home too.

In the meantime, if that fighting goes on, I have a right to be able to protect myself with arms similar to those that people with evil intentions will have.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Dodger said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought and not an opinion relating to the 2nd amendment, but I handful of AR-15s isn't going to stop any modern government, especially not ours. Unfortunately, arms being an effective method against a tyrannical government went out the window sometime ago, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree Tree. While those who would take their ARs against an army of M16s would likely lose, you don't have to win a battle to win a war.
> 
> I also believe that a tyrannical government in the United States would have a hard time raising an army. It wouldn't be the people against the USMC. It would be the people and the USMC against the parts of the USMC that were loyal to the tyrant. In other words, when the South broke from the North in 1860, the United States still had armories in the South. Those guns don't just disappear because people have AR-15s at home too.
> 
> In the meantime, if that fighting goes on, I have a right to be able to protect myself with arms similar to those that people with evil intentions will have.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I was thinking more along the lines of apache helicopters........


----------



## bowgy

> I see your point, but I was thinking more along the lines of apache helicopters........


What I see in Dogers point is that the military and exmilitary have sworn an oath to the constitution, not to a tyrant, therefore if it comes down to it thoses defending the constitution will have apache pilots, F series fighter pilots, marines, gi's, seals, etc. etc.
It won't be just you and joe the plumber from down the street.


----------



## bowgy

[youtubecpkxh9g]http://www.youtube.com/v/L0ROpalu-6E?hl=en_US&version=3[/youtubecpkxh9g]


----------



## Chaser

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Spend a little time at Lee Kay and see the type of people who have assault rifles. Gangsta's, Minuteman Members, Racists in Denial Talking About That #$%#$^ Black President Gonna Get My Guns, and Scariest of all some nerds who probably play Black Ops 22 hours per day and have killed 1000's in the last week in their virtual world.


I don't appreciate your generalizations. I am not a "gangsta", a Minuteman, a racist, or a nerd. I do not play video games. There was a time I did not see the need for "civilians" to own an AR-15. However, after shooting one, I really enjoyed it. I liked that they are so customizable. I liked that they are low-recoil, and accurate. I liked that it gave me the ability to own an arm that would allow me to protect myself and my family in the event of a catastrophe, and actually have a fighting chance should I come under attack. I don't know what kind of catastrophe that might be, and I don't know for sure that it would definitively occur. I don't know for sure that if it did occur that someone would attack me. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW, is that it helps level the playing field. I did not replace my hunting arms with an AR-15. I simply added a tool to my armory to help me be prepared. I'll be damned if someone is going to take away my security, and I don't appreciate you or anyone else telling me what I do and don't need to feel safe. You won't tell me I can't stock up on food in the event that someday I might need it, and you won't tell me I can't protect that supply either.


----------



## Bax*

Instead of making attacks on eachother, making generalizations, and arguing what reason an individual has for wanting a specific firearm. I think it would be more constructive to discuss the issue rather than pointing fingers


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons. 

How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week? 

Even Reagan supported the assault weapons ban in 1996. Reasonable control on dangerous items is a responsibility our government performs every day and it's time for assault weapons to be banned.


----------



## Bax*

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons.
> 
> How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week?
> 
> Even Reagan supported the assault weapons ban in 1996. Reasonable control on dangerous items is a responsibility our government performs every day and it's time for assault weapons to be banned.


Its hard for us to justify a limit on a right to keep and bear arms. By limiting one right in some way, it opens the door to limit other rights guaranteed to us.

Assault weapons really aren't the heart of our concern. The concern is if we concede to allow this right to be limited, are we going to allow our freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc to be limited in some way?

Funny thing is, I personally dont have a great appeal for "assault weapons" but I recognize that by allowing their use to become limited is essentially opening a gateway to limit our Second Amendment rights all together.

What people are failing to see is that by allowing one right to be manipulated, this opens the door to manipulate another separate but equally valuable Constitutional Right.

I recently heard someone belittle the Constitution and said something to the effect of: "it [the Constitution] was written for a different time and really has no meaning today." Blasphemy! That person should be shot and hung from the pinnacles of the City and County Building downtown! The Constitution was written for the entire existence of the United States. Men are and always will be subject to their own weaknesses for power and money. And if they can subdue to masses for personal gain, they will if they can figure out a way to subdue the masses. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were saying and meant exactly what they said. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar.

Its sad that our country has come to this point where our most fundamental rights as citizens are being threatened by people that obviously dont understand or appreciate the Constitution.

I would rant like this for every single right that my ancestors fought for. Shouldn't we all?

This being said: it is a tragedy that these thing happen. And we should look at the full causes of these horrific events instead of jumping to conclusions immediately and forming lynch mobs. Well then, the next thing that people say is: "well studies show this...." Well, since this is a study that you are referencing to prove a point, you are showing a research bias. Pro-gunners and Anti-gunners alike do this all the time. What needs to be done is unbiased research into this topic. A researcher must not have a personal agenda and be willing to look at ALL avenues and whatever road they may lead to. Then, and only then can a true conclusion be reached.

If the conclusion is that assault weapons are bad because of "x" then we can't really refute that. But if the result comes back that homicides occur because of "y" then we can't argue that point either. But the problem is, there will ALWAYS be an agenda. Men are fallible and will put their own interests at the forefront of their politics. That is the way things are done, the way they have always been done, and the way things will continue to be. And this is why we as gun owners are terrified of those individuals that can subdue the masses by slipping in a little poison here and there.

Read the Tragedy at Rayad story ( http://margiesmessages.com/tragedy.htm ) and see what could happen if we start breaking down the values that we once held dear in America and then tell me why we aren't still the greatest country on earth. No single politician is stupid enough to just out right put a stop to a single right we have... but they are just smart enough to know that they can limit them little by little until all of our once valued freedoms are gone.

This is why 2nd Amendment proponents are holding their ground. If they don't, will you when your rights are questioned?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons.
> 
> How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week?
> 
> Even Reagan supported the assault weapons ban in 1996. Reasonable control on dangerous items is a responsibility our government performs every day and it's time for assault weapons to be banned.


You seriously, no BS, think that an assault weapons ban will help stop mass killings??

Jesus......god help you....... :|


----------



## 35whelen

I agree bax. it's a slippery slope, and it opens the door for our rights to be wittled down over the decades. it wont stop with assault weapons ban, there will always be something that is demonized after it is misused by criminals. remember Black Talons? winchester eventually pulled them and renamed them and you never heard about the "cop killer" bullets again. But the clinton assault weapons ban was in effect and they started going after ammo. There was even a dateline or 20/20 about "Black Rhino" ammo shooting through kevlar vests, and that ammo never existed. There are so many things we need to look at before guns. There is a problem with mass shootings in america, but the availability of guns has not increased over the years. some other factors are at play here. we need to protect our rights as best we can. it was the founding father's intention to ensure the populace was armed. every dictator disarms the people. not saying that's what obama is doing, but alot of bans could be and restrictions can happen in 50 years or so, and who knows what our government and laws will be like, let alone who will be in office. if you dont mess with the constitution it ensures that no matter what happens the people remain citizens and not subjects. that said, i wish we could live in a world where we didn't have to be afraid of losing our children to this type of thing, but we do and that's terrible.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

> *"They who can give up essential liberty
> to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin*


There is plenty of room in France, Dukes Daddy...... :mrgreen:


----------



## Dodger

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons.
> 
> How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week?


You don't see a legitimate need because you refuse to see it.

I wouldn't blame an assault weapon if it was my kid any more than I'd blame an army recruiter if my kid was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only thing you can do to someone who has decided to kill is to prevent him from killing as many people as he had hoped. If he has an illegal AK, and you're stuck with a knife or a single action revolver, he will kill until the police show up 10 minutes later with arms that can actually be used to fight back. That's why the cops in CA have M16s now. They weren't big fans of stopping mass shootings with 9mms.

If the cops need "assault" weapons to defend the public against bad people with "assault" weapons, why don't I need them to defend my home against the same bad people?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

See notes in CAPS. Not screaming.



Bax* said:


> Dukes_Daddy":3f8nawxk]Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons.
> How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week?
> Even Reagan supported the assault weapons ban in 1996. Reasonable control on dangerous items is a responsibility our government performs every day and it's time for assault weapons to be banned.[/quote]
> Its hard for us to justify a limit on a right to keep and bear arms. By limiting one right in some way said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries[/URL][/color]
> 
> This is why 2nd Amendment proponents are holding their ground. If they don't, will you when your rights are questioned?[/quote:3f8nawxk]
Click to expand...


----------



## Cooky

That we can’t agree on some basics, as anonymous guys on a little outdoors forum in Utah, shows the challenge the leaders of the nation have. They have pressures from every angle and know that what they say will be published, scrutinized and tallied by hundreds of special interest groups and action committees. They don’t have the luxury of sitting in their easy chair pontificating on a laptop with no repercussion. I hope they are smarter than we are.


----------



## Bax*

Dukes_Daddy,

I think you are doing a good job of playing Devil's Advocate here. 

Regarding my reference to the Tragedy at Rayad, yes that is a fictional story I am using to illustrate as a parable to how things work in America. And I would gladly quote Dr Seuss if I could use an analogy from his stories. But the point of my using that story is that there is the potential to use political influence for good and evil. Americans are no stranger to slow poisoning, and if we all take a look back at out lives we will see the slow degradation of society as a whole as the media has slowly made us more accepting of topics, themes, images, etc that if shown to an individual living 50 years ago would appall them to the very core... but we are becoming numb to the very thought of these things. And this can be the case if we allow others to potentially mitigate certain rights within the political realm. I know you are going to use the Boogy Man claim on this, and I genuinely hope you are right and I am wrong. But what if I am right? What if rights are slowly whittled away? What if the checks and balances are skewed by political alliances (you can't say there isn't some quid pro quo going on for nominating a Supreme Court Justice). In an ideal world these arguments would be null and void, but we are human and subject to greed and coercion...... good grief I wish that we never even needed to start this thread. Its sad that a horrible scenario like this happened and that suddenly we are blaming things in a knee jerk reaction. 

It is my hope and prayer that this new panel that has been formed will find a solution that isnt a superficial one


----------



## elkfromabove

So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?


----------



## Bscuderi

Moostickles said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA supported passage of the 1934 NFA banning automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns. Reasonable!
> 
> NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is.
> 
> NRA appreciated "reasonable" during the gangster age and supported the ban of tommy guns and BARs.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this: What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It's not to support hunting, gun enthusiasts and target shooters, its purpose is to prevent tyranny. Therefore law-abiding citizens should have access to the same firearms the military and police have.
> 
> If you disagree, look at it this way, in the Revolutionary War, what would have happened if the colonists only had bows and arrows and the Royal Army had their muskets? We would have lost, and would still be under that government power today. Because our side had the same weaponry as the offense, we were able to overcome tyranny. Now fast forward to today: If the citizens only have bolt action rifles and hand guns, they would have no power to defend themselves against a military that has "assault rifles," or any automatic/semi-automatic rifle with higher capacity detachable magazines.
Click to expand...

You hit it right on the head!!! And for the stupid argument that the constitution is outdated and our founding fathers would want change it. Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." You tell me how he would feel about this government control. I believe we are getting closer and closer to the day we might have to take or corrupt government back is a scary world. The best we can do is not make brash decisions because emotions are involved.


----------



## MadHunter

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Doc Holiday Icon + Lehi = No hope of normal thought. You are really going to compare a soft drink. :lol: :lol: :lol:


If you really think it's about the softdrink you are even blinder than I thought. It's a matter of principal and if you can't see that then you have none.


----------



## GaryFish

elkfromabove said:


> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?


That is a very good question, and one I have been sincerely trying to reconcile in my mind. My first thought is that it would be a gun specifically designed for defense against a human attacker. A typical assault weapon to me, is probably portable, easy to handle, easy to load and cycle ammo, and if fired accurately, the round has enough destructive force to prevent an attacker from furthering their attack towards me. And it has been designed in both form, choice of materials, and chambering to meet all these demands.

So I as read that back to myself, that could describe my remington 870 pump shotgun. It could describe a semiauto handgun. It could describe a revolver. It could describe and AR-15 style rifle. It could describe my bolt action 30-06 which really is a military action! So really, to me, every gun can be an assault weapon. But for this - it becomes an assault weapon when used to assault another person. Until then, it is a weapon. Just as a lead pipe can be an assault weapon if used to assault another person - until then, it is just a lead pipe.

I don't have a reason to ban someone from owning one, aside from convicted felons - people who have demonstrated that they should not be trusted with weapons of any kind.


----------



## Huntoholic

If find it interesting that those calling for an "assault weapons" bad cannot tell me what the difference between what they are calling "assault weapons" and a Ruger 10/22 or a semi-auto shotgun.

So I ask any person to please explain the difference that would justify a ban based on this one point.


----------



## GaryFish

Huntololic - you are leading me to one point I have been turning over and over in my head - In the hands of an assailant, all guns are assault weapons, be it AK-47, or Ruger 10/22, or 50 caliber Hawken.


----------



## Huntoholic

GaryFish said:


> Huntololic - you are leading me to one point I have been turning over and over in my head - In the hands of an assailant, all guns are assault weapons, be it AK-47, or Ruger 10/22, or 50 caliber Hawken.


All I know is that when I strip all the emotion from this issue is this, the only difference between an AK, AR, 10/22, and/or any other Semi-Auto firearm is the outside package. To talk about a ban of one and not the other makes a lame case. And if part of the list is banned, it is not hard to see that the others will follow.


----------



## Cooky

Huntoholic said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntololic - you are leading me to one point I have been turning over and over in my head - In the hands of an assailant, all guns are assault weapons, be it AK-47, or Ruger 10/22, or 50 caliber Hawken.
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is that when I strip all the emotion from this issue is this, the only difference between an AK, AR, 10/22, and/or any other Semi-Auto firearm is the outside package. To talk about a ban of one and not the other makes a lame case. And if part of the list is banned, it is not hard to see that the others will follow.
Click to expand...

To make it easy you just pick a label, better yet one that was that was self applied "Tactical" for instance. I hope they don't outlaw my 5.11 pants.


----------



## elkfromabove

Cooky said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntololic - you are leading me to one point I have been turning over and over in my head - In the hands of an assailant, all guns are assault weapons, be it AK-47, or Ruger 10/22, or 50 caliber Hawken.
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is that when I strip all the emotion from this issue is this, the only difference between an AK, AR, 10/22, and/or any other Semi-Auto firearm is the outside package. To talk about a ban of one and not the other makes a lame case. And if part of the list is banned, it is not hard to see that the others will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To make it easy you just pick a label, better yet one that was that was self applied "Tactical" for instance. I hope they don't outlaw my 5.11 pants.
Click to expand...

