Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gun Hoarders  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12927 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

I've read/heard several reports that say that an unintended side effect of the Newtown shootings is that gun affectionados are rushing out to buy assault rifles (quaintly called "modern sporting rifles" by Dick's Sporting Goods) and high capacity magazines (30 to 100 bullets), fearing a possible (if not likely) ban on such things in the near future.

One smaller gun shop owner was unable to resist the urge to call this a stimulus, sigh...

One person said they were trying to save for a down payment for a truck, but instead are buying guns. I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

The fear is that there are proposals for banning assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 shots.

Very sad that these folks feel such a ban will be an imposition.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13193 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

For several years since President Obama was first elected, there has been a surge of gun and bullet sales due to fears of a return of bans on certain classes of guns and bullets on the national level. Many believe so literaly in the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot limit gun sales and possession they want to be armed to 'keep the government in check'. That has been made even worse by the pressure from the Newtown school massacre. The Great Recession, the collaspe of the middle class and it's jobs, the 'Mayan Calander' cycle ending, increasing street crime violence in some areas (like Chicago), fewer cops, racism (especially with a President of African herritage), the failure to deal with illegal immigration, the illegal drug trade with it's violence, major weather/enviromental changes like major storms, failures to deal with the problem of mental illness, all have been factors too. Some shows on the cable channels have given attention to the 'prepper' movement and many of them horde guns and bulllets.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21851 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

This isn't new. As I've said before, the Obama administration has been the best thing the gun industry has seen for a long time. Every time someone anywhere said a thing about gun control, the NRA could act like Obama was about to take away everyone's guns (even though he hasn't done anything of the sort, and has in fact signed legislation allowing people to carry guns in more places), and there would be a run on gun stores as people panicked and decided they needed to buy everything they could right then and there. Rinse and repeat several months later. It lets the NRA look like they're doing their job, and it's obviously very good for the gun shops and manufacturers.

It is utterly ridiculous, but people buy things based on highly irrational urges all the time, and this is no different.

The difference this time is that a ban on the sort of weapons that were used in Newtown might actually happen (and particularly assault rifles). So I suppose it's justified for the first time in a while. But I really would question the priorities of someone who's been saving up for a truck but decides to get an assault rifle instead. And I would question the sanity of anyone who thinks that guns in general are going to be banned - nobody in any position of power has called for that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

By taking out the other drivers during rush hour!?



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

Surely if there is a ban on these weapons (which IMO should not be available to the public anyway, but that's not for this thread) then they'll be illegal once the ban comes in and anybody caught with one would be in violation of a Federal law (from what I gather?) which would be several years bending over in the showers for Bubba in a Supermax?

User currently offlineCaptCufflinks From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

Clearly you've never played 'Grand Theft Auto'

In all seriousness, though, I do tend to agree with ajd1992 - surely by banning the purchase of these guns, thereby making them illegal, you're making them illegal to keep also? Without banning the ownership and the purchase of the guns, there's no point doing one or the other, surely.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
Many believe so literaly in the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot limit gun sales and possession they want to be armed to 'keep the government in check'.

I'm no legal scholar so all I can offer about the 'intent of the 2nd Amendment' is my personal opinion...on its face I find it illogical to assume that just because it made sense in the 1770s for members of the colonial militia - basically every able bodied male at that time - to maintain their service weapons (muskets) at home, it automatically makes sense that private citizens should be allowed to maintain military grade hardware at home in 2012. The world has changed...and the real analogy between 1775 and today would be for National Guard troops (ie the state militias) to keep their M-16s and M-240s with ammo under their beds, and nobody as yet has seen the sense in allowing that.

Either way, if you think you're going to stop government tyranny/opression with an assault rifle (30 shot magazines or not)...you're gonna have a bad time. It's nothing more than a wet dream for paranoid people.

The internet is the musket of the 21st century...indeed throughout history we have seen that the pen is indeed much mightier than the sword (or assault rifle as the case may be). The American Revolution succeeded due to the power of what people like Thomas Jefferson wrote, not the average citizen's freedom to own hunting weapons, or members of the militia to store their small arms at home. Had the French not fallen in love with the idea of liberty so beautifully articulated in Philadelphia (and with the idea of an easy way to poke the British in the eye) the Revolution would have just been a sad, failed colonial civil war.

