assault weapon ban again

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

For the record, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 to give American citizens the right to own a musket. There was virtually no police force back then and the militia was dispersed. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm.

Harm from whom? If you can't finish your statement, I'll finish it for you. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm from invading armies or an oppressive government.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nobody is going to take your guns away, and nobody is going to do away the Second Amendment.

Last week (December 29th), was the 122nd anniversary of Wounded Knee where nearly 300 Sioux Indians were massacred. Why? Simple! The 7th Calvary wanted to disarm them of their guns. What about their Second Amendment rights, or does that not apply to Native Americans?

Gun confiscation has happened in other countries all over the world and even here in the US (many times). Wounded Knee is NOT the only example I can give, it just happens to be so close to the anniversary. It’s funny how the gun control advocates try to tell gun owners that nobody wants to take away their guns when history has proven otherwise. It’s also funny how Wounded Knee is barely mentioned (if mentioned at all) in our history books. I guess they wanted to just keep that hush hush.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

No offense taken Scott, I appreciate the response.

I also agree with you about more funding to help the mentally ill. But, not every act of gun violence is perpetrated by a mentally ill person. More acts of gun violence happen by gang members (who own guns that were bought on the black market) than by mentally ill people. This is what I mean about them exploiting "certain" tragedies over others, to push an agenda.

Chicago alone in 2012 reached 500 gun related deaths, most gang/drug related. But, instead of logical steps in fixing "the drug problem", the failed war on drugs continues and people keep getting killed by people who shouldn't own guns (isn't this a tragedy?) and don't own them legally. Yet, they sensationalize the instances that a mentally ill person uses a gun to commit a tragedy and then blame it on THE GUN; and exploit it to take away people's right to bear arms.

And the hypocrites who are calling for the new "war on guns" all use guns to protect themselves one way or another, either by CCP's or armed security. So, it's ok for them but not for the common law abiding citizen I guess.

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person. I notice there's not much talk about what type of medications the shooter may or may not have been on- the focus is on guns.

The bottom line for me is if they take this right away (the right to bear arms) than we may as well kiss all of our rights away. The United Nations of America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Harm from whom? If you can't finish your statement, I'll finish it for you. It was pretty much the only way a citizen could protect himself and his family against harm from invading armies or an oppressive government.



Last week (December 29th), was the 122nd anniversary of Wounded Knee where nearly 300 Sioux Indians were massacred. Why? Simple! The 7th Calvary wanted to disarm them of their guns. What about their Second Amendment rights, or does that not apply to Native Americans?

Gun confiscation has happened in other countries all over the world and even here in the US (many times). Wounded Knee is NOT the only example I can give, it just happens to be so close to the anniversary. It’s funny how the gun control advocates try to tell gun owners that nobody wants to take away their guns when history has proven otherwise. It’s also funny how Wounded Knee is barely mentioned (if mentioned at all) in our history books. I guess they wanted to just keep that hush hush.

Great point David.

I would post a link to a you tube movie, but because of it's violent and graphic images I will just give the name of the one hour movie. It's called "Innocents Betrayed". I would suggest people who are ok with taking away people's rights to defend themselves may want to watch this movie/documentary.

Sincerely, Clayton

[esd10]

i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by esd10

i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

Exactly! You have to put yourself in the shoes of the victim's families. When they were told of the tragic news, do you think they asked, "What kind of weapon was used?" "What caliber?" Or do you think they asked, "What would make a person do something like this?" Answer is pretty obvious.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person.

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Amazingly, there are currently 'deals' in place where a diagnosed schizophrenic who committed a mass murder, was remitted to a psychiatric facility with the provision that if he was ever 'cured', he would go immediately to prison. Amazing that in 2012 (at the time) the court system is still referring to 'curing' schizophrenics. The point is that the public wants vengeance much more than they want to deal with reality.

Oh, forgot to mention - a schizophrenic at Western States in Washington was recently deemed 'cured' and sent to prison. So, tell me - who are the crazy people?

Modern day Salem witch trials.

They know the person is mentally ill, send him/her to a mental health facility for an "observation", give them who knows what kind of drugs/medication, and then say "he/she understands the charges against him/her", and now they are fit to stand trial. Yeah, that's it. Poof, no longer mentally ill.....

My Grandmother (RIP) was actually treated for depression back in the 50's with "electric shock therapy", I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I found this out. It made me sick.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

David, perhaps there are people who live in situations where they need guns that they can fire rapidly, in order to defend their homes.

Scott, they not only need them to defend their homes, but they also need them for everyday situations - like having dinner with your family or taking your wife to the movies. You just never know when or where you're going to need a gun. Why is this so hard for you and others to comprehend???

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2GOP72zBX

This happened only 2 days after the CT shooting. Wonder why we didn't hear about this in the news? Simple! The left-wing media would NEVER report a story where a bad person with a gun was stopped by a good person with a gun. Thankfully SHE had that gun or the situation could have been a whole lot worse.