So, my inherited Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster .308 semi-automatic that my dear departed father bought sometime back in the 50's or 60's for deer hunting could now become an "assault weapon" if Biden and Co. labels it as such? And the $700 that I spent to have it refurbished/repaired goes down the tubes if I have to give it up? Shucks! It's too bad I'll probably "misplace" it sometime in the near future in order not to become a criminal!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Huntoholic said:


> If find it interesting that those calling for an "assault weapons" bad cannot tell me what the difference between what they are calling "assault weapons" and a Ruger 10/22 or a semi-auto shotgun.
> 
> So I ask any person to please explain the difference that would justify a ban based on this one point.


They look dangerous and mean..... that's the difference...... :lol:


----------



## elkfromabove

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If find it interesting that those calling for an "assault weapons" bad cannot tell me what the difference between what they are calling "assault weapons" and a Ruger 10/22 or a semi-auto shotgun.
> 
> So I ask any person to please explain the difference that would justify a ban based on this one point.
> 
> 
> 
> They look dangerous and mean..... that's the difference...... :lol:
Click to expand...

So, let's just paint them a soft pastel and put flower decals on them!


----------



## Huntoholic

elkfromabove said:


> ntrl_brn_rebel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If find it interesting that those calling for an "assault weapons" bad cannot tell me what the difference between what they are calling "assault weapons" and a Ruger 10/22 or a semi-auto shotgun.
> 
> So I ask any person to please explain the difference that would justify a ban based on this one point.
> 
> 
> 
> They look dangerous and mean..... that's the difference...... :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let's just paint them a soft pastel and put flower decals on them!
Click to expand...

And there you now have a compromise. Let's move on...........


----------



## MadHunter

Assault weapons are whatever the people making policy want them to be. The irony of the whole thing is that we have people with no gun knowledge whatsoever making gun policy. For example.. in Calif. a rifle with a thumbhole stock is considered an assult weapon, *yes even a 10/22*. the only way you can have a thumbhole stock is if you put it on a single shot action.

FYI the hypocracy of the left: Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a CCW holder in the state of California. But you shouldn't according to her politics


----------



## elkfromabove

MadHunter said:


> Assault weapons are whatever the people making policy want them to be. The irony of the whole thing is that we have people with no gun knowledge whatsoever making gun policy. For example.. in Calif. a rifle with a thumbhole stock is considered an assult weapon, *yes even a 10/22*. the only way you can have a thumbhole stock is if you put it on a single shot action.
> 
> FYI the hypocracy of the left: Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a CCW holder in the state of California. But you shouldn't according to her politics


So, the camo Howa Axiom bolt action .308 that has an adjustable, low recoil, thumbhole stock that I was thinking about buying for my growing grandkids might be an "assault weapon" if Feinstein has any clout in Biden & Co.?


----------



## Moostickles

elkfromabove said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assault weapons are whatever the people making policy want them to be. The irony of the whole thing is that we have people with no gun knowledge whatsoever making gun policy. For example.. in Calif. a rifle with a thumbhole stock is considered an assult weapon, *yes even a 10/22*. the only way you can have a thumbhole stock is if you put it on a single shot action.
> 
> FYI the hypocracy of the left: Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a CCW holder in the state of California. But you shouldn't according to her politics
> 
> 
> 
> So, the camo Howa Axiom bolt action .308 that has an adjustable, low recoil, thumbhole stock that I was thinking about buying for my growing grandkids might be an "assault weapon" if Feinstein has any clout in Biden & Co.?
Click to expand...

If Feinstein has anything to do with it, your .22 Cricket and Red Ryder BB-gun might be an "assault weapon."


----------



## hossblur

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Still waiting for a legitimate "need" for people to have assault weapons.
> 
> How many of you would change position if your child was killed last week?
> 
> Even Reagan supported the assault weapons ban in 1996. Reasonable control on dangerous items is a responsibility our government performs every day and it's time for assault weapons to be banned.


I have a drum magazine on my 10/22 is it an assault rifle? I also have a British .303, is it an assault rifle, it was built exclusively for a war. So if assault rifles were banned this dude( I won't use his name and make him famous) would be home eating a sandwich today? If he used a lever action 30-30 and only killed 7 kids it would be ok? If he used a muzzleloader, with the cops 5 minutes away we could have killed 7-8 kids, so that is ok? If the ar didn't have a collapsable stock and a 10 shot clip it would have been ok? What is and assault rifle? is a wood stocked mini 14? How about rugers new .308? Is the browning bar? Is my weatherby semi auto 20 guage? Its black and plastic. Who decided reasonable? I think its reasonable for all furniture and toilets be made to fit guys 6'5 and bigger, but then I am 6'5 so I guess my reasonable is better than yours?


----------



## DallanC

From the time he entered the school until he kill himself was 30 minutes. it took TWENTY minutes for the police to arrive on scene. You could use a single shot shogun and kill over 1 person a minute in that amount of time.

The type of gun did not matter.


-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73

DallanC said:


> From the time he entered the school until he kill himself was 30 minutes. it took TWENTY minutes for the police to arrive on scene. You could use a single shot shogun and kill over 1 person a minute in that amount of time.
> 
> The type of gun did not matter.
> 
> -DallanC


I completely agree. He could have used a stick in that's. Amount of time.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Back to the original point of this thread, I think that "Join the NRA" is a great idea after listening to Mr. LaPierre. Sad when the CEO of a political lobbiest group offers a better solution than the president and congress of the United States. While not a perfect solution, it stands a hell of a lot better chance of preventing this type of thing than taking guns away from those who obey the law.--------SS


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

elkfromabove said:


> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?


Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.

The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute. I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.


----------



## Springville Shooter

So Dukes Daddy, 
You are really going to take the position that armed presence is unreasonable in comparison to trampling the rights of MILLIONS of law-abiding citizens? News flash.......many schools have had guards or police presence for a long time. I graduated in 1993 and there was always a Sheriff's substation at my school. By 1992, there was a full-time officer who worked at the school. He was cool and did all sorts of activities including drug abuse awareness and drunk driving prevention. We all liked him and noone cared that he had a gun at school. He actually got to know us and felt like a natural part of the school. Yes, this does sound so unreasonable. Sorry, but your position is precarious my friend. In my opinion, we don't even need the second amendment to justify gun ownership, the simple principle of the "pursuit of happiness" should cover it quite nicely. Remember that this is a principle that this country was founded on. I stand behind the NRA's position 100%. Here's a challenge for you.......give me a logical argument that bans will work better than security presence in preventing futher violence. Bet you an AR-15 that you can't!!!-----SS


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.


 :lol:

You better move out of Utah!! There has been officers in schools for a LONG TIME!!


----------



## Mojo1

Dukes_Daddy said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"
> 
> "Who" exactly is Websters??? More than likely a liberal and or a foreigner.
> 
> The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.
> 
> It's a free country, move to a society that fits your view, if you can find one.
> 
> The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute. I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mojo1

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> [quote="Dukes_Daddy":37s37ohs] Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.


 :lol:

You better move out of Utah!! There has been officers in schools for a LONG TIME!![/quote:37s37ohs]

Lol, so true


----------



## MadHunter

Dukes_Daddy said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use" Wrong definition! Assault Weapon is a misnomer. It is given to weapons that to the ignorant person looks intimidating and dangerous. As a gun owner I will tell you that all weapons to me are intimidating and dangerous. That is why I handle them with respect and as safely as I can.
> 
> The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe. So far the NRA has brought up the only reasonabel position. If you didn't know it already, there have been armed officers in schools all over this country for a very long time now. Elementary schools are about the only schools that they are not at. We protect banks, airplanes, court houses, etc. Why not protect the institutions were we entrust our most precious resource, our children. I applaud the NRA for their position and for standing up by the principals it fights to protect. As such I would prefer my tax dollars go to armed guards at schools than lifetime welfare cases.
> 
> *The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute.* I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.
Click to expand...

What you have stated is blasphemy if I ever heard it. Every right and liberty that is outlined in the constitution IS ABSOLUTE. The constitution did not grant us those rights and liberties they were given to us by our creator(whichever one you believe in). They are the natural state of man.

The constitution is merely the document that guarantees us those rights and liberties. Thus the importance of the U.S. constitution to us as Americans and to the rest of humanity. It is the only document in the history of man kind that specifically protects and gurantees these rights and should be used as a model for other nations to follow. It is a timeless document who's ideals will never cease to exist in one way or another. As long as there are good and decent people in this world. No matter if it's a month from now or 50,000 years from now. It's ideals live in the human spirit.

You really need to check your bearing as a human being and as an American.


----------



## The Naturalist

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> *"They who can give up essential liberty
> to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin*
Click to expand...

I think Ben also said something about God making alcohol so we could be happy. 

I don't think I nescessarily believe that quote.....nor do I think the above quote about liberty and safety is entirely accurate. There are many instances where we have been mandated by law to give up a little liberty to acheive a little safety. Seat belts, child car seats, just to name a couple. I'm glad we have them, yet I don't feel I have lost any liberty because of them.

I don't personally have a need or desire for an assault rifle. I have no problem with anyone that feels they need or desire one. The question I think the country is trying to answer now is _how do we prevent would be mass murderers?_ This is like a disease and the quick remedy is to treat the symptoms of the disease by stricter gun control and tighter security in public places, but this does not cure the disease. I don't have the answer for the cure. There may not be one. So, until we can figure out the cure we may have to keep treating the symptoms.
I don't believe there should be a ban on assault weapons, but perhaps there can be some tightening up of how they are sold and traded.

I also don't believe dukes daddy deserves some of the criticism he has received for expressing his opinion. Disagreements are appropriate, but some have gone far beyond that. Its Christmas!!


----------



## Mojo1

The Naturalist said:


> [. Its Christmas!!


Not if the left can ever get their way and have it removed from our society!


----------



## AF CYN

The Naturalist said:


> The question I think the country is trying to answer now is how do we prevent would be mass murderers? This is like a disease and the quick remedy is to treat the symptoms of the disease by stricter gun control and tighter security in public places, but this does not cure the disease. I don't have the answer for the cure. There may not be one. So, until we can figure out the cure we may have to keep treating the symptoms.


I agree that this is not just a gun issue or security issue--it is a mental health, moral, cultural, entertainment, family issue.

The main concern I have with the NRA's proposal is it just isn't financially feasible. We recently added a police officer to my school (we share him with 6 others). It cost almost $100,000 (salary, benefits, vehicle). The district and city shared the costs. I doubt there are any districts or municipalities that could fund that on a large scale. At that rate, it would cost $7,000,000 just to add enough officers to cover all the schools in the Alpine District.

I also agree that folks could be a little more respectful of each other's opinions. We live in interesting, challenging times. It is unfortunate that we even have to debate this topic.


----------



## Wind In His Hair

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> [quote="Dukes_Daddy":13lzedyf] Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.


 :lol:

You better move out of Utah!! There has been officers in schools for a LONG TIME!![/quote:13lzedyf]

+1

Alta High, class of '97. We had them.


----------



## hossblur

Dukes_Daddy said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"
> 
> The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.
> 
> The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute. I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.
Click to expand...

Guess you don't get out much. Go to a jazz game what is that metal frame you pass through? Why do you take off you shoes at the airport? What is with all the cameras at the bank? Get real man. RC willeys has armed police at there furniture stores, why not schools? As for the cost, REALLY?? How many armed men are guarding schools in Afganistan, Iraq? We have tens of thousands "guarding" Europe from a Russian ground invasion as we speak. My sons school has all sorts of volunteers, I would bet there is at least one retired cop/soldier that would love to help out. As for the Bill of rights, I still find a lot of irony in the 1st ammendment being used to attack the second. I am sure the founders didn't envision a 24 hour new cycle either.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Springville Shooter said:


> So Dukes Daddy,
> Here's a challenge for you.......give me a logical argument that bans will work better than security presence in preventing futher violence. Bet you an AR-15 that you can't!!!-----SS


If they don't exist problem solved.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

The sad truth I see from the posts regarding assault weapons is a pathetic stance that the 2nd Amendment is gospel and you are blind to dead children.

NRA wants police in schools. Who will watch the malls, parks, movie theatres, stadiums?

I find it troubling that people who are obviously decent can't appreciate and understand that as a country we have allowed nuts to gain access to weapons that have zero needs beyond military or law enforcement.

Stupid and blind is a harsh judgement but it fits most of posts which repeatedly state worship of the 2nd Amendment as the argument against ban of assault weapons.

Look at these faces and then tell me if your pathetic need to worship the 2nd Amendment is more important than eliminating the tool that a nut used to kill these loved souls in 10 minutes. If so God Bless you because you are without normal human feeling and reasonable thought.

http://kdvr.com/2012/12/16/photos-remem ... g-victims/


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Mojo1 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"
> 
> "Who" exactly is Websters??? More than likely a liberal and or a foreigner. *It's called a dictionary! It's a book with words that explain what a word means. I understand your confusion. Words about words. Arggg*
> 
> The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.
> 
> It's a free country, move to a society that fits your view, if you can find one. Great one. Did grandpa tell you he used that one on the Vietnam protester in 68?
> 
> The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute. I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonetree

I'm with Dukes Daddy on this one. Running around planning for contingencies, rather than actually taking care of, and responsibility for, the society and culture you create and live in, is a kin to self slavery. Which most here are just fine with, because you think that by submitting to it on your own, and choosing it, its not slavery. Guess what, it IS. If you are afraid of dying, you are already dead. 

I do not carry 99% of the time, though I do pack with intent on occasion. The sickle, pitch fork, machete, knife, pen, and mind, are all "arms". Te arms need not be specific, though the cultures that rise from specific arms, do have specific consequences, like those from the sickle. No one is going to take away our guns wholesale, it will never happen. But at some point, somewhere, someone, has to take responsibility for the culture of civilized death. It lies at a lot of feet, and the black gun culture are a few of those. We can police our own ranks, or let someone else do it. 

I have lived through several shoot outs, drive bys, and one assassination attempt. But I refuse to live a life, where I cant leave the house without a security blanket, because someone might try to get me on the way to the store. You know the grocery store where they should have an armed guard. Police states are so "free" :roll: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I'm an anti-gun, liberal. One that has built over 100 rifles from raw chunks of steel, wood, and carbon fiber. One that has built class 3 firearms, and parts. One that has worked in the firearms industry on and off for 20 years. One that has several firearms designs under my belt, with one currently in production. One that builds and sells rifle barrels and parts for a living. The one that grew up in my grandfathers gunsmithing shop. Yep, thats me, the anti-gun, liberal. I think I'm going to have to side with Reagan, and his sentiments in 1994 on this one. 

Great quote from a friend, on another venue. Hes the last guy to pull me from gunfire. He wasn't even deployed at the time.