So it is unbelievably ironic that those who immediately go into a hysterical circle jerk at the slightest mention of gun restrictions are more than happy to get into bed with the gun-loving 'Right' who would seek to limit our FIRST Amendment freedoms...particularly when it comes to the nexus of religion and government. Dont' even get me started on the FOURTH Amendment.

Edit: I recognize that Jefferson and others also wrote about the right to own weapons for personal defense...to me that is a separate issue that can/should be discussed on its own merits without being confounded by this 'government tyranny' bit.

[Edited 2012-12-20 05:57:46]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 4):
Surely if there is a ban on these weapons (which IMO should not be available to the public anyway, but that's not for this thread) then they'll be illegal once the ban comes in

Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons.. But he wouldn't succeed - for a start, it would cost too much in compensation. And, if he even tried, he'd probably face a re-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......  

[Edited 2012-12-20 06:08:48]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
and, if he tried, he'd probsbly face a rer-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......

The only result of that re-run would be a glut of one-owner pickup trucks on the used market.


User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Another gun thread?
Beating a dead horse here.

It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40065 posts, RR: 74
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I've read/heard several reports that say that an unintended side effect of the Newtown shootings is that gun affectionados are rushing out to buy assault rifles (quaintly called "modern sporting rifles" by Dick's Sporting Goods) and high capacity magazines (30 to 100 bullets), fearing a possible (if not likely) ban on such things in the near future.

It's a legitimate concern considering Obama's voting record while a State Senator in Illinois. The wing of the Democratic Party that Obama represents do in fact want to ban guns. The community he supposedly 'organized' has the nation's most strict gun control and ironically has among the nation's highest murder rate - from guns.
The horrible event in Connecticut is the kind of event that politicians can take advantage of and use to push legislation they've always wanted to pass.
They're not all that concerned about stopping an event like this again, they're more concerned about 'control' and putting their name on a new law and make a name for themselves.

Quoting sudden (Reply 10):
It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................

...and sadly mental illness and how we treat it will continue to go under the radar.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
they're more concerned about 'control' and putting their name on a new law and make a name for themselves.

I think that's a fair description of nearly all legislation these days. The only difference appears to be what they seek to control...


User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons.. But he wouldn't succeed - for a start, it would cost too much in compensation. And, if he even tried, he'd probably face a re-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......  

They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation - gather intel, raid houses who they believe still has weapons.

That, or just get a list of everybody who owns a gun (because they need a licence) and then pay them a visit and ask them "Do you mind awfully if we take your M16 off you, please?"

Guns are far too easily gotten in the USA. The whole "We need them for protection" wouldn't matter if they weren't so freely available in the first place. You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

[Edited 2012-12-20 06:45:52]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40065 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons..

It's been done before with taxes so of course it can be done with guns.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

Not true at all.
In fact, a neighbor of mine back in San Francisco was able to stop two young punks that broke in his house. They had two metal pipes but luckily he had his gun ready and shot both of them in the legs disabling them until the police arrived.
Quite impressive for an 82 year old Korean War vet bound by a wheelchair.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation -

15 years ago in New Paltz, New York, people who turned in their guns got free therapy.  
Those who didn't turn in their guns, got free everything....



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
...and sadly mental illness and how we treat it will continue to go under the radar.

Indeed. One crackpot hypothesis that I am harboring in my own twisted mind is that mental illness and the presence of certain kinds of weapons could be related.

In other words, you have your garden variety nutjob. Left to his devices he might cause X amount of harm...but add the allure of military grade hardware and you get the start of the kind of ideation that ends in a "rebel without a clue" shootout.

At the very least I wonder what the mental impact is of continued exposure to the instruments of human death...ie "assault weapons" which I acknowledge is largely a cosmetic distinction, and 'badass' semiautomatic pistols...as compared to say a more pedestrian hunting rifle or a snub nosed .38 six shooter that is good out to about 10 feet.

Do the tools inspire the performance of the job that they were created to do? I think so, sometimes. Ask the guy who just bought a new (fill in the blank). Suddenly he finds all kinds of uses for it. Likewise I wonder if certain weapons foster an unhealthy fascination with revenge and death in the minds of people already at risk.