BTW, look at the picture in the article. Does that look like a bad part of town to you?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott, they not only need them to defend their homes, but they also need them for everyday situations - like having dinner with your family or taking your wife to the movies. You just never know when or where you're going to need a gun. Why is this so hard for you and others to comprehend???

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2GOP72zBX

This happened only 2 days after the CT shooting. Wonder why we didn't hear about this in the news? Simple! The left-wing media would NEVER report a story where a bad person with a gun was stopped by a good person with a gun. Thankfully SHE had that gun or the situation could have been a whole lot worse.

BTW, look at the picture in the article. Does that look like a bad part of town to you?

Here's one for you David :

http://www.lvrj.com/news/coroner-ide...185029341.html

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Thanks for the article, Clayton. From the article: "Howard was shot after he and three other suspects forced their way into an apartment..." This confirms exactly what I was telling Scott in post #46. Most of the time, home invaders show up in groups or 2, 3, 4 (as in this case) or more. If 4 thugs kick in my door, I want a gun that can fire as many shots as I can, just as fast as I can.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks for the article, Clayton. From the article: "Howard was shot after he and three other suspects forced their way into an apartment..." This confirms exactly what I was telling Scott in post #46. Most of the time, home invaders show up in groups or 2, 3, 4 (as in this case) or more. If 4 thugs kick in my door, I want a gun that can fire as many shots as I can, just as fast as I can.

No problem David.

I found it interesting that the intruder who was killed wasn't even from this state. Scary stuff.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by esd10

i totally agree with you clayton and what this country will turn into if we leave all firearms to police and military we might as well turn into a socialist economy or a police state. it makes me so very sad to think about those parents who lost there children to these maniacs. like i said befor i'm a father of a 2 almost 3 year old about to start preschool and dont know what i would do if this happened to me but i would not blame the tool used to commit these horrible acts i would blame the person.

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

I have to say I tend to look at the worst case scenario, so sometimes what I say may sound extreme. But, I read alot of history and true crime books. It is a bit alarming to me that we are over 16 trillion dollars in debt (that, to me is a mind boggling amount of money !!!!) and the issue of gun restriction/confiscation comes up. This is where reading history books kind of freaks me out

On the brighter side, our police and military take an oath to defend the Constitution, and when push comes to shove I like to think that they wouldn't obey unconstitutional orders. After all, they are just like us,,, citizens of the United States of America. I've talked with many active military and they've all seemed very grounded to me. I always make sure to thank them for their service. A big thanks to all active military and all vets for fighting for our freedoms !!!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Here is a perfect example of the media pushing an agenda. Ben Shapiro did an excellent job of stating the facts to Piers Morgan regarding the right to bear arms. It was clear to me that everytime Mr. Shapiro was telling truthful facts and making too much sense, Mr. Morgan would rudely interupt him, cut him off, and try to divert the discussion. Kudos to Mr. Shapiro for speaking the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

Sincerely, Clayton

[esd10]

the ban will fail in the senate what from what i have read and heard and i believe the president is abusing his power and this needs to stop.

[cubsfan-budman]

The President is not abusing his power any more than Geo. H.W. Bush was when he used his executive authority to liberate Kuwait. The President has the ability to make certain decisions without Congress' permission. It makes my blood boil to hear so many conservatives scream bloody murder about these types of things. Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I have a strong feeling that he knows when he's within his rights to do something based on the Constitution.

A couple of other points I'd like to chip in:

1. An AR-15 or AK-47 or whatever type of assault rifle you might own is BY FAR the worst implement you could choose with which to defend your home in case of a home invasion/robbery. Even soft point assault rounds will go right through all the drywall in your house, posing a risk to others inside your house as well as innocent bystanders next door (or several doors down). Your are much better off defending yourself with a pistol (frankly a revolver, as they don't jam) or with a shotgun. Neither of those 2 options are going to be taken away from anyone.

So, in a defense situation, what use are assault rifles? A lot of folks have heard about store owners using assault rifles to defend their property versus looters in places like post-Katrina New Orleans or during the Rodney King riots in California. You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff. If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

If a person breaks into your home or place of business with intent to harm you, then by all means defend yourself with deadly force. My suggestion is to use a shotgun or pistol to do so, but currently that's up to you.

Finally, "assault weapon" is not nearly as nebulous of a term as many might imagine. It has very little to do with "selective fire" as was stated above. In my experience there are 3 types of military-style rifles that are available to the general public.

1. Sniper-type rifles (many calibers up to and including .50 cal rifles)
2. Battle-type rifles (typically .308 and 30.06, examples include HK G3, FN FAL and FN SCAR heavy)
3. Assault-type rifles (typically .223 or 5.56mm (AR-15) or 7.62x39 (AK-47))

Interesting trivia: 7.62 is the "common denominator" when judging the type of rifle that you're looking at...a "battle rifle" will shoot 7.62x51 (which is the military designation of .308 Winchester) or 7.62x54(r) which is reasonably common because its the round that goes with the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, which is so numerous because of their use in WW2.