"I just went out and bought 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 assault rifles cause I'm smart......NOT! Jesus H Christ ******** calm the **** down. NO MORE assault rifles! OH NO WHATEVER SHALL I DO? Oh wait thats right Im not concerned cause the US Government will give me one and all the ammunition I need cause Ive been trained so no worries here. Want to shoot a military style rifle....join the ****in military. Quit bitchin about your rights and stand up for them. So sick and tired of people crying about what rifle they can or cant have. I dont have one cause I dont ****in need one. I have a bolt action rifle, a handgun, a .22 cal rifle, and a bolt action .22 rifle and guess what????? IVE NEVER used any in self defense. SO calm the **** down RETARDS"


Back to watching pink ribbons flutter in my neighborhood.


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Your notes above are straight out of the NRA talking points. Answer "how would a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips harm your right to have arms"? And don't give me that slippery slope crap. When the NRA supported ban on machine guns in 1932 the government didn't go after other weapons.
> 
> Spend a little time at Lee Kay and see the type of people who have assault rifles. Gangsta's, Minuteman Members, Racists in Denial Talking About That #$%#$^ Black President Gonna Get My Guns, and Scariest of all some nerds who probably play Black Ops 22 hours per day and have killed 1000's in the last week in their virtual world.
> 
> Give up the pathetic justification and arguments to have these weapons in the public.


So, first you sidestep all 6 questions by answering none of them and then use a high school debate technique of calling my own words someone else's, classic! Then, stereotype 5 different groups including calling the one group racist against group #1, how is that for irony? I feel kind of bad that I don't fit into any of them it was not disclosed on the background check that I needed to be one of those 5, but I can appreciate your bigotry. I spend a fair amount of time at the range and have never witnessed any of these mystical creatures you have imagined. AS long as you are denying facts this discussion goes nowhere as it has for the last 8 pages. So, any rhetoric about getting real is laughable. Just think of all of the incidents here and you will see that what is being targeted is useless, like a cosponsor of the original ban not being able to answer why a gun with a heat shield is dangerous, she did not even know what it was.
On to similar topics of other pointless Constitutional rights, would any of you mind if we just removed one of the following? Freedom of religion, press, speech (no more forums) search and seizure, speedy trial... Please just name one and that is all we will remove this year; I don't think you guys will even miss it and one may be able to make a halfway reasonable argument that by removing this right we may be safer even if the facts prove this claim to be false.


----------



## elkfromabove

Dukes_Daddy said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"
> 
> How about if we take a little longer and read what Wikipedia says?
> "Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. In common parlance, the term is used to describe any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing and intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle (a firearm with full-automatic capability). Unlike the term assault rifle, however, *the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition and is, therefore subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military firearms. * In the United States, there is a variety of statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes discribed as military-style features useful in combat. Using lists of specific physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
> 
> The NRA has lost credibility with their unreasonable positions and over the next several months you will see the American public demand some reasonable action. Now they recommend armed guards in schools. I refuse to live in a society that has to resort to extreme measures to keep the general public safe.
> 
> "Extreme measures"? When it comes to general public safety, it seems to me that all these shooters, unfortunately, have been the only ones willing to go to "extreme measures" and it has been tragic. Plus, I'm not sure what "reasonable actions" you're hoping for, but banning any firearms hasn't worked so far.
> 
> The Constitution is the basis for our rights and liberties but these are not absolute. I love that everyone has their favorite. Larry Flint was big on #1 to justify porn and slander. The second amendment already has limitations with bans on automatic and other types of military style weapons.
> 
> As has been stated, the Constitution is not the basis of our rights, it is the protection of those unalienable rights. And, yes, there are those who use that protection to try to harm or hurt others or to try to avoid the consequences of their actions, and that sometimes happens when people are free to make choices, but to whittle away at those protections, especially when there is no positive outcome from doing so, is foolish and dangerous to our individual liberties.
Click to expand...


----------



## bowgy

> Dukes wrote: Answer "how would a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips harm your right to have arms"?


This argument as far as the Newtown school shooting goes is ignorant at best.

As I stated on page 2 the news is reporting that he had 2 9mm pistols with him also, so for sake of argument the AR was banned and he didn't have it, 2 9mm pistols could do the same damage that he has done in the same amount of time to non combative soft targets at close range. He didn't need the AR he just happened to choose it for his tool of destruction, he had other tools that could have accomplished the same dirty deed if the AR was not available to him. :roll:


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> I'm with Dukes Daddy on this one.
> **** down RETARDS"
> 
> Back to watching pink ribbons flutter in my neighborhood.


 I did see a lot of asteriks, maybe the key to understanding it was hidden behind those symbols. Does that infer that you have no real facts, so you resort to name calling? Congratulations that you have built rifles, so you are now the constitutional expert or what was I supposed to understand from that? I did catch a self professed liberal using the R word...and I thought that was only used by uneducated teenagers, the very opposite of "liberal"?!

These discussions seem to be nothing more than those convinced against their will being of the same mind still, but now get to see it over 8 pages. Merry Christmas and may you sleep better knowing that the world is safer due to your efforts never mind that all you have really accomplished is taken legal weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. We need to start a new thread on how dangerous trucks are, so heavy and fast, no one really needs that much power, speed and efficiency; so many deaths...won't someone please think of the children? :mrgreen:


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your notes above are straight out of the NRA talking points. Answer "how would a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips harm your right to have arms"? And don't give me that slippery slope crap. When the NRA supported ban on machine guns in 1932 the government didn't go after other weapons.
> 
> Spend a little time at Lee Kay and see the type of people who have assault rifles. Gangsta's, Minuteman Members, Racists in Denial Talking About That #$%#$^ Black President Gonna Get My Guns, and Scariest of all some nerds who probably play Black Ops 22 hours per day and have killed 1000's in the last week in their virtual world.
> 
> Give up the pathetic justification and arguments to have these weapons in the public.
> 
> 
> 
> So, first you sidestep all 6 questions by answering none of them and then use a high school debate technique of calling my own words someone else's, classic! Then, stereotype 5 different groups including calling the one group racist against group #1, how is that for irony? I feel kind of bad that I don't fit into any of them it was not disclosed on the background check that I needed to be one of those 5, but I can appreciate your bigotry. I spend a fair amount of time at the range and have never witnessed any of these mystical creatures you have imagined.
> 
> 
> 
> Abnormal = normal when a group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AS long as you are denying facts this discussion goes nowhere as it has for the last 8 pages. [quote:3lj2t3by]My facts are the body counts against your position any limitation to weapons types will eliminate the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...

 So, any rhetoric about getting real is laughable. Just think of all of the incidents here and you will see that what is being targeted is useless, like a cosponsor of the original ban not being able to answer why a gun with a heat shield is dangerous, she did not even know what it was.
On to similar topics of other pointless Constitutional rights, would any of you mind if we just removed one of the following? Freedom of religion, press, speech (no more forums) search and seizure, speedy trial


> any limit or regulation to these freedoms voids them? Is that your point? You lack any understanding of current laws and statutes associated with each of them. 1st amendment has limits, search & seizure has rules that allow govt to enforce laws


... Please just name one and that is all we will remove this year; I don't think you guys will even miss it and one may be able to make a halfway reasonable argument that by removing this right we may be safer even if the facts prove this claim to be false.[/quote:3lj2t3by]


> boogie man is coming for my guns fear. Grow up


----------



## Lonetree

Little man 29

The pink ribbons in my neighborhood are for a 6 year old girl named Emily Parker, that was shot and killed at Sandy Hook elementary. Her grandparents live a few blocks from here, we went to school with her parents, and my brother is a life long friend of theirs. 

You, like several others on this board are a ****ing heartless, soulless, mindless, slave.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Dukes Daddy on this one.
> **** down RETARDS"
> 
> Back to watching pink ribbons flutter in my neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> I did see a lot of asteriks, maybe the key to understanding it was hidden behind those symbols. Does that infer that you have no real facts, so you resort to name calling? Congratulations that you have built rifles, so you are now the constitutional expert or what was I supposed to understand from that? I did catch a self professed liberal using the R word...and I thought that was only used by uneducated teenagers, the very opposite of uneducated?!
> 
> These discussions seem to be nothing more than those convinced against their will being of the same mind still, but now get to see it over 8 pages. Merry Christmas and may you sleep better knowing that the world is safer due to your efforts never mind that all you have really accomplished is taken legal weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> don't worry they will be fine unless the zombies attack enmass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to start a new thread on how dangerous trucks are, so heavy and fast, no one really needs that much power, speed and efficiency; so many deaths...won't someone please think of the children?[quote:1wh8rnxp]pathetic and sad you make light of 20 dead kids.
Click to expand...

 :mrgreen:[/quote:1wh8rnxp]


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> Little man 29
> 
> The pink ribbons in my neighborhood are for a 6 year old girl named Emily Parker, that was shot and killed at Sandy Hook elementary. Her grandparents live a few blocks from here, we went to school with her parents, and my brother is a life long friend of theirs.
> 
> You, like several others on this board are a **** heartless, soulless, mindless, slave.


I am very familiar with the story, clearly that is what brought up the discussion, clearly you are not in a state of mind to logically discuss the bigger picture, just like the NRA stated in that they did not comment for a time in respect for the families grieving process. What you have failed to realize is the fact that banning a type of firearm would not have avoided this incident and likely not even reduced to the number of victims. It is an absolute tragedy, one for which my heart bleeds for the Parker family and all of the others. I can not imagine what they are going through. However, what you support in no way changes what happened nor will change it from happening in the future. I don't mind your name calling, clearly if this experience struck home for you that is to be expected, maybe we can revisit the issue once emotions settle. On the same note, I don't think laws that restrict the second amendment should be passed with such haste either as this administration has been pushing for. I really have prayed for these families and I hope you are doing ok as well.


----------



## Lonetree

Huge29 said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little man 29
> 
> The pink ribbons in my neighborhood are for a 6 year old girl named Emily Parker, that was shot and killed at Sandy Hook elementary. Her grandparents live a few blocks from here, we went to school with her parents, and my brother is a life long friend of theirs.
> 
> You, like several others on this board are a **** heartless, soulless, mindless, slave.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very familiar with the story, clearly that is what brought up the discussion, clearly you are not in a state of mind to logically discuss the bigger picture, just like the NRA stated in that they did not comment for a time in respect for the families grieving process. What you have failed to realize is the fact that banning a type of firearm would not have avoided this incident and likely not even reduced to the number of victims. It is an absolute tragedy, one for which my heart bleeds for the Parker family and all of the others. I can not imagine what they are going through. However, what you support in no way changes what happened nor will change it from happening in the future. I don't mind your name calling, clearly if this experience struck home for you that is to be expected, maybe we can revisit the issue once emotions settle. On the same note, I don't think laws that restrict the second amendment should be passed with such haste either as this administration has been pushing for. I really have prayed for these families and I hope you are doing ok as well.
Click to expand...

You dont get it, thats fine, you cant think for yourself. Keep towing the line for your master. As for me being emotional, and illogical, BS, maybe philisophic, but nuance is obviously over your head. I kept quiet, longer than the NRA, so go **** yourself, you are so wrong right now, and you know it. A change in your tone means **** to me.

A Clinton style assault weapons ban will not stop assault weapons from killing kids, you are all correct in this. The part you fail to understand, because it is not within your ability to logically reason, or to see. Is that such an extreme ban, will over time, change percieved violent gun culture, and those that feed it. WE as gun owners, obviously have not been able to turn these cultural tides, mostly out of an unwillingness to self police, and to take seriously the great responsibility that comes with freedom. Much like the poachers among us. That is what is lacking in our modern cultural dysfunction. Just to be clear, I consider myself to be an independant. At one time in my life I voted republican, but sorry this is not the Reagan era, most repubs, are no longer conservatives, but rather liberaltarians, and neo-con lefty convert sheeple. Which is why I called you mindless. I called you soulless and heartless, for down playing the death of children, one specifically hen you quoted my post.

Nice wiggle, but you are low.


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> pathetic and sad you make light of 20 dead kids.


Not making light of any kids! Simply trying to get through your closed mind with a different illustration. There are those who do want to restrict the availability of SUV's due to safety concerns as being larger than cars, do you support that movement also? One could make the exact same argument you make in banning weapons to ban SUV's and in Utah alone there were 192 deaths in Utah through November of this year, so about 7 times the amount of families affected by these deaths than last Friday's. If you are really only concerned about your fellow man's safety cars are not even mentioned in the Constitution you could have an easy win as long as people don't mind giving up some freedoms. 
You keep bringing up zombies in an attempt to show that those who support the Constitution are the emotional crazies, yet all of the knee jerk high emotions reactions only come from those who seem to oppose the second amendment. This administration appears to want to move quickly to take advantage of the high emotions, yet I think we should do this carefully and collectively. I certainly don't want such an occurrence to re-occur, but I certainly don't know what all of the answers are. Clearly, those who have been deemed mentally unstable should not have free access to any weapons and that seems to be a common factor with many of these instances. We agree that something more can be done, but we have very different views in the guilt belonging to the tool vs. the user. These perps look for where they can kill many people with no opposition, you must agree on this one too since you did not reply to it. Clearly no one anecdotal account will cover all scenarios, but I think you agree too that more armed law abiding citizens will result in less mass shootings. 
A forum like this is probably not the best way to discuss such a topic, but I can appreciate your sentiment, we agree on more things than on things which we disagree. We do disagree on how we get to our same goal and I would like to agree with you on that, but then we would both be mistaken. :mrgreen: Merry Christmas, especially to the families of these victims, I can not begin to understand the pain of losing a child at such an age! May we all utilize our efforts to hopefully eliminate such things going foward.


----------



## Lonetree

As for the Constitutional arguement: The supreme court has been clear several times on regulation of firearms. Go look at '32, '68, and '94. It has also been clear about outright banns, look at 2010.

As for your Merry Christmas, I hope you burn.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

> Not making light of any kids! Simply trying to get through your closed mind with a different illustration. There are those who do want to restrict the availability of SUV's due to safety concerns as being larger than cars, do you support that movement also? One could make the exact same argument you make in banning weapons to ban SUV's and in Utah alone there were 192 deaths in Utah through November of this year, so about 7 times the amount of families affected by these deaths than last Friday's. If you are really only concerned about your fellow man's safety cars are not even mentioned in the Constitution you could have an easy win as long as people don't mind giving up some freedoms.
> You keep bringing up zombies in an attempt to show that those who support the Constitution are the emotional crazies, yet all of the knee jerk high emotions reactions only come from those who seem to oppose the second amendment. This administration appears to want to move quickly to take advantage of the high emotions, yet I think we should do this carefully and collectively. I certainly don't want such an occurrence to re-occur, but I certainly don't know what all of the answers are. Clearly, those who have been deemed mentally unstable should not have free access to any weapons and that seems to be a common factor with many of these instances. We agree that something more can be done, but we have very different views in the guilt belonging to the tool vs. the user. These perps look for where they can kill many people with no opposition, you must agree on this one too since you did not reply to it. Clearly no one anecdotal account will cover all scenarios, but I think you agree too that more armed law abiding citizens will result in less mass shootings.
> A forum like this is probably not the best way to discuss such a topic, but I can appreciate your sentiment, we agree on more things than on things which we disagree. We do disagree on how we get to our same goal and I would like to agree with you on that, but then we would both be mistaken. :mrgreen: Merry Christmas, especially to the families of these victims,





> Why not send them an assault rifle with 3 - 30 round clips to protect the rest of their children.