With all the haggling over magazine capacities and muzzle velocities I don't hear anybody asking this question.


User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):

Fair enough, but I find this to be an evil circle. The debate gets fuled by another prick who shoots himself and who can not stand up for what he did.
So if you ask me ther guns is not the issue itself. But it's an easy way of expressing anger or whatever else is wrong with these people.



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12150 posts, RR: 49
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Another gun thread?
Beating a dead horse here.



Sad but true. It ain't ever going to change. The sooner people realize it and accept the fact then they can move on. The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
It is utterly ridiculous, but people buy things based on highly irrational urges all the time, and this is no different.

They vote this way too.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40065 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 15):
Indeed. One crackpot hypothesis that I am harboring in my own twisted mind is that mental illness and the presence of certain kinds of weapons could be related.

In other words, you have your garden variety nutjob. Left to his devices he might cause X amount of harm...but add the allure of military grade hardware and you get the start of the kind of ideation that ends in a "rebel without a clue" shootout.

BINGO!
We have a winner! You are spot on and I've been saying the same thing in other discussions.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 15):
With all the haggling over magazine capacities and muzzle velocities I don't hear anybody asking this question.

I have but not at this site but I support what you are saying.
The person at fault in this case is the mother. It's unfortunate that she is no longer alive to answer some questions. It's been documented that she was aware of her son's mental illness and tried to get him put in some sort of institution. Knowing that, why on earth would she have these weapons in her home if she already knows her son is mentally ill?
She brought this upon herself and sadly her community paid a huge price for her neglect. Seems as though the lame-stream media will not assign fault to this lady.
Mentally ill people are already banned from owning guns and anyone with common sense would know not to have these weapons in a house with a crazy person.

[Edited 2012-12-20 07:31:37]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting sudden (Reply 16):
Fair enough, but I find this to be an evil circle. The debate gets fuled by another prick who shoots himself and who can not stand up for what he did.
So if you ask me ther guns is not the issue itself. But it's an easy way of expressing anger or whatever else is wrong with these people.
Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
Sad but true. It ain't ever going to change. The sooner people realize it and accept the fact then they can move on. The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

Seems like our politicians should just put the matter up to a referendum and give the people what they want.

If the prevailing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is such, let anybody buy and carry whatever guns they want, wherever they want. Go back to the days of the Revolution or the Wild West. Everyone becomes responsible for their own safety and nobody gets to bitch the next time a bunch of people get gunned down.


User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1626 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation - gather intel, raid houses who they believe still has weapons.

Not going to happen, as Civil War II would break out, ending in red vs blue states, which wouldn't be too long of a fight.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
Guns are far too easily gotten in the USA. The whole "We need them for protection" wouldn't matter if they weren't so freely available in the first place. You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6923 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
It is utterly ridiculous

Have you followed Fast & Furious?

It's still a scandal and one with blood on this adminstration's hands. Moreover, it's not unreasonable to assert that it was a very deliberate attempt by this POTUS to make a move to help further his own gun control power play.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

When it comes to Constitutional rights, there is no meaningful change or compromise needed.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns.

Misunderstanding, ajd1992 pal......

I'm not saying thst Congress can't make 'possession of semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities exceeding ten rounds' illegal. They could do it tomorrow.

All I'm saying is that any such policy would cost the US taxpayer billions - for the simple reason that those millions of gun owners bought those weapons 'in good faith - and are therefore entitled to claim compensation.

As it happens, more than half a century back, on 'National Service,' I qualified as a 'marksman' with the legendary 0.303 Lee-Enfield. My instructors pushed me to try to 'go on from there' using our 'issue' semi-automatic/full-automatic weapon of the time - the Sten Gun. Couldn't get on with that crude little weapon at all; I got the feeling that if i'd been firing that thing at a soccer match, I'd probably have killed half of the enemy, half of our guys, and most of the referees and linesmen as well..............

My endurng feeling is that - whatever the question is - firearms cannot possibly be the answer......

[Edited 2012-12-20 08:16:38]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40065 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 20):
Seems like our politicians should just put the matter up to a referendum and give the people what they want.