 I can not begin to understand the pain of losing a child at such an age! May we all utilize our efforts to hopefully eliminate such things going foward.[/quote]


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

> Great article


Article removed by Admin.

Please do not post copyrighted material in its entirety. Use a link. Thanks.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -73761529/


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> A Clinton style assault weapons ban will not stop assault weapons from killing kids, you are all correct in this. ....... that such an extreme ban, will over time, change *perceived* violent gun culture, and those that feed it.


It is good to see where you are coming from, unfortunately what you state above is only a theory and not reality from my research. The ban was from 1994-2004 (certainly plenty long to meet your "over time" requirement) and what were the results? Not perceived results or theoretical results or intended results, the real results are what I already mentioned on page 1, but please look at the results, I won't post a link as you will just discount it as biased, but please find your own as there are many. I thought the year 2009 stood out. Let's discuss this one point as I think it is the heart of the issue!


----------



## Lonetree

Huge29 said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Clinton style assault weapons ban will not stop assault weapons from killing kids, you are all correct in this. ....... that such an extreme ban, will over time, change *perceived* violent gun culture, and those that feed it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to see where you are coming from, unfortunately what you state above is only a theory and not reality from my research. The ban was from 1994-2004 (certainly plenty long to meet your "over time" requirement) and what were the results? Not perceived results or theoretical results or intended results, the real results are what I already mentioned on page 1, but please look at the results, I won't post a link as you will just discount it as biased, but please find your own as there are many. I thought the year 2009 stood out. Let's discuss this one point as I think it is the heart of the issue!
Click to expand...

Culture, is all about perception, real, imagined or otherwise. You can change culture from within, or it can happen other ways.


----------



## Lonetree

Troy

That judge must be a RINO just like Reagan


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Great article
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
> 
> http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -73761529/
Click to expand...

Interesting, that makes me think of a sincere question. This article mentions something thrown around about how the "original intent" was not to....high capacity, mass, fast, efficient..etc. So, why was the second amendment even put in there, what was the purpose/core intent? If we really want to know their intent and be sure to interpret correctly for our time, it seems like an important part of the discussion. I don't want to bias any answers, so I will leave it at a question.


----------



## Lonetree

:roll:


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> :roll:


 :roll: :roll: I just doubled yours!


----------



## Mojo1

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="Dukes_Daddy":3enx7b1m]
> 
> 
> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is an "assault weapon" and why should it be banned (or limited) from civilian ownership?
> 
> 
> 
> Websters took 2 seconds to define. "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"
> 
> "Who" exactly is Websters??? More than likely a liberal and or a foreigner. *It's called a dictionary! It's a book with words that explain what a word means. I understand your confusion. Words about words. Arggg*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/quote:3enx7b1m]

I bet you were the head of the class at Special Ed,

i was referring to who is writing that definition, where is he from, what is his background? and sadly now that politics have woven its way into everything, what is his agenda??? That's like believing everything you read on the Internet. They can't even agree on a definition in the gun control circles little alone in congress.

Nope grandpa was a WWII/Korea vet, but it's an applicable statement, you don't like it and want a gun control society, theres always Chicago and DC. Send your kids to school there and let us know how safe it is.


----------



## Lonetree

****ing mindless slaves.

:roll: :roll: :roll: 

I was raised by three generations of combat vets going back to WWI. And I have actually been in a gun fight.

Anectdotally or otherwise, you are wrong.


----------



## Lonetree




----------



## The Naturalist

Mojo1 said:


> The Naturalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. Its Christmas!!
> 
> 
> 
> Not if the left can ever get their way and have it removed from our society!
Click to expand...

Christmas is for all, left, right, atheists, tea partiers. All of the "lefties" I associate with love Christmas and enjoy sharing it with everyone.......so, sincerely, you have a very Merry Christmas Mojo.....from a lefty.


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> **** mindless slaves.
> 
> :roll: :roll: :roll:


Ok, you win on the smilies, but on the actual discussion... You use vulgarity and name calling since you have run out of logic, another example here; a slave is one without freedom, yet you propose we give away freedoms. Doesn't that mean you want slavery in a form and we are slaves because we support the Constitution and its freedoms? I admire your zeal to discuss a hot topic in a forum where your views are clearly outnumbered, but ... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## wyogoob

This is an important issue, worthy of debate but we need to tone down the rhetoric some. Please no name calling or vulgarity. Follow the UWN rules please.

Lonetree has taken a timeout.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Slaves to ideologies maybe? Slaves to rightness? Slaves to information that's intended for leverage and gain? Slaves to prideful thinking? I'm talking about all of us to some degree. we've all got to choose our sources and none are without bias. Add our own personal bias when interpreting the information from several sources and it all be becomes crystal cle..... murky as mud and tainted by all of the wonderful characteristics of the human ego and it's need to be right. 

I'm talking about me. I'll let everyone else critique themselves. It's a big enough task figuring our own selves out, much less having the equipment or time to figure out someone else's perspectives and Id driven opinions. 

Merry Christmas, everyone. Love those around you and be happy.


----------



## bowgy

> This is an important issue, worthy of debate but we need to tone down the rhetoric some. Please no name calling or vulgarity. Follow the UWN rules please.


That's ok, anyone that has to resort to this is not taken seriously anyway and their argument is mute.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I think Treehugnhunter makes a great point. This is a very senitive issue and for that reason it's easy to digress when passions are flaming. Inward is the first place to look when one recognizes a problem. I appreciate the ability to have discussion and hope that we can continue. Good ideas come out once in a while and consideration of the issues is beneficial to all. Hope each can take a short respite from all the negativity and embrace family and friends for a bit this season. I'm going to do my best.--------SS


----------



## Mojo1

The Naturalist said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="The Naturalist":rct8u9mp][. Its Christmas!!
> 
> 
> 
> Not if the left can ever get their way and have it removed from our society!
Click to expand...

Christmas is for all, left, right, atheists, tea partiers. All of the "lefties" I associate with love Christmas and enjoy sharing it with everyone.......so, sincerely, you have a very Merry Christmas Mojo.....from a lefty. [/quote:rct8u9mp]

U must not hang out with many atheists, they don't like it. Hence the constant litigation against it.

you know we can't offend anyone with our beliefs, You are a confused leftist!!!! :shock:
Be careful the left might send u in for re education! :lol:


----------



## .45

> As for your Merry Christmas, I hope you burn.


I don't.....

I hope you have a good Christmas Huge29.....


----------



## Bax*

Well this thread has slowly gone down the toilet.

This thread illustrates to me everything that is wrong in America today. There are only polarized responses, ZERO listening, and a fiscal cliff looming because you only want to stick with one side of the argument rather than coming to an adequate agreement that satisfies both sides.

Bravo everyone. Bravo.

Instead of being such ding dongs, how about you discuss legitimate solutions as opposed to saying: "Get rid of them." and "Keep them."? Maybe, just maybe, a sensible middle ground can be reached. Until then, this thread has become rather stupid


----------



## Bo0YaA

As a side note, 

"I just went out and bought 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 assault rifles cause I'm smart......"

I would recommend you all do the same. O*-- O*-- -O|o-


----------



## Bax*

Bo0YaA said:


> As a side note,
> 
> "I just went out and bought 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 assault rifles cause I'm smart......"
> 
> I would recommend you all do the same. O*-- O*-- -O|o-


I just sold an AR for double what I paid for it originally


----------



## k2muskie

How true...

[attachment=0:1kmpa2f4]Dog.jpg[/attachment:1kmpa2f4]


----------



## Bo0YaA

Bax* said:


> Bo0YaA said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note,
> 
> "I just went out and bought 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 assault rifles cause I'm smart......"
> 
> I would recommend you all do the same. O*-- O*-- -O|o-
> 
> 
> 
> I just sold an AR for double what I paid for it originally
Click to expand...

I know, its crazy how much they have gone up. I was looking for a Kel Tec sub 2000 before all this happened. They were going for $400.00 ish and now on Gun Broker they are going for $700.00 - $800.00. Can only imagine where they will go once this administration and all their mindless cronies impose some sort of knee jerk weapons ban. :roll:


----------



## Mojo1

Bo0YaA said:


> Bax* said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo0YaA said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note,
> 
> "I just went out and bought 5,000 rounds of ammunition and 5 assault rifles cause I'm smart......"
> 
> I would recommend you all do the same. O*-- O*-- -O|o-
> 
> 
> 
> I just sold an AR for double what I paid for it originally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, its crazy how much they have gone up. I was looking for a Kel Tec sub 2000 before all this happened. They were going for $400.00 ish and now on Gun Broker they are going for $700.00 - $800.00. Can only imagine where they will go once this administration and all their mindless cronies impose some sort of knee jerk weapons ban. :roll:
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the guy I saw buy 10 at once is wishing for just that outcome, profiteers will be the only ones that benefit from a ban.


----------



## DallanC

A gun pre-shooting I was concidering for $1k new just sold on gunbroker last night for $2600 ... used.

There was a guy last night selling 10,000 30 round promag magazines for $50 a pop... he set up each auction to end less than a minute than the one before and they were all selling, 5 or 10 mags per auction. Half a million $$$ in one night... insane.


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

I have been thinking about this issue for some time, and have come up with an idea or two. First, assault weapons is a general term, but perhaps the one thing they have in common is firepower. That is, they are all auto or semi auto weapons that accept detachable magazines, the combination of which allows for sustained rapid fire. The caliber doesn't much matter, the 5.56 or .223 is lethal on humans, but not legal in many states for hunting big game.

I think we can dismiss out of hand the thought that we need weapons to protect ourselves from government tyranny. If you disagree with that assumption, you may as well stop reading now. I won't take the time to explain my position, it would take too long and be boring.

I believe that any law-abiding, sane person should be allowed to own guns for the purpose of hunting, target shooting and home defense. IMO, the most intimidating weapon for home defense is the pump action shotgun. It's easily controlled and reasonably safe even in the hands of those with little experience. None of these activities require a semi-automatic weapon capable of accepting detachable magazines.

The Second Amendment does not permit unrestricted ownership of all weapons. Owning fully automatic weapons already requires a special permit. Class 3 weapons are available, but those who wish to buy them have to jump through hoops and meet requirements that don't apply to other weapons.

Given the above, I think a reasonable preliminary solution to the many episodes of mass murder in our country would be to reclassify any semiautomatic weapon that accepts detachable magazines and fires centerfire ammunition. Owning such weapons could be subject to restrictions similar to those required to buy current Class 3 weapons. One could still own such weapons, you'd just have to meet additional requirements, guarantee secure storage, etc. 

The classification I propose would not impact sporting arms much, as few autoloading shotguns or hunting rifles accept detachable magazines. There aren't many, and a few design modifications could easily be made to them to make them exempt. It would exempt 22 rimfires, also. It would include semi auto pistols, but that's not a bad thing. Handguns can be as deadly as rifles at close range, and are already subject to more stringent controls. They require a waiting period here, and you can't even take one into Canada.

I think that this could be part of a multifaceted approach to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of Newtown. Certainly other things can be done in the areas of mental health, education, etc. I don't think doing nothing is a good option.

As far as the NRA goes, they lost my support long ago. The organization began as an effort to promote the shooting sports. I purchased my first gun for $25 at the tender age of 14, a used Model 34 Remington 22 rifle, in 1966 from the local NRA representative. He was a kind old gentleman by the name of Everett Hendrickson. His garage was full of ammunition, and he had a few used guns for sale. He was genuinely interested in teaching kids gun safety and getting them involved in the shooting sports. Today's NRA is a far cry from the one I knew as a kid. It has morphed into a Far Right political organization, promoting conspiracy theories and using scare tactics to extract monies from its members. They then spend that money to advance their political agenda. They spent $9,000,000 in the last election in an attempt to defeat President Obama, and I voted for him. I'll support the NRA when and if it returns to its roots and stays the hell out of politics.


----------



## Bo0YaA

paddler213 said:


> They spent $9,000,000 in the last election in an attempt to defeat President Obama, and I voted for him.


If only that was the beginning of the paragraph I could have saved the 2 min I spent reading it...

The fact that you voted for that idiot nullifies your entire opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you get what you deserve. The rest of us fought hard with our voices and votes to keep him out of office in hopes of avoiding this very situation. If not for the shooting in Ct. Obama would have used something else as his springboard for gun control.

We all knew this was coming the minute he pulled ahead in the vote count.


----------



## elkfromabove

Huge29 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great article
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
> 
> http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -73761529/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, that makes me think of a sincere question. This article mentions something thrown around about how the "original intent" was not to....high capacity, mass, fast, efficient..etc. So, why was the second amendment even put in there, what was the purpose/core intent? If we really want to know their intent and be sure to interpret correctly for our time, it seems like an important part of the discussion. I don't want to bias any answers, so I will leave it at a question.
Click to expand...

It seems that the "original intent" is what this discussion boils down to. But since nobody can review all the discussions, both public and private, that took place between the drafters of the Bill of Rights, much less read thier thoughts, I don't believe anyone can state for sure what the orignial intent was. However, purhaps I can get close by referring you to my copy of the Royal Standard English Dictionary, Fourth Brookfield Edition printed in Brookfield MA in October, 1809, less than 18 years after the 2nd Amendment was ratified by the states and while some of the drafters were still alive. It gives you an idea of why the words were chosen as they were. (Some of the definitions don't apply to the issue, therefore the ....... and some of the following words further explain other definitions or were included to show why they may have not been included in the amendment.) If there are any I missed or any that you think are vital to the issue, let me know and I'll look them up. And, of course, I'll give you my take on their "original intent". 