Connecticut voters have already passed restrictive gun laws in the past.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 20):
If the prevailing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is such, let anybody buy and carry whatever guns they want, wherever they want. Go back to the days of the Revolution or the Wild West. Everyone becomes responsible for their own safety and nobody gets to bitch the next time a bunch of people get gunned down.

In the 'Wild West', kids were not being shot at school, kids respected their parents, their were no violent video games and marijuana was still legal.
I wouldn't mind having this guy as our President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

 splat 

[Edited 2012-12-20 07:55:51]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 14):
Not true at all.
In fact, a neighbor of mine back in San Francisco was able to stop two young punks that broke in his house. They had two metal pipes but luckily he had his gun ready and shot both of them in the legs disabling them until the police arrived.
Quite impressive for an 82 year old Korean War vet bound by a wheelchair.

OK, fair enough, but what about the rest of the world who don't have legalised guns? The fact he had a gun could have ended horribly for your neighbour if they'd wrestled the gun off him and killed him with it.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
Not going to happen, as Civil War II would break out, ending in red vs blue states, which wouldn't be too long of a fight.
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

Indeed, it is my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you're entitled to comment on why we DON'T have legalised guns (or at least, legal but VERY restricted).

Personally I think the constitution (well, the part about "thou shalt be able to own a gun to look tough but not know how to aim the thing") is based on a time that is so far removed now it's not relevant any more. It was ratified in 1788, which is just not the same society as we have now - the fact that it's so enshrined in US culture is part of the problem. People end up owning guns (because they can, the Constitution says so!) and never learn how to use the thing, or are so unhinged they end up doing what those kids did in Columbine, Virginia Tech, New Town, or if you want an example of a UK one - Dunblane. There have been 30+ school shootings in the US since Columbine, and nobody has really done anything to make guns more difficult to get hold of. Somebody needs to because the gun culture in the US is just out of control, to a point.


25 DiamondFlyer : So, tell me, how exactly is the AWB going to do anything. The last one went from 1994-2004, and last I checked, 1999 is between 1994 and 2004. So, if
26 Superfly : Here in Thailand, gun laws are very strict and yet it's so easy to buy a gun here. They're sold openly in the markets here and no registration requir
27 Mir : Not this time. The NRA will either come along with sensible measures to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who would do harm with them,
28 Post contains images SmittyOne : True, until the people decide - via Constitutional means - to amend the document, changing those rights based on the needs of today. Or until the dul
29 falstaff : You start getting federal agents to come to everyone's home looking for guns and you will have 1000's of federal agents dead on the ground. There lik
30 L-188 : I am so glad I ordered magazines for my AR build on Mondya, because on Tuesday the place I ordered them from had sold out. I will give a couple to my
31 Mir : They're still dead. I don't see how why they're dead should make much a difference. -Mir
32 Post contains links and images Superfly : When government fears it's people, it's liberty. When people fear government, it's tyranny. LOL! That explains a lot of things..... That is a fine ma
33 seb146 : Even keeping guns licensed gets the gun nuts in an uproar. They are okay with getting carded for just buying one tiny box of Sudafed or driving or bu
34 SmittyOne : Pain in the ass to clean though, IMO. LOL, well played. But I'm thinking that if it took the USSR, UK, and USA five years to crush the Wermacht there
35 Superfly : I don't agree with carding people for those products either. That tiny minority is in the White House. Just look beyond his nice smile and look at hi
36 DiamondFlyer : How long has the US been in Afghanistan? How long were the Soviets there? The idea isn't to fight a full on war. Its hit and run guerrilla war. One d
37 cptkrell : Not far from here is a great "gun store" called the Outpost Armory located on the Barrett Firearms property where Ronnie manufactures some of the most
38 DiamondFlyer : No idea. But judging by the amount (or lack thereof) parts in stores these days, I wouldn't want to be building one. AK's seem a little easier to get
39 falstaff : It does. The cause of violence is the reason why people get killed. Guns don't kill anyone alone, it takes a person to operate it. I own 39 guns and
40 Post contains images Superfly : Also worth mentioning, slavery in the US was able to last as long as it did because slaves were NOT allowed to own guns. My elderly relatives can rem
41 Post contains images SmittyOne : You lost me there 'Fly. My point is that it took all those countries to take down the Wermacht. I doubted some armed German civilians could have take
42 Superfly : Ok, now I get what you're saying. Speaking of that time in history, look who just made Time magazine Person Of The Year.....
43 us330 : Wasn't this part of the plot line to the movie Red Dawn? if you are going to quote the Constitution, at least quote it accurately. Otherwise it weake
44 Superfly : That is very true.
45 SmittyOne : Fair enough...I'm thinking your average .30-06 hunting rifle (or my personal favorite Winchester .30-30) gets you the same protection without the biz
46 DiamondFlyer : Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport? -DiamondFlyer
47 Post contains links Revelation : Normally, I'd feel the same way, but this time seems different. Personally I see some amplifying factors: > The string of relatively recent preced
48 Mir : The reason why people get killed is because they were shot. It takes a person with a gun. You can't argue that there isn't a lower probability of som
49 falstaff : not at all. Time is has become a "Obama Love" publication so why not give him the honor. Newsweek lost all objectivity during the '08 campaign and I
50 DiamondFlyer : Because they are REGULATED, not banned. There is a big difference there. How many people would be screaming if we banned a specific type of car that
51 mt99 : Do the Constitution say anything about ammunition? Guns are a "right" - but is ammunition a right? Problem solved!
52 luv2fly : Sorry they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any change of any kind. Sorry kids died though guns laws will never change. I for one wish they would
53 Post contains images Superfly : Damn right! True but I do have some respect for Newsweek for the cover of their May 2012 issue.
54 falstaff : It doesn't need to. The two are one and the same. It is like when people say "the second amendment only means the army can have guns".... What countr
55 Post contains links and images Superfly : ...and let's not forget the horrific murder of Ki-Suck Han that was pushed in the subway tracks in New York city. Should we ban public transportation
56 SmittyOne : Absolutely, but if we're talking about the US population rising up against unconstitutional action and trying to get the US military to come to their
57 L-188 : Fix the real problem, mental health! I am a weapons collector and trust me, it is a great hobby! When a get a chance i think i will run up a tread abo
58 mt99 : How? Obamacare? Universal Health Care?
59 Superfly : Reopen the mental institutions that were shut down 30+ years ago.
60 L-188 : Correct superfly The film, "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Best" did so much damage to mebral health care. Not saying condituons in that wra where goid in
61 falstaff : Lots of Americans are killed by drunk drivers so I guess we should also ban the use of alcohol. I find it funny how lefties want to ban guns, but usu