Arms, _s. pl._. escutcheons; weapons of war
Bear, _v. a. & n._ to convey, support, press;.......; to bring forth;........
Escutcheons, _s._ a shield with arms
Gun, _s._ cannon, musket, &c.
Infringe, _v. a._ to violate, destroy, hinder
Keep,..... _v._ to conceal, detain, hold, retain
Militia, _s._ train-bands, national force
People, _s._ a nation, the vulgar, persons in general;......
Regulate, _v. a._ to adjust by rule, to direct
Right, ..... _s._.....; just claim; justice, interest; prerogative, privilege, property;.....
Security, _s._ defence, pledge, protection, safety
State, _s._.......; a republic;.........
Train-bands, _s._ militia, city militia
Vulgar, _s._ the common people, the rabble;..........
War, _s._ combat, fighting, forces, hostility
Weapon, _s._ an instrument of offence or defence

In light of these definitions, my view is that this right to keep and bear arms was to insure that the States (capitolized) had a ready, available and capable fighting force that had their own weapons that were capable of being used in a war. Both the men and their arms needed to be ready for combat. As to the self-protection and hunting aspect, I think those were just a part of life (Indians, bears, sustainance, friendly competion) and weren't even considered in the equation per se. The men had to be familiar enough with their weapons to go in combat, but life taught them that.

I'm not so sure as some of you that it was intended to protect us from our own federal government, but the militias were State (capitolized)(or even city) regulated and were to be federalized only if needed.

Of course, others have their own take on this. Here's one: (Be sure to read the comments.) http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amen ... -1.1223900


----------



## Mojo1

Paddler are assault guns more or less dangerous than those evil mud motors you are always lobbing to get restricted??? 

Anyone that can walk into Walmart and buy a gun can get a class three license, it's just a little more paperwork, and a longer wait. Oh yeah let's not forget the $200 tax stamp on top of the cost of the weapon. 

You"lefties act like that process is going to magically sort out the mental cases, it's not. Until our society addresses mental health issues, those folks are,going to continue to snap and do terrible acts of violence

And since there are millions of them already floating around out in circulation, I don't see how any gun law is going to help to stop these killings. Despite your impassioned statement of support for the right to bear arms; I and many others realize that the antis agenda isn't to stop the violence, you guys just want to chip away at gun rights a little at a time and you play on societies fear to do so.


----------



## Mojo1

What you haven't seen much of is this gallop poll dealing with what folks would like to see happen
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/g ... apons-ban/

Banning assault guns is number four on list, how is it that the media and anti's only seem to harp on gun ownership???? Because the first three does not meet their agenda.


----------



## paddler

My intent is to preserve the right to bear and bear arms, while trying to ensure that high capacity weapons most frequently used by mass murderers are harder to access for the quiet guys who mostly keep to themselves and end up killing children and educators.

The proposal I made seems like the most rational approach. It will not affect most law abiding sportsmen, target shooters or those who want a gun for home defense. It bans nothing. Those who feel they must own an AR can still buy them, they only need to show they can use and store them responsibly. Incidentally, back before the first ban, I bought two Colt ARs. I sold them at a small profit because I really didn't have a use for them and they weren't very accurate. As Warren Page said, only accurate rifles are interesting.

The beauty of reclassifying these weapons is that, unlike a ban, it can be applied to weapons in circulation. I only have one gun that would fall into that category, a circa 1960s Walther PPK that was made in West Germany. I'd probably just sell it, as I've only shot it once. And, selling it wouldn't impact my ability to hunt, target shoot or defend my home. It would be the last thing I'd pick up to defend myself and family. My 11-87 is a much better choice for that, or hunting, or shooting clays.

As I said above, it's time we did something. Doing nothing is better than the NRA's proposal, but doing nothing won't cut it this time. I think the best thing that could happen is for the NRA to lose support. Perhaps they'd reassess their role, and restrict their political lobbying. Why would anybody join an organization whose CEO is that D bag La Pierre, and one that has Grover Norquist on it's Board of Directors? Or has Grover, like Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, "been a hunter most all my life"?


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> My intent is to preserve the right to bear and bear arms, while trying to ensure that high capacity weapons most frequently used by mass murderers are harder to access for the quiet guys who mostly keep to themselves and end up killing children and educators.
> 
> The proposal I made seems like the most rational approach. It will not affect most law abiding sportsmen, target shooters or those who want a gun for home defense. It bans nothing. Those who feel they must own an AR can still buy them, they only need to show they can use and store them responsibly. Incidentally, back before the first ban, I bought two Colt ARs. I sold them at a small profit because I really didn't have a use for them and they weren't very accurate. As Warren Page said, only accurate rifles are interesting.
> 
> The beauty of reclassifying these weapons is that, unlike a ban, it can be applied to weapons in circulation. I only have one gun that would fall into that category, a circa 1960s Walther PPK that was made in West Germany. I'd probably just sell it, as I've only shot it once. And, selling it wouldn't impact my ability to hunt, target shoot or defend my home. It would be the last thing I'd pick up to defend myself and family. My 11-87 is a much better choice for that, or hunting, or shooting clays.
> 
> As I said above, it's time we did something. Doing nothing is better than the NRA's proposal, but doing nothing won't cut it this time. I think the best thing that could happen is for the NRA to lose support. Perhaps they'd reassess their role, and restrict their political lobbying. Why would anybody join an organization whose CEO is that D bag La Pierre, and one that has Grover Norquist on it's Board of Directors? Or has Grover, like Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, "been a hunter most all my life"?


Lol, I guess for many of the same reasons you have your head up the obama's ass.

And if we are applying logic to the probleml the NRA's proposal is a much better approach than banning /reclassifying the assault guns and then hoping that's gonna stop a person who is already planning to ignore all social norms and laws anyway. We just can't go after the person.

I always love how you libs selectively apply logic to your agendas


----------



## DallanC

paddler213 said:


> My 11-87 is a much better choice for that, or hunting, or shooting clays.


And shooting up a school or mall or theater. Load that sucker up with #4Buckshot and you can put more lead down range in 2 seconds faster than any AR out there. Saw off the barrel to increase dispersion and you have a much much much more effective weapon of mass destruction than an AR. Can you imagine firing that at head level in a crowded area?

12 rounds in 1.44 seconds: 




You get 21 pellets per ounce x standard 5 rounds in a shotgun = 105 pellets LARGER than a .223 round capabile of being fired in a fraction of a second. You just try and convice me thats not a more dangerous weapon.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

The difference is firepower, Dallan. You must reload each round individually in a gun without a detachable magazine. Comparing payload doesn't tell the real story. A double rifle will put two large slugs downrange very quickly, but an AR-15 is a much better choice in a firefight.

The NRAs solution is based in fallacy. Even a single armed guard per school, mall, theater, etc, would cost billions per year, yet be ineffective at stopping a mass murderer with an assault rifle in body armor. Arming teachers, requiring them to be trained to act proficiently in a panic situation, isn't the answer. That's just a crazy idea.

My proposal isn't the final answer, I stated that in my first post. It seems to be a rational response to this recurring problem. If you have a better idea, feel free to post up. For me, joining the NRA would be counterproductive.


----------



## DallanC

I see no difference in rate of fire, and potential damage. Your 11-87 should certainly be included in an assault weapons bill because it can be used as such.


-DallanC


----------



## MJ73

Bo0YaA said:


> paddler213 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They spent $9,000,000 in the last election in an attempt to defeat President Obama, and I voted for him.
> 
> 
> 
> If only that was the beginning of the paragraph I could have saved the 2 min I spent reading it...
> 
> The fact that you voted for that idiot nullifies your entire opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you get what you deserve. The rest of us fought hard with our voices and votes to keep him out of office in hopes of avoiding this very situation. If not for the shooting in Ct. Obama would have used something else as his springboard for gun control.
> 
> We all knew this was coming the minute he pulled ahead in the vote count.
Click to expand...

x1000


----------



## paddler

I don't seem to recall any 11-87s being used by a mass murderer. That's why I proposed reclassifying weapons that are both semiautomatic and accept removable magazizines.

You know, I do own an assault rifle. It was state-of-the-art when it was made in Berlin in 1909. It was the official rifle of the Argentine military, and Mauser made variations of it for most of South America and nations all around the world during that period. During testing, using the stripper clips, a trained rifleman could fire something like 27 aimed shots per minute. It doesn't shoot a varmint round, either, but rather something ballistically equivalent to the round adopted by NATO in 1952. That of course, was the 7.62mm x 51, or .308. You will never see an Argentine Modelo 1909 used in a mall shooting.

I emailed this thread to the White House to share my idea. If I hear anything substantive back, I'll post it up.


----------



## .45

paddler213....we've seen how the Obama admin handles 'gun control'. I hope they get out of the business.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... happening/


----------



## Critter

The psycho in Colorado used a Remington 870 express and then his S&W MP 15 which jammed after firing less than 30 rounds and then he went to his handguns per the reports that I read. A lot of the first ones that were killed were killed with the shotgun. 

I wonder where we are going to stop on the definition of a "assault weapon" Look at Australia, they banned all semi automatic rifles and shotguns sporting or hunting, they don't have them there any more. As for the nut job in Connecticut he could of done just as much damage with a pistol. If you practice you can change out the clip faster than anyone could of responded to you and with shooting children he had no resistance once he took out the adults in the room. 

In my opinion the only thing that any weapon ban is going to do is disarm the legal law abiding citizen and turn them into victims, the crooks and psycho's have never abided by the laws of the land.


----------



## Mojo1

.45 said:


> paddler213....we've seen how the Obama admin handles 'gun control'. I hope they get out of the business.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... happening/


Lol, we can't talk about that, it's not advancing their agenda.

John your trust in the government to stop at your version of assault rifles shows how truly naive you are; myself and many others would expect more sense out a college educated doctor but time and time again you proved how naive you are.


----------



## paddler

Critter, I include all auto or semi auto weapons that use detachable magazines, which would include handguns. The reason the guy in Colorado switched away from his 870 is because it's slower to reload. Swapping out clips is so much faster than loading each round individually. It really is about sustained rapid fire capability. I think my idea targets those particular weapons fairly specifically. I think it would be a good thing, as it doesn't ban anything, but is an attempt to keep those weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is logical. If any of you have a better idea, post it up. I haven't seen anything yet.

You all have a Merry Christmas. I'm going to chase some chukars this afternoon with my Obama Victory Celebration Merkel SxS in 16 gauge. It would be exempt from new restrictions, of course. Pretty thing, too, don't you think?:


----------



## Critter

With a little bit of practice a person can reload a pump or semi automatic shotgun faster than you think, and it it is equipped with a extended magazine he would have plenty of fire power.

And who knows after any new regulations your side by side may be restricted or confiscated due to the fact that it can shoot faster than a pump or semi automatic and was a weapon of war intended for the military even if it was back in the day. 

So don't limit my legal firearm and I won't limit yours.


----------



## Mojo1

John how do you know what that Auroa shooter was thinking??? We're you guys friends or something??? Didn't I once post a poll here where the overwhelming majority of respondents thought you were insane and needed mental help??? Maybe you should be studied since you by your own admission know why he acted like he did. -()/-


----------



## Springville Shooter

Paddler,
I'm not sure how I follow how your idea would do anything to prevent any of the mass shootings that have occured. None of the criminals who have committed these crimes have obtained their weaponry by legal means. If they didn't obey the law before, what makes you think that they would comply with your crafty little control that would only affect good people like myself? Also, I think that your speculation is flawed regarding armed guards being ineffective against a mass murderer. Remember that so far, we have not had an issue with highly trained paramilitary type people commiting these acts. These are zit-faced, trench coat mafia, gothic losers who are too scared to do anything but shoot mall shoppers and school kids. Case in point that the Trolley Square perp was held at bay by an armed off-duty cop with a pea shooter. These guys are wimps and if we are speculating, I specuate that they would not be willing to take on an armed guard, they would simply look for an easier target. If this diverts them away from our schools, it's money well spent as far as I'm concerned. You are an Obama supporter, call it stimulus if it makes you feel better. In my opinion, your idea of gun control is no different than any other liberal gun grabbing political strategy. You only use a tragic event to push your agenda hoping that you can get it done before the smoke clears and everyone realizes that it is all based on lies and does NOTHING to protect anyone. Nice try, but I'm not buying. I say try the police presenece/guard method first and see if it doesn't make a huge impact in our schools. Other public areas would have to be considered separately, but I think there are many good reasons to have police presence in school. I had a cop assigned to my high school and it was beneficial in many ways. Plus he was a good role model of a righteous, tough guy with a gun. We all loved him and he kept us safe. In my heart, I know that if Officer Joe would have been at Newtown that day, he would have killed that punk long before he was able to inflict the mass casualties that he did.----------SS


----------



## elkfromabove

Critter said:


> With a little bit of practice a person can reload a pump or semi automatic shotgun faster than you think, and it it is equipped with a extended magazine he would have plenty of fire power.
> 
> And* who knows after any new regulations* your side by side may be restricted or confiscated due to the fact that it can shoot faster than a pump or semi automatic and was a weapon of war intended for the military even if it was back in the day.
> 
> So don't limit my legal firearm and I won't limit yours.


Paddler, Herein lies the problem! Even if the Feds (and the NRA) agreed with your proposal, what leads you to believe that would be the end of it? We keep hearing that the anti-gun folks aren't coming after our guns, they just want to regulate them for safety reasons. It's true, they won't openly come after our guns, but that isn't in their agenda.

Maybe I can expose their agenda by relating a personal experience unrelated to guns. I used to operate a part-time one-man business out of my home where I located owners of unclaimed property (abandoned bank accounts, unclaimed payroll checks, uncollected life insurance policies, unclaimed tax returns, etc.) and assisted them in recovering their money and/or property for a finder's fee of 10%. I was able to use the public records of the Unclaimed Property Division of the State of Utah (and other states) to locate the names of the owners, the last known addresses, the general amounts, the sources, the dates they were reported, and whether or not they had been or were being processed. I also was able to access the County or State public records to find probates, death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. to locate the legal owner(s). Well, that begin to change! First, UPD quit giving me (and others, I'm sure) the general amounts and I had no idea whether the amount was $5-$100 or $500-$1000 or $1000 - $5000 or ?. And since the work locating the owner was the same no matter the amount, I had to guess, based on past experiences. Next, they started withholding the amounts until after the claim and proof of ownerswhip was completed. Then it wasn't long before they quit giving me a list of the ones that had already been collected, so now I could be working for nothing. Then, they started delaying their responses on my claims and asking for more proof of ownership, most of which was old receipts, proof of addresses 20-30 years ago, tax returns 10 years ago, etc., you know, the stuff the government wants you to shred! Then they started notifying my contracted customers of the claims with some instructions on what was needed to process it, thus bypassing me. And finally, they started sending the checks to the customers without notifying me they had processed the claim and the amount of the check. Needless to say, I got stiffed a lot! Meanwhile, the county and state public records were closed to anyone outside of the immediate family, so now I couldn't get information on deaths, marriages, births, etc. Oh, I was allowed to stay in business alright, but it became so tough and risky to do, that I just couldn't afford it, timewise or moneywise. Well, they didn't actually close my business, they just made it so difficult that I put myself out of business! Now, FWIW, UPD ( and all the other states' unclaimed property agencies) and the Utah state educational fund collects interest on all your unclaimed money. Hmmm/armed guards?