62 Superfly : That is correct. It was a trend started by California governor Edmund (Pat) Brown and continued by governor Ronald Reagan. The left were screaming th
63 SmittyOne : Agree, that is just plain inaccurate.
64 Revelation : Indeed, there are many different ways to commit murder, from a baseball bat to an arrow to pushing someone in front of a train. However, as you point
65 mt99 : And pay from them how?
66 Superfly : The same way they were paid for 30+ years ago - through tax dollars. I have no problem with subsidizing mental institutions they way they used to be.
67 Aesma : Many weapons and military equipment were legal to buy at some point and are now banned here. You can keep them but you have to make them unusable. Th
68 Post contains images Superfly : You're in France. All your tanks and weapons were unusable 72 years ago! No but you can in Cambodia.
69 AirframeAS : There is no gun ownership database. Just because one has a license dies not always mean they own a weapon. Your idea is quite silly as it wouldn't wo
70 Geezer : It's too bad he didn't shoot them in their gonads ! ( Still a shattered knee cap is enough to get your attention.......) That story reminded me of so
71 cmf : The real problem with guns and people with mental problems is that irresponsible gun owners let people with mental problems get their guns. Maybe you
72 ltbewr : I wonder too if some 'gun hoarders' are just getting as many guns as possible now so if stricter gun purchasing guns go into effect, they can resell t
73 Darksnowynight : That and that it was a constitutional issue as well. But at the time certain human beings had a right to own other human beings, and this was protect
74 SmittyOne : Yep. The Constitution is a living document. An old, crotchety one that is very wise, right nearly all the time, and necessarily slow to change...but
75 Flighty : We can construe ownership of these weapons as a direct threat against the public. It is a statement saying, "I am planning to kill a huge number of pe
76 scbriml : No, it won't. But making guns harder to get and harder to own just makes the killing more difficult and might reduce the US murder rate to something
77 Revelation : Indeed. Gun fans seem to understand why the government strictly controls access to tanks, artillery, and even grenades and bazookas but doesn't seem
78 L-188 : It is getting nuts out there for getting parts. I got magazines ordered on Monday and Tuesday and I am glad. By wendsday the retailer was sold out. It
79 DeltaMD90 : Well, count me in on trying to get what I want before the ban goes into effect. I don't care what yall say, I've been trained with rifles, use them on
80 SmittyOne : Totally aside from this discussion, I'm curious why you'd need to stock up...do you get to shoot enough that you anticipate going through several set
81 L-188 : Investment Smitty. After 1994 per-ban magazines went up considerably in price and continued to do so until that stupid ban ended in2004. So if y it ha
82 L-188 : Even better news...I must have found the only gun shop in the state that still had AR15 uppers in stock....yes I lightened their inventory. Now I just
83 NAV20 : Just as a matter of interest, guys, how does gun licensing work in the USA? I was taught to shoot by my father (a 'rifleman' in both world wars), usi
84 Revelation : In my home state: So if you use a FFL the process is just based on weeding out felons, domestic violence offenders and those convicted of drugs offen
85 DiamondFlyer : License? You go to the gun shop, they call you into NICS (National Instant Criminal Backgroup Check system), if nothing comes back, you are good to g
86 TheCommodore : A week, try 1 day ! Oh well, go on living with your head in the sand, while the rest of the world laughs at you all, bickering over such an obvious s
87 Darksnowynight : Well, I'm glad I'm not the only that sees a lot of these objections as some surreal Monty-Python sketch...
88 Post contains links NAV20 : I know and love the United States, Revelation, and have family there. And I earnestly hope (and believe) that this latest massacre - or the next two
89 NAV20 : Sorry, link won't post. Quote is from 'The New Yorker.'
90 seb146 : Don't forget that both the car and driver need to renew every year or two. Gun owners? They'll be fine. Why bother them? That would infrenge on their
91 Mir : The fact that this remains the case is insanity. It needs to change. -Mir
92 Flighty : He probably would not have. Tragically, in 2008 the Supreme Court created a new item in case law that no longer links the collective people's right t
93 Post contains images Maverick623 : Not in Arizona We also had a "bastard" that shot innocent children in Afghanistan. Should we also take the guns away from the military? LOL. Psychoti
94 Flighty : I mean, you are right that the Taliban has guns and can resist the US Army, and that's very interesting. But, my angle is that Lincoln won the Civil
95 L-188 : On good news my magazine order arrived in the Mail today. Goid thing i ordered them when i did because theyvwhere sold out the next day.
96 Post contains images Maverick623 : You can't compare Lincoln with Obama or any President in recent memory. Except for the parts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where there are litera
97 kiwirob : Bear in mind that this guys stated that a 2 cent per bullet tax would cost him about 50,000 dollars per year, he's obviously using a hell of a lot of
98 L-188 : Actually kiwi I was referencing his suggest of a $1200 annual fee per firearm when I said he would cost me fifty grand a year with that stupid idea. A
99 kiwirob : Maybe they shouldn't go where the bears live.