I remember a song (from the show Music Man?) that goes something like "Pick a little, chick a little, pick, pick, pick". Nah, they're not going to take away your guns! They're just going to make it so burdensome to own and/or use them that you and/or your kids and/or your grandkids and/or your great grandkids give them up yourselves! Walah!


----------



## paddler

Wasn't there an armed guard at Columbine? Did he prevent the tragedy? I don't believe the NRA's response would be successful, but it would be expensive. Even Chris Christie agrees with me. That's bipartisanship!

The gun I referred to as my assault rifle isn't a side by side, but a bolt action. The Argentine 1909 is considered one of the finest iterations of the Mauser 98, which was copied but never improved upon. Most current bolt action rifles are derivatives of the 98. Here's a little blurb on it in a discussion on military bolt action rifles:

*The best ever made was the Model 1909 Argentine made by DWM.

It was the only military Mauser ever made with commercial features like the pear-shaped bolt knob and the hinged floor plate with commercial style release in the trigger guard.
Quality-wise, it was better blued on the inside than most handguns are blued on the outside today.
Level of metal work was commercial in quality even inside.

In the 1980's a Guns & Ammo Annual had an article on why custom gunsmiths preferred Mauser rifles.
The author said that to duplicate the 1909 would cost at least $3,000 in mid-1980's dollars.*

My guess is that the author referenced was Bob Milek, who did a three part article in Guns and Ammo on building a custom rifle using a 1909 action. I've been offered $1000 for mine, but it's not enough.

My proposal is a very reasonable approach. Saying that people will break the law is not a reason to not restrict these weapons. Virtually every law is broken, but we have laws restricting many behaviors. Some of the requirements to own the weapons I outlined would be education for prospective purchasers, more extensive background checks, and proof of secure storage. I think it's a win-win. Nothing will be banned, but we should do all we can to prevent these weapons from being used to kill school kids and teachers.


----------



## DallanC

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

The guard at Columbine did nothing more than call in the assult and then wait for the police to arrive. Then after the police arived they waited for the SWAT team and then they tried to figure out what what happening after it was all over.


----------



## martymcfly73

Critter said:


> The guard at Columbine did nothing more than call in the assult and then wait for the police to arrive. Then after the police arived they waited for the SWAT team and then they tried to figure out what what happening after it was all over.


The good thing about columbine is that is changed the response to an active shooter nationwide. This was put into effect at Trolley Square where the suspect was killed before he could do more damage. No more waiting for SWAT, first three officer go in as a group, then the next three ans so on.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Well, in the interest of common ground, I like the advancement of secure storage. I'm not sure how a law would address this issue, but I believe that all gun owners SHOULD take good-faith measures to make sure that their firearms don't fall into the wrong hands including theives. Gun safes are a worthwhile investment and I would encourage anyone who doesn't have one to save the money and get one for your guns. I see this as a "freedom requires responsibility" issue. Any reasonable way to keep guns in the hands of the good guys and out of the hands of the bad guys is worthy of pursuing. Common sense must be the rule.------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler213 said:


> Wasn't there an armed guard at Columbine?
> 
> Wasn't there an assult weapons ban in place during Columbine as well?----SS


----------



## Cooky

I think a safe may be too much of a burden (money and room) for some people. But I agree with the thought, perhaps a lock on the gun making it unusable, such as is included with all new guns.


----------



## Critter

Cooky said:


> I think a safe may be too much of a burden (money and room) for some people. But I agree with the thought, perhaps a lock on the gun making it unusable, such as is included with all new guns.


You can usually pick up a safe for about the same price as a rifle and scope. I know when I bought mine 30 years ago there were not that many out there and I paid a little bit extra but the piece of mind that comes with having one is nice.


----------



## Cooky

I need to correct myself, I should have said most new handguns.


----------



## Springville Shooter

My brother doesn't have money or room for a gunsafe, so he keeps an essential part, (bolt, slide, etc) from all weapons except his CCW that is on him, locked away in a smaller safe in a separate location. There are countless measures such as this that can be taken to prevent unauthorized or illegal use of ones firearms. I think that conversations like this are where the real difference can be made. These are also subjects that are often addressed by the NRA in trainings and other educational avenues. Back to the original point of this thread. JOIN THE NRA.----SS


----------



## paddler

Here's an example of all laws being violated by someone, sometime. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against DUI. What's up with Idaho, anyway? First a gay Mormon Senator, now a Mormon Senator who drinks and drives. Sheesh! They may as well elect a Democrat.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... r-dui?lite


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler213 said:


> Here's an example of all laws being violated by someone, sometime. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against DUI. What's up with Idaho, anyway? First a gay Mormon Senator, now a Mormon Senator who drinks and drives. Sheesh! They may as well elect a Democrat.
> 
> You make an excellent point! Like with this case of DUI, people are breaking the laws that we *already have*. Maybe we should concentrate on better enforcing them and not making new laws that don't pertain to the real issue. By your argument this headline should read: Idaho Senator caught driving under the influence, liberals push for immediate new legislation banning alchohol and cars. The difference is that the laws we already have control and punish criminals, your type of people could care less about the criminals and want to punish law-abiding citizens who do not share your political views. Why do you think we call liberalism a "mental disorder"? If a conservative brought homosexuality into the mix in a negative light, they would immediately be called a hateful bigot......but then, we understand that there is a double standard.-------SS


----------



## Al Hansen

Springville Shooter said:


> Well, in the interest of common ground, I like the advancement of secure storage. I'm not sure how a law would address this issue, but I believe that all gun owners SHOULD take good-faith measures to make sure that their firearms don't fall into the wrong hands including theives. Gun safes are a worthwhile investment and I would encourage anyone who doesn't have one to save the money and get one for your guns. I see this as a "freedom requires responsibility" issue. Any reasonable way to keep guns in the hands of the good guys and out of the hands of the bad guys is worthy of pursuing. Common sense must be the rule.------SS


Not just the bad guys but for grandkids and visiting children or in the case of Conn. a child / adult with mental health issues. Just my own personal .02 . Not a Mod. view or policy. Such a tragedy.


----------



## Fowlmouth

Al Hansen said:


> [quote="Springville Shooter":2932niqb]Well, in the interest of common ground, I like the advancement of secure storage. I'm not sure how a law would address this issue, but I believe that all gun owners SHOULD take good-faith measures to make sure that their firearms don't fall into the wrong hands including theives. Gun safes are a worthwhile investment and I would encourage anyone who doesn't have one to save the money and get one for your guns. I see this as a "freedom requires responsibility" issue. Any reasonable way to keep guns in the hands of the good guys and out of the hands of the bad guys is worthy of pursuing. Common sense must be the rule.------SS


Not just the bad guys but for grandkids and visiting children or in the case of Conn. a child / adult with mental health issues. Just my own personal .02 . Not a Mod. view or policy. Such a tragedy.[/quote:2932niqb]

+1 I think secure storage is a good place to start with firearm ownership, for all of the reasons mentioned above. Gun owners do need to be responsible for their weapons, and safe storage would provide the first measure in keeping them out of the wrong hands.


----------



## .45

Yeah, no sense having armed gaurds at school's, the NRA is all wrong... :roll:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... et-Service

The school even has a job opening for two 'Police Officers'.......amazing.. :roll:

http://www.sidwell.edu/employment/index.aspx


----------



## paddler

I sent a monograph to the Trib on this topic. We'll see if anything comes of it. Still waiting to hear from our President and VP, bit it's the holidays.


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler213 said:


> I sent a monograph to the Trib on this topic. We'll see if anything comes of it. Still waiting to hear from our President and VP, bit it's the holidays.


Don't hold your breath for a response from the White House.....they already have their minds made up and are not really interested in honest efforts and ideas like yours. I'm afraid that your best bet for serious consideration was on this forum. You will be lucky to get a form-letter back as a response sometime next year after everything is all said and done. Sorry man. Then again, maybe you will be the next "Joe the plummer" :lol: -----SS


----------



## paddler

Honestly, I can't believe somebody hasn't advanced this idea already. The problem we have is that most people who support gun control don't really understand guns. Here is the piece I sent to the Trib:

*On the Prevention of Mass Murders

The recent tragedy in Newtown, like most tragedies, was not the result of one event, but rather a series of failures. It was the result of previously undiagnosed mental illness in an individual who had access to advanced weaponry capable of sustained high rates of fire. Both mental illness and the weapons capable of such destruction were required to produce this tragic loss of life.

Perhaps because this shooting resulted in the death of twenty young children and six educators, it seems the nation is more ready now than ever before to entertain measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. One could argue that this new willingness to act is the result of the cumulative effects of so many similar events. It matters not which of these is causative, or even other factors are responsible, the fact remains that we must act.

Various ideas have been advanced; banning the weapons involved, banning high capacity magazines, posting armed security officers in our schools, training and arming our teachers, and a more comprehensive approach to mental illness. These ideas all have their proponents, and varying degrees of merit, depending on one's experience and point of view.

As a lifelong hunter and avid outdoorsman, it occurs to me that we may already have in place mechanisms to help prevent future disasters. We can, merely by reclassifying certain weapons, reduce the access by mentally ill people to the weapons most often used in these shootings. The three most important characteristics of the weapons used in Newtown and other mass shootings are having a semiautomatic action, the capability to use detachable magazines, and the fact that they fire centerfire ammunition.

Semiautomatic weapons allow rapid rates of fire, that is, they fire a bullet, eject the spent case, and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Detachable magazines allow for rapid reloading of multiple rounds of ammunition in one motion. The capability of using centerfire ammunition increases the lethality of each round of ammunition, as rimfire ammunition is generally less powerful.

We already have restrictions on the ownership of certain weapons, commonly referred to as Class 3. This includes fully automatic firearms, referred to by some as machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. Fully automatic weapons are generally used by the military; the civilian versions are manufactured as semiautomatic. It is interesting to note that studies done by the military have shown that fully automatic weapons are wasteful of ammunition, as the weapon will continue firing so long as the trigger is depressed. Emptying a magazine completely in a matter of seconds actually limits the effectiveness of these weapons in many combat situations. The solution to this problem was developing the ability to switch these arms into "Select Fire" mode. In this mode, the weapon will fire several rounds with each pull of the trigger, but won't empty the entire clip.

There is little practical difference in situations such as Newtown between weapons that fire three rounds versus those that fire only one each time the trigger is pulled. Both use centerfire ammunition, both require no more than pulling the trigger to fire a round and load another, and both accept detachable magazines of various capacities. Therefore, the most elegant solution to the gun control issue would be to reclassify these weapons, rifle, pistol or shotgun, as Class 3 firearms. They would be subject to increased restrictions for buying, owning and transferring. Just as with current Class 3 weapons, people could still buy them. Nothing would be banned, not magazines or the weapons themselves. Individuals would be required to register them, undergo strict background checks, and guarantee secure storage. This program could easily be applied to weapons currently in circulation.

This solution would not impact guns typically used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting. Shotguns and rifles used in these ways typically have fixed magazines. There are a few exceptions, but small design changes could be made that would exempt the guns in question. It would not impair the ability to defend one's home, as the weapon most recommended for this task by experts is a shotgun. It also would not affect rimfire weapons, such as 22 caliber rifles or handguns.

Reclassification of these guns should be the most acceptable approach to all sides in the debate over gun control. It would not threaten the Second Amendment, it merely compensates for the technologic advances since the days of the musket. It actually corrects a glaring oversight in our current weapon classification system. Manufacturers could still build these weapons, the public could still buy them, and it would do as well as any other proposal to keep them out of the wrong hands. This is not an immediate or comprehensive solution to the problem of mass murders, but it seems a logical component in a multifaceted approach to prevent another Newtown.*

The foregoing is a bit rough and is subject to further refinement. It seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

paddler213 said:


> Honestly, I can't believe somebody hasn't advanced this idea already. The problem we have is that most people who support gun control don't really understand guns. Here is the piece I sent to the Trib:
> 
> *On the Prevention of Mass Murders
> 
> The recent tragedy in Newtown, like most tragedies, was not the result of one event, but rather a series of failures. It was the result of previously undiagnosed mental illness in an individual who had access to advanced weaponry capable of sustained high rates of fire. Both mental illness and the weapons capable of such destruction were required to produce this tragic loss of life.
> 
> Perhaps because this shooting resulted in the death of twenty young children and six educators, it seems the nation is more ready now than ever before to entertain measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. One could argue that this new willingness to act is the result of the cumulative effects of so many similar events. It matters not which of these is causative, or even other factors are responsible, the fact remains that we must act.
> 
> Various ideas have been advanced; banning the weapons involved, banning high capacity magazines, posting armed security officers in our schools, training and arming our teachers, and a more comprehensive approach to mental illness. These ideas all have their proponents, and varying degrees of merit, depending on one's experience and point of view.
> 
> As a lifelong hunter and avid outdoorsman, it occurs to me that we may already have in place mechanisms to help prevent future disasters. We can, merely by reclassifying certain weapons, reduce the access by mentally ill people to the weapons most often used in these shootings. The three most important characteristics of the weapons used in Newtown and other mass shootings are having a semiautomatic action, the capability to use detachable magazines, and the fact that they fire centerfire ammunition.
> 
> Semiautomatic weapons allow rapid rates of fire, that is, they fire a bullet, eject the spent case, and load a fresh round with each pull of the trigger. Detachable magazines allow for rapid reloading of multiple rounds of ammunition in one motion. The capability of using centerfire ammunition increases the lethality of each round of ammunition, as rimfire ammunition is generally less powerful.
> 
> We already have restrictions on the ownership of certain weapons, commonly referred to as Class 3. This includes fully automatic firearms, referred to by some as machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. Fully automatic weapons are generally used by the military; the civilian versions are manufactured as semiautomatic. It is interesting to note that studies done by the military have shown that fully automatic weapons are wasteful of ammunition, as the weapon will continue firing so long as the trigger is depressed. Emptying a magazine completely in a matter of seconds actually limits the effectiveness of these weapons in many combat situations. The solution to this problem was developing the ability to switch these arms into "Select Fire" mode. In this mode, the weapon will fire several rounds with each pull of the trigger, but won't empty the entire clip.
> 
> There is little practical difference in situations such as Newtown between weapons that fire three rounds versus those that fire only one each time the trigger is pulled. Both use centerfire ammunition, both require no more than pulling the trigger to fire a round and load another, and both accept detachable magazines of various capacities. Therefore, the most elegant solution to the gun control issue would be to reclassify these weapons, rifle, pistol or shotgun, as Class 3 firearms. They would be subject to increased restrictions for buying, owning and transferring. Just as with current Class 3 weapons, people could still buy them. Nothing would be banned, not magazines or the weapons themselves. Individuals would be required to register them, undergo strict background checks, and guarantee secure storage. This program could easily be applied to weapons currently in circulation.
> 
> This solution would not impact guns typically used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting. Shotguns and rifles used in these ways typically have fixed magazines. There are a few exceptions, but small design changes could be made that would exempt the guns in question. It would not impair the ability to defend one's home, as the weapon most recommended for this task by experts is a shotgun. It also would not affect rimfire weapons, such as 22 caliber rifles or handguns.
> 
> Reclassification of these guns should be the most acceptable approach to all sides in the debate over gun control. It would not threaten the Second Amendment, it merely compensates for the technologic advances since the days of the musket. It actually corrects a glaring oversight in our current weapon classification system. Manufacturers could still build these weapons, the public could still buy them, and it would do as well as any other proposal to keep them out of the wrong hands. This is not an immediate or comprehensive solution to the problem of mass murders, but it seems a logical component in a multifaceted approach to prevent another Newtown.*
> 
> The foregoing is a bit rough and is subject to further refinement. It seems reasonable to me.


+1 on idea. The challenge would be the vast supply in circulation. Off buy back and then criminalize.


----------



## Bo0YaA

lol kinda funny and sad all at the same time. 

Oh, one huge oversight, most if not all of the weapons used in these crimes were purchased legally by law abiding citizens. This idea is worthless as it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You know the ones actually committing the crimes!!!


----------



## Springville Shooter

While there are some well founded thoughts in your proposition, Dukes_Diddy is up in the night with the "buy back then criminalize" pipe dream. "Criminalizing" hundreds of thousands of America's best citizens is not the answer and it would not work. Remember that those who commit these atrocities are criminals, so why would they care if you "criminalize" them? My mind is open to sensible and prudent strategies to encourage responsibility by those who chose to own firearms, keeping them from getting into the wrong hands. These things must be well thought out and done right, or they wont work. The plan must be so reasonable that there is mass buy-in from honest gun owners. Also, this type of control is relevant to all firearms.....even pretty side-by-sides. While I am not ready to give up any rights, I am willing to commit to being more vigilant in how I control and limit access to my own firearms and conduct private-party sales. I think you'd be suprised how many folks would be responsive to something that made sense and was not just a pointless punishment handed down by the agenda-driven left in this country.----------SS


----------



## Cooky

Springville Shooter said:


> While there are some well founded thoughts in your proposition, Dukes_Diddy is up in the night with the "buy back then criminalize" pipe dream. "Criminalizing" hundreds of thousands of America's best citizens is not the answer and it would not work. Remember that those who commit these atrocities are criminals, so why would they care if you "criminalize" them? My mind is open to sensible and prudent strategies to encourage responsibility by those who chose to own firearms, keeping them from getting into the wrong hands. These things must be well thought out and done right, or they wont work. The plan must be so reasonable that there is mass buy-in from honest gun owners. Also, this type of control is relevant to all firearms.....even pretty side-by-sides. While I am not ready to give up any rights, I am willing to commit to being more vigilant in how I control and limit access to my own firearms and conduct private-party sales. I think you'd be suprised how many folks would be responsive to something that made sense and was not just a pointless punishment handed down by the agenda-driven left in this country.----------SS


[attachment=0:a0hwrslo]Trigger Lock.jpg[/attachment:a0hwrslo]
$10 each. Just start doing it on your own. The chances that politicians will come up with a fix that will work before it happens again is pretty slim. We can ensure it isn't our guns being used.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Absolutely Cooky,
I agree 100% and have invested a great deal in devices to maintain control of my guns. As far as legislation, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to define due-diligence required by gunowners to keep their guns from being used in crimes and accidents. If people are blatantly neglegent and their guns get used in the commission of a crime, I say they have a certain amount of criminal and civil liability for the damage. 

As far as the trigger guards, I like them for use during transit when guns are out of the safe or in the vehicle. At least if they are stolen they are not readily usable. It's too bad, but unfortunately there are alot of folks who will not take the initiative to make the changes on their own and require the government to make rules telling them what they have to do. Some of my Remington bolt actions have a little key lock on the bolt that makes them inoperable without the key. I'm sure that this type of technology could be easily expanded to other types of guns. 

Unfortuantely, these solutions really address the issue and don't push forward the liberal agenda that is really at the root of this discussion.-----------SS


----------



## DallanC

It takes less than 1 minute to take off one of those trigger locks with a cordless drill and a 3/8" drill bit... I've done it due to a misplaced key.


-DallanC


----------



## Cooky

DallanC said:


> It takes less than 1 minute to take off one of those trigger locks with a cordless drill and a 3/8" drill bit... I've done it due to a misplaced key.
> 
> -DallanC


What would you consider due diligence? Remember by defining due dilligence you are requiring we all do it. Including the single mom living in an apartment on the wrong side of the tracks.
Not just us rich dudes.  
It has to be easy and cheap.


----------



## Critter

As they say locks only keep honest prople honest and in the case of a trigger lock a little bit of piece of mind if you have children in the home.


----------



## DallanC

Cooky said:


> What would you consider due diligence? Remember by defining due dilligence you are requiring we all do it. Including the single mom living in an apartment on the wrong side of the tracks.
> Not just us rich dudes.
> It has to be easy and cheap.


I really wish I had a answer, I really do. We dont know in the case of this shooting how the mother stored her guns. They could very well have been stored in a large safe and only retrieved when she wanted to go shootin (which was a fairly common occurance).

The kid decided to kill his mom, he could have easily waited till she was getting them out for a legitement trip to the range. No-one expects to be fatally attacked by a family member, so people living with unstable people really need to take additional steps for their safety, expecially if they have guns in the home.

-DallanC


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Springville Shooter said:


> While there are some well founded thoughts in your proposition, Dukes_Diddy is up in the night with the "buy back then criminalize" pipe dream. "Criminalizing" hundreds of thousands of America's best citizens is not the answer and it would not work. Remember that those who commit these atrocities are criminals, so why would they care if you "criminalize" them? My mind is open to sensible and prudent strategies to encourage responsibility by those who chose to own firearms, keeping them from getting into the wrong hands. These things must be well thought out and done right, or they wont work. The plan must be so reasonable that there is mass buy-in from honest gun owners. Also, this type of control is relevant to all firearms.....even pretty side-by-sides. While I am not ready to give up any rights, I am willing to commit to being more vigilant in how I control and limit access to my own firearms and conduct private-party sales. I think you'd be suprised how many folks would be responsive to something that made sense and was not just a pointless punishment handed down by the agenda-driven left in this country.----------SS


You have no legitimate "need" for assault weapons and yes they should be pulled from circulation.

I like the "best citizens" statement. Demonstrates with US or against US mentality. Admit the 2nd Amendment never envisioned assault weapons with 30 round + clips. What exactly are you afraid of?

I view it along the same lines as imminent domain. The greater public good would be served by getting these guns out of circulation and you would be paid fairly.


----------



## elkfromabove

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You have no legitimate "need" for assault weapons and yes they should be pulled from circulation.
> 
> I like the "best citizens" statement. Demonstrates with US or against US mentality. Admit the 2nd Amendment never envisioned assault weapons with 30 round + clips. What exactly are you afraid of?
> 
> I view it along the same lines as imminent domain. The greater public good would be served by getting these guns out of circulation and you would be paid fairly.


What exactly are YOU afraid of? And what makes you think those who use those "assault weapons" (or intend to use them) for criminal activities would surrender them for any price?

And I like your "they should be *pulled* from circulation" statement. Admit that any new laws banning them will be ignored by those who "need" them for criminal activities and they would be "pulled" only from owners who obtained them legally and have no criminal intent.

The greater criminal good would be served by getting these guns out of public circulation and you would pay dearly.

Finally, what exactly are these "assault weapons" you are talking about? Is it my departed father's Remington model 740 Woodsman .308 semi-automatic which I cherish because of the memories and which I "need" for my daughters and young grandkids to hunt big game because the action softens the recoil enough that they are willing to shoot it? And what's a "fair" price? Or is it the Howa Axiom bolt action that I plan on buying and that has an adjustable stock for use by several different people and a pistol grip trigger handle designed for wrist comfort?

It all seems so simple to you! Create more laws that criminalize guns and gun owners and we'll reduce the number of crimes. The trouble is, that doesn't seem to work, especially in the big cities where the gun laws are strictest. I'll tell you what I'm afraid of! I'm afraid of some new regulation with no established benefit that makes me a criminal for owning a charished hunting rifle and requires me to dispose of it in order to avoid prosecution. And don't give us the grandfathering bit since it doesn't allow me to pass it on.

By the way, congratulations. Your post gave me the incentive to rejoin the NRA after a several years' lapse. Keep up the good work!


----------



## .45

Dukes_Daddy said:


> The greater public good would be served by getting these guns out of circulation and you would be paid fairly.


Here is an example of your 'would be paid fairly'.....Your not serious are you ?



> Police traded gift cards for guns in Los Angeles on Wednesday, in a buyback program Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced as a crime-fighting response to the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Connecticut.
> 
> Police officers handed out $200 grocery store gift cards to people who turned in an automatic weapon, and $100 gift cards to those who provided a handgun, rifle or shotgun


.


----------



## Huntoholic

I find it interesting, that just in the coarse of this thread, it started out banning "Assault Weapons" to now banning all semi-automatic weapons. 

I'm with "elkfromabove" and just re-newed my NRA membership.

And anybody who thinks that the government is going to pay "fair" price has never had to deal with the government.


----------



## GaryFish

Was the gun buy-out compulsory? or Voluntary? Just wondering.


----------



## elkfromabove

GaryFish said:


> Was the gun buy-out compulsory? or Voluntary? Just wondering.


It was voluntary, no questions asked.


----------



## elkfromabove

Well, so much for the "assault weapon" and random act of violence scare tactics!

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/ ... 5#50208495


----------



## Fowlmouth

elkfromabove said:


> Well, so much for the "assault weapon" and random act of violence scare tactics!
> 
> http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/ ... 5#50208495


Very interesting.....Isn't it great how the media can just report whatever sounds good at the time based on no factual information. Report about an AR-15 that was used in the shooting and then find out it was in the car, and the weapons used were 4 handguns. So, what now? Handgun debate? Handgun bans? Why do investigators wait so long to tell the media what really happened? They could have said the very same day that it was handguns that were used and not the AR-15.
Also, apparently the gun laws that Conneticut has in place worked, because he tried to purchase a rifle and couldn't.


----------



## GaryFish

The many reports coming out on the day of the attack were all un-official, and un-verified. Meaning, someone said something and that statement took wings. It will take time for the real situation to come out and get verified. The video you posted originally aired on 12/15.


----------



## Springville Shooter

We will never know the real story. We will only know what is fed to us by the liberal govt through the liberal media in accordance with what their agenda is. The right to lie to us is apparantly protected by the first amendment. The only good that can be taken from this is an individual re-commitment to gun safety and security. A little introspection once in a while is good for everyone.-------SS


----------



## elkfromabove

GaryFish said:


> The many reports coming out on the day of the attack were all un-official, and un-verified. Meaning, someone said something and that statement took wings. It will take time for the real situation to come out and get verified. The video you posted originally aired on 12/15.


  Sorry! I just saw it today. So, what IS the latest, or do we know yet? Or will we ever know?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

maybe the liberal wackos who grace this site with their presence and expert advice can now explain why handguns are un-needed..... :mrgreen:


----------



## paddler

Nothing needs to be banned. No buy backs need to be undertaken. Just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept removable clips as Class 3. No big thing. If you just have to own such a weapon, demonstrate that you meet the qualifications and will be responsible for it. Very simple, really.


----------



## .45

paddler213 said:


> Nothing needs to be banned. No buy backs need to be undertaken. Just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept removable clips as Class 3. No big thing. If you just have to own such a weapon, demonstrate that you meet the qualifications and will be responsible for it. Very simple, really.


Did you fall down and hurt your head or something? What in the hell is wrong with you?

How about the Feds just leave the damned things alone....


----------



## elkfromabove

paddler213 said:


> Nothing needs to be banned. No buy backs need to be undertaken. Just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept removable clips as Class 3. No big thing. If you just have to own such a weapon, demonstrate that you meet the qualifications and will be responsible for it. Very simple, really.


Your key phrase? "NO BIG THING." To you, it'a no big thing because you don't tie it to all the other "little things" that have been or will be imposed. And you start from the asumption that nobody "needs" "to own such a weapon". And you believe that "simply" reclassifying "all" semiautomatic weapons will satisfy everyone. How neive (or sinister?)!


----------



## Springville Shooter

Paddler takes a "guilty until proven innocent" way of thinking when this FREE nation is founded on the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. As a good, law abiding citizen, I should only have to obey the rules to enjoy the freedoms that my constitution provides. I should not have to jump through a bunch of evil-designed hoops that are set by those who don't respect freedom in attemt to dissuade, frusterate, or disqualify me by some statutory loophole. While I will always obey the law, I will never agree to, or cease to fight politically against any legislation that constrains the rights of law-abiding citizens. 

Legislation like this designed in the wake of a tragedy such as Newtown does nothing more than raise the victim count from 26 to hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. Loss of freedom in this nation is a tragedy too, considered by some to be worse than death. Remember all those who died to give us the ability to even have this conversation and don't be too fast to throw their efforts to the wind. 

Plain and simple fact: Any legisation that gives power to the Government will not prevent these tragedies. Only legislation giving power to the righteous in society can have that effect.--------SS


----------



## Fishrmn

Springville Shooter said:


> Paddler takes a "guilty until proven innocent" way of thinking when this FREE nation is founded on the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. As a good, law abiding citizen, I should only have to obey the rules to enjoy the freedoms that my constitution provides. I should not have to jump through a bunch of evil-designed hoops that are set by those who don't respect freedom in attemt to dissuade, frusterate, or disqualify me by some statutory loophole. While I will always obey the law, I will never agree to, or cease to fight politically against any legislation that constrains the rights of law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Legislation like this designed in the wake of a tragedy such as Newtown does nothing more than raise the victim count from 26 to hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. Loss of freedom in this nation is a tragedy too, considered by some to be worse than death. Remember all those who died to give us the ability to even have this conversation and don't be too fast to throw their efforts to the wind.
> 
> Plain and simple fact: Any legisation that gives power to the Government will not prevent these tragedies. Only legislation giving power to the righteous in society can have that effect.--------SS


YUP. +1


----------



## paddler

It wasn't until the 1960's that civilian versions of the AR-15 were manufactured. The Second Amendment didn't anticipate this technology. We know that under most combat situations, "Select Fire" is the most efficient way to use these weapons. In cases like Newtown, there is no practical difference between a Class 3 weapon in "Select Fire" mode, in which three shots are fired each time the trigger is pulled, and semiautomatic guns. All semiautomatic weapons, rifles, pistols, and shotguns that use replaceable clips, should be made Class 3. This designation should include all weapons currently in circulation. 