100 L-188 : Kind of defeats one of the big reasons for living up here. Also I would have no issue going after a bison or moose with that same caliber. And those t
101 seb146 : I have never had moose, but bison is not stellar. I would eat it, for sure. Just not exotic. I love deer, though! But, why does one need an automatic
102 L-188 : Farm raised or wild...there is a difference. My dad shoot one back in 1979, it was a younger one so it pretty tender and then on top of that my mom sl
103 seb146 : I don't know much about guns. I do know that, when I was growing up, our neighbor was an employee of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also
104 L-188 : Probably bolt, lever or slide action. Most of my hunting rifles are bolt action. I do have a m100 winchester that is a semi auto, in .308 winchester,
105 kiwirob : What I don't get is why folks have no problem registering there motorvehicles, even collectors who own dozens of cars register all the ones that they
106 cmf : Why so many with American flags call for no comments by those with other flags... Is that a fence around the sandbox? If we can't control the use by
107 Post contains images Superfly : ..but I though electing Obama was supposed to make the world love us. Apparently not. No one is calling for "no comment" as you stated. They're just
108 falstaff : I have been to several NRA national meetings (the convention) and you see NO street thugs, no people that look like junkies, no criminal element at a
109 Superfly : Next time I'm in the States, I want to attend an NRA meet. Another important factor that the anti-gun crowd conveniently ignores is that 78 out of 80
110 Darksnowynight : It happened before. There was all manner of violence perpetrated against civilians and POWs during the civil war. Our social policies have changed a
111 Superfly : Ok, Maryland? They also have very strict gun laws and so does the state of New York. Yet crime is so high.
112 kiwirob : Same deal with cars, they can be used for all sorts of dastardly purposes The rest of the world were pretty happy when he was first elected and even
113 seb146 : Because people can just saunter over to a neighboring state with looser gun laws and buy anything they please. Just like with alcohol and porn, in so
114 Superfly : So please explain why states with the highest rate of registered gun owners have the lowest crime? Explain why states with the most restrictive gun l
115 NZ1 : Hi Everyone, Yet again, another gun thread that has started to deteriorate. Please consider this a final warning to keep your posts civil and on topic
116 BMI727 : I happen to think that the run on guns represents some of the absolute best of America. A large portion of the country is clamoring for tighter gun co
117 cmf : Most guns come from legal sources. Only 10 - 15% are stolen. Out of line. I have never claimed anything such. Never seen that statistics before. What
118 L-188 : Yeah I meant garand. I'm telling you based on his spell checker, Steve jobs dropped out of college because of his spelling.
119 seb146 : I see this meme thrown around, but I have not seen any link to any agency backing it up. Oregon is pretty lax on gun control, but people are still sh
120 Geezer : Don't hold your breath, Mir ! If you think a few "rants" on here are going to make the NRA "irrelevant", I have a large bridge in Brooklyn that you m
121 scbriml : Those would be what we would call accidents. Mostly tragic, some undoubtedly involving negligence or stupidity. The MAJOR difference is, I doubt any
122 DeltaMD90 : Look, I'm on your "side," I own 9 guns. VERY FEW people want total gun bans... the only people I've seen mentioning it are ironically, right wing fol
123 seb146 : I see the statistics on each state ranked and whatever but what about kids shooting kids? Kids who get ahold of their parents legitimate weapon and ac
124 cmf : Kids or adults, it is irresponsible owners when people access their weapons without approval. It is only a small part of the problem but it is a "fee
125 falstaff : You get some people who would love to see that registration fee very high, which would restrict the legal ownership of firearms to the wealthy. Last
126 L-188 : AirframeAS, she was actually down in Port Heiden. She was jogging with her earphones in so she never heard the wolfs coming. Not that they make a rack
127 Geezer : Apparently you didn't take the time to read my post........... What no one on this thread has bothered to mention so far is..........this WHOLE issue
128 seb146 : Washington state had a similar problem in reverse. They were charging extreme amounts for car registration, so, by initiative, that fee was lowered a
129 n318ea : That is discriminatory against the poorest people to protect themselves. Expensive guns and fees are out of the reach of some who can least afford it
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Example Why US Gun Mentality Doesn't Work posted Fri Sep 28 2012 20:58:54 by cmf
R.I.P: Top Gun Director Tony Scott posted Mon Aug 20 2012 08:17:30 by Mortyman
Why Not Gun Control posted Sat Aug 11 2012 00:24:10 by GEEZER
Should The U.S. Start A Gun Control Policy? posted Sun Jan 9 2011 17:59:35 by flyorski
Top Gun 2? posted Tue Nov 2 2010 22:00:22 by Max Q
Top Gun 2/Top Gun Sequel posted Sat Oct 23 2010 20:46:52 by ORDFan
Howard's Gun Legacy - 200 Lives Saved A Year posted Sun Aug 29 2010 22:08:55 by TheCommodore
This Is Why Having A Gun Is/can Be Useful posted Sat Jul 17 2010 13:02:58 by KPDX
Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws! posted Mon Jun 28 2010 20:03:48 by FlyASAGuy2005
Iraq Gun Video Leaker: Arrested posted Mon Jun 7 2010 15:35:52 by UH60FtRucker