None of these guns is necessary for hunting, target shooting or home defense. If you have low T, and simply must own one of these weapons to compensate, you simply have to meet all the requirements designed to prevent future mass shootings.


----------



## GaryFish

paddler213 said:


> you simply have to meet all the requirements designed to prevent future mass shootings.


Or in the case of Newtown, you have to break in to your mother's house, murder her in her sleep, and steal the gun that she legally purchased. Either way really.


----------



## cwnhtr

paddler213 said:


> It wasn't until the 1960's that civilian versions of the AR-15 were manufactured. The Second Amendment didn't anticipate this technology. We know that under most combat situations, "Select Fire" is the most efficient way to use these weapons. In cases like Newtown, there is no practical difference between a Class 3 weapon in "Select Fire" mode, in which three shots are fired each time the trigger is pulled, and semiautomatic guns. All semiautomatic weapons, rifles, pistols, and shotguns that use replaceable clips, should be made Class 3. This designation should include all weapons currently in circulation.
> 
> None of these guns is necessary for hunting, target shooting or home defense. If you have low T, and simply must own one of these weapons to compensate, you simply have to meet all the requirements designed to prevent future mass shootings.


The right to bare arms was not written so you could hunt or Target practice, it was written to defend freedom including your constitutional freedom even from your own government. There were no classification of fire arms listed because you should be able to match the power your government has given to it military. If you read up on the history of the making if the constitution you would understand this. Do you think your littler bolt action rifle will defend against a military with semi autos?


----------



## DallanC

Yea, we have to restrict civilian ownership of weapons... i mean no-one ever takes one from a police officer and kills others right?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12 ... tion?lite=

-DallanC


----------



## .45

paddler213...I hope you being a sheeple gets you where and what you want. Good luck.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Paddler, 
Once again, your flawed thinking comes out. 

First off, you have not exhibited a broad enough knowlege to interpret the constitution in my opinion. Fact of the matter is that the 2nd was designed to cover the most recent "war weapons" of the time it was written. 

Second, what is the difference between a slow fired semi-auto, and a fancy double barrelled shotgun when a shooter has 20 minutes to impose his will on helpless victems. How many shots could you get off in 20 minutes with your double? 

Third, you don't get to deem what is "necessary" for anything. You are entitled to your opinion, but realize that your careless statements and far-fetched logic have left others considering your opinion way offbased. I own a varmint version of the AR-15 that comes with a 5-round mag for LEGAL hunting use. It is very accurate and effective as a hunting tool. Remember that freedom far transends what is necessary. It is not necessary to have freedom of speech, or of the press either. It is not necessary to have civil rights. Most of the rest of the world lacks these things and people still live their lives. The idea of American freedom is to offer the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I often employ the use of many types of firearms in my own persuit of happiness. 

Last....and most important. In all your posts, you have NEVER made an intellegent argument of how any of your proposed plans will do anything to make my kids safer at school. I actually went to a community meeting last night where some very good ideas were thrown around.....constructive ideas. I challenge you to undertake some critical thinking and, when you come up with something good, share it with the rest of us, we'd love to hear it. Sounding like a broken record regarding gun control has run it's effective course I'm afraid.------------SS


----------



## Critter

What Paddler doesn't realize or doesn't want to is that his double barreled shotgun was the assault weapon in it's day. Just figure two quick shots before you had to reload where if you had a rifle you had to reload after every shot, that along with having your choice of projectiles from nails to gravel.


----------



## paddler

Oh, I forgot. Semiautomatic weapons with fixed magazines would be limited to 5 rounds, including one in the chamber. 

This isn't a comprehensive or immediate solution to the problem, but a reasonable, rational part of the overall solution. Classifying only fully automatic firearms as Class 3 back in 1968 was a mistake, as it doesn't fully account for the firepower capabilities of semiautos that accept replaceable magazines. In retrospect, that was a huge oversight.

Understand that a simple modification to the AR 15 design will exempt it from being Class 3. Just close off the bottom of the receiver, so you have to load from the top. You'll still be able to kill prairie digs, and pursue your happiness.

Look, federal law limits us to three shots while hunting waterfowl. Why shouldn't we limit those who want to shoot people?


----------



## martymcfly73

paddler213 said:


> Oh, I forgot. Semiautomatic weapons with fixed magazines would be limited to 5 rounds, including one in the chamber.
> 
> This isn't a comprehensive or immediate solution to the problem, but a reasonable, rational part of the overall solution. Classifying only fully automatic firearms as Class 3 back in 1968 was a mistake, as it doesn't fully account for the firepower capabilities of semiautos that accept replaceable magazines. In retrospect, that was a huge oversight.
> 
> Understand that a simple modification to the AR 15 design will exempt it from being Class 3. Just close off the bottom of the receiver, so you have to load from the top. You'll still be able to kill prairie digs, and pursue your happiness.
> 
> Look, federal law limits us to three shots while hunting waterfowl. Why shouldn't we limit those who want to shoot people?


Do you work for Diane Feinstein?


----------



## GaryFish

paddler213 said:


> Look, federal law limits us to three shots while hunting waterfowl. Why shouldn't we limit those who want to shoot people?


For the same reason why you'll find plenty of pump and auto guns on the marsh with five rounds in the mag. People that ignore the law will do it no matter what. Shooting at people is already illegal. If you are shooting at people, you have no regard for human life, or the law. So a legal decree has no bearing on a criminal. It only limits the law abiding from responding to the law breaker. Much the same way that many women get abused or killed by people that ignore restraining orders.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Do you work for Diane Feinstein?[/quote]

No, he doesn't work for Feinstein. Even Feinstein would consider this guy a quack. In her liberal, anti gun tirade she proposes to allow magazine capacity up to 10 rounds not counting one in the chamber. Now Paddler wants to limit all guns to 4 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber further illustrating his real position on guns and gun control. This is a guy that is offering a plan that is even more restricive than anything Feinstein would have the guts to propose. Sure am glad I don't have to try to defend a position like this. Oh, and the comment about low T was also very revealing of both his intellectual ability and his ability to conduct meaningful debate. Just another liberal talking head. What a disappointment. All I can say is that I'm glad that the overwhelming majority of folks conduct themselves much better than those who oppose gun freedoms. Imagine what this world would be like if we all pursued the banning of things we didn't like? So, Mr. Paddler, we can add AR-15's and about 90% of the rest of our sporting arms to your list including mud motors and atv's. Anything else that you want banned while we're at it?-----SS


----------



## DallanC

Feinstein actually had a CCP and carried a weapon when she felt her life was in danger... oh the irony.


-DallanC


----------



## MadHunter

paddler213 said:


> Nothing needs to be banned. No buy backs need to be undertaken. Just reclassify all semiautomatic weapons that accept removable clips as Class 3. No big thing. If you just have to own such a weapon, demonstrate that you meet the qualifications and will be responsible for it. Very simple, really.


I already meet the qualifications... I am not a criminal. I have a right endowed to me by my creator. I have that right protectected by the constitution.



paddler213 said:


> It wasn't until the 1960's that civilian versions of the AR-15 were manufactured. *The Second Amendment didn't anticipate this technology.* We know that under most combat situations, "Select Fire" is the most efficient way to use these weapons. In cases like Newtown, there is no practical difference between a Class 3 weapon in "Select Fire" mode, in which three shots are fired each time the trigger is pulled, and semiautomatic guns. All semiautomatic weapons, rifles, pistols, and shotguns that use replaceable clips, should be made Class 3. This designation should include all weapons currently in circulation.
> 
> None of these guns is necessary for hunting, target shooting or home defense. If you have low T, and simply must own one of these weapons to compensate, you simply have to meet all the requirements designed to prevent future mass shootings.


The writers of the constitution didn't anticipate the extreme liberal that didn't show up untill OH WOW!! the 1960's. Neither did they anticipate their hypocricy, devious nature and anti-american agenda. The 2nd ammendment protects your right to defend yourself (including from your government if it becomes oppresive and tyranical) not to hunt or shoot at targets.

You argument is flawed and poor at best. Do people need cars that go over 100mph? Their high rates of speed a not necessary for driving to work, church, school or going on a road trip. I admire your conviction to your ideals but they are flawed none the less.



martymcfly73 said:


> Do you work for Diane Feinstein?


 You mean the hypocryt liberal that had a concealed weapons pertmit in the liberal gun controlling state of California? And BTW she let it expire due to criticism from her liberal peers. How is that for being sheeple?

Bottom line is.... I refuse to be a victim. I will defend myself and my family (and yours if the situation calls for it) by any means necessary. If the criminal gets a bigger gun then so will I.


----------



## elkfromabove

paddler213 said:


> It wasn't until the 1960's that civilian versions of the AR-15 were manufactured. The Second Amendment didn't anticipate this technology. I beg your pardon! The drafters of the 2nd Amendment/Bill of Rights may not have known the exact technology, but they knew it would improve, thus the more incompassing word "arms", meaning "weapons of war". They expected the people to have weapons of war equal to their enemies. We know that under most combat situations, "Select Fire" is the most efficient way to use these weapons. In cases like Newtown, there is no practical difference between a Class 3 weapon in "Select Fire" mode, in which three shots are fired each time the trigger is pulled, and semiautomatic guns Nor would there have been any "practical" difference with a bolt or lever action rifle or a revolver (or in this case , several) in the 20 minutes it took for the police to arrive. . All semiautomatic weapons, rifles, pistols, and shotguns that use replaceable clips, should be made Class 3. This designation should include all weapons currently in circulation.
> 
> None of these guns is necessary for hunting, target shooting or home defense. If you have low T, You mean like my 16 year old 110 lb granddaughter who is willing to hunt with my inherited Remington .308 semi-automatic because it has low recoil, but won't shoot my purchased Tradewinds .308 bolt action that almost knocks her over.  and simply must own one of these weapons to compensate, That's undoubtedly the most offensive argument (and assumption) you and your kin make and has absolutely nothing to do with my right to protect my family or to keep and bear arms you simply There's that word again! have to meet all the requirements designed to prevent future mass shootings. And there again is your unsubstanciated assumption that your proposal will in any way prevent future mass shootings. Well, you really played your hand on this post! You are sinister, not nieve!


----------



## craigire

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really applaud the NRA in how they have treated this in making no comment yet in respect for laying the deceased to rest and letting the families grieve in stark contrast to what Barry has done.
> [quote="Dukes_Daddy":frpxn7uj]NRA should step forward and take a position banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Unless we have a zombie outbreak there is no need for anyone to have these weapons.
> 
> I enjoy shooting them but would gladly give up "fun" in the interest of the greater concern about some nut killing kids or people in a mall.
> 
> Get over the tired argument of "they are coming for our deer rifles". You sound like Uncle Jimbo in Southpark. Just another ******* argument which reflects idiocy and genuine lack of appreciation of how **** the world is.
> 
> 
> 
> Never watched Southpark, but that does explain your position and how you got there.
> 
> 
> 
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. -Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which other Constitutionally granted freedoms are you willing to give up? Religion, back to prohibition, speech, press, search and seizure...??
> If you really want to reduce such crimes let's not look at superficial, knee-jerk reaction solutions! Let's really look at facts and history.
> 1-The Aurora nut job did not go to the closest theater, he did not even go the largest theater. He had about 6 theaters and chose one of the farthest ones away from him and this chosen one had a very unique quality. The theater he chose was the only one with a firearm prohibition, why would he do that? Which type of firearms was he using? Were they "assault weapons?"
> 2-Switzerland, contrary to most of Europe, has liberal gun ownership laws and experiences a very low crime rate with the most crime ridden areas being gun free zones, why?
> 3-Crime rates in DC and Chicago decreased after the Supreme Court struck down the bans as unconstitutional, why did they drop or why did crime rates not sharply increase as some politicians prophesied? Why were these such crime ridden areas while the bans were in place?
> 4-Why did the crime rate (violent crime and property crime) hit a 49-year low in 2009 (clearly including lower rates than the time the ban was in place from 1994-2004), 5 years after the original gun ban expired, again contrary to politicians prophesying sharp crime rate increases?
> 5-Why did the CT incident include the shooting in a gun free zone? Why not at home or at any of numerous other places?
> 6-Have you heard of criminals having a hard time getting weapons? Do they do so legally? Which type of weapons did the Trolley Square shooter use? Which type of weapon did the Triad Center shooter use in 1999 (during the ban)?
> Draw your own conclusions! What did I miss?
Click to expand...

What you missed is 20 dead kindergartners. Explain why anyone "needs" an assault rifle and 30 round clip? Zombies, Helicopter Pig Hunting, Red Dawn?

An object that can cause massive death in short order should be banned to the general public.

Our society is **** up for any number of reasons and we have these young people who flip out and cause horrific carnage to others.

Your notes above are straight out of the NRA talking points. Answer "how would a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips harm your right to have arms"? And don't give me that slippery slope crap. When the NRA supported ban on machine guns in 1932 the government didn't go after other weapons.

Spend a little time at Lee Kay and see the type of people who have assault rifles. Gangsta's, Minuteman Members, Racists in Denial Talking About That #$%#$^ Black President Gonna Get My Guns, and Scariest of all some nerds who probably play Black Ops 22 hours per day and have killed 1000's in the last week in their virtual world.

Give up the pathetic justification and arguments to have these weapons in the public.[/quote:frpxn7uj]

By that logic we should get rid of cars, trains and planes because those also have the ability to "cause massive death in short order". I have spent time out at Lee Kay, lots of time, and what I see is what I wish others could see. A sport enjoyed by thousands of responsible people who enjoy the sport of shooting.

Now I don't own an AR, and I do struggle to justify owning one, but one thing that I do know for sure, when we give up some rights, it doesn't take long for it to expand to other rights as well.

I do not think that guns are the problem, I think that a society with a rusty moral compass is the problem. Violence is glorified. Think about it, did we have this much gun violence back in the days of Super Mario Bros on the first Nintendo? Nope, but now in the day of realistic and glamorized Grand Theft Auto and Modern Warfare public shootings have become the norm. Video games is one piece of the puzzle, but one thing that you cannot deny is that violence in the media and in our society has steadily increased over the last 20 years.


----------



## Mojo1

paddler213 said:


> It wasn't until the 1960's that civilian versions of the AR-15 were manufactured. The Second Amendment didn't anticipate this technology.


But it sure anticipated a move by the vocal liberal minority to infringe on the majority's rights, just like the attempt now. What's next??? Limit free speech??? Rewrite the 4th???

Ron white must have named that cd after you.


----------



## Fowlmouth

I hear the Subway in New York can be used as a lethal weapon. We better shut it down before anyone else gets shoved in front of a train........


----------