The original assault round was for the German "Sturmgewehr" when they noticed that most of their engagements were occurring at relatively close quarters, so the extra powder in their 7.62x51 rounds was unnecessary. If the chopped the round down to 7.62x39 their soldiers could retain their effectiveness AND carry more ammo (or be less encumbered by the same number of rounds).

So assault weapons are literally the type of weapons built around these type of rounds. That is: a "battle rifle" caliber chopped down in length for easy carry.

The .223/5.56 nato is a modern take on the WW2-era 7.62x39 concept.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

You know what's better than defending your stuff versus looters in this type of situation? GOING AWAY. Its just stuff.

Funny, funny stuff. Tell you what, I'm coming by your house at 10:00 tonight to rob you. Since you know I'm coming, just GO AWAY! Leave! It's just stuff, right?

You know I am not serious but, if I was, something tells me you wouldn't heed your own advice and just "go away". You would be there to defend your property.

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

If you'd rather take a human life than buy insurance for your stuff, YOU might be the one with the mental health issues.

Why does it have to be a choice? Personally, I choose both, I HAVE insurance, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will certainly take their life.

[teetwoohsix]

NM

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Funny, funny stuff. Tell you what, I'm coming by your house at 10:00 tonight to rob you. Since you know I'm coming, just GO AWAY! Leave! It's just stuff, right?

You know I am not serious but, if I was, something tells me you wouldn't heed your own advice and just "go away". You would be there to defend your property.



Why does it have to be a choice? Personally, I choose both, I HAVE insurance, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will certainly take their life.

I agree with partially with the latter point... It is not socially accepted to break into someones house, you don't know why they are there or what they can or will do, you don't know if they are going to harm you your family or your child(ren)... If you see they are armed you cannot take chances - them or you - I don't think I would shoot to kill though who knows as I hope I am never in that situation.

[esd10]

a person coming into your home while knowing you are home they have the intent of harming you and your family and to take what is yours so i will defend my family with my so called assault weapon. a 9mm round will go through a wall just as easy as a 223 round so thats garbage and has no argument.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by esd10

a person coming into your home while knowing you are home they have the intent of harming you and your family and to take what is yours so i will defend my family with my so called assault weapon. a 9mm round will go through a wall just as easy as a 223 round so thats garbage and has no argument.

This is patently false. There is TONS of "frangible" 9mm ammo on the market this purpose-made to break up once it hits drywall/brick/other building material. If you go to WalMart, you'll find more types of "home defense" ammo than normal "hardball" ammo.

.223 does come in soft-point varieties, but unless you load the rounds yourself, there is too much powder behind the bullet to stop it from going through drywall/hardy plank/whatever.

In fairness, I'm sure you could find some specialty ammo for your AR-15 on the web somewhere that would be appropriate for defense inside your home, but the stuff you get at WalMart/Cabela's/Academy isn't going to do the job.

Also, even in a "carbine" configuration, the fact that you need to raise the weapon to your shoulder to be effective and the barrel length being what it is (18in) your ability to acquire your target effectively in the dark is really diminished...even with the best ammo.

Anyhow, if you have the sincere desire to protect your house from intruders, short-barrelled shotguns with 00 buckshot are absolutely your best, most effective solution, followed by revolvers with frangible ammo.

In my previous post, I wasnt speaking against killing someone who threatens your life or the life of your family. And I definitely feel that someone who knowingly enters your home while you're in it has the intention of harming you. I was merely speaking against those people who use their guns only to protect their property. IN MY OPINION, no stuff is worth taking someones life for. If you find yourself in a Katrina-type situation, the most ethical and frankly safest thing to do is LEAVE THE AREA.

[vintagetoppsguy]

http://230grain.com/showthread.php?6...is-Test-(Adpat)

[cubsfan-budman]

Interesting info David, and certainly not what I expected.

I wonder though why they used frangible ammo in the .223, but not in the pistol, if they wanted to compare apples to apples.

Anyhow, I've personally punched holes in a cast iron bathtub with 5.56 FMJ, so my assumption was that it would punch through drywall like it was paper. Maybe not.

[yanks12025]

Perfect thing to explain.

[teetwoohsix]

Great post Brock

Hopefully someday soon people will wake up to the scam that this really is.

Sincerely, Clayton

[EvilKing00]

I think if bad people who want to do bad things will go out and get illeagle guns. Not go get a permit for one. Those normal people who want protection get the permits. I dont have a gun, but if i want one i should be able to go get one

[Shoele$$]

I'm all for responsible citizens owning guns, but the truth is for home protection all you really need is two things, a dog who will give you a heads up by barking when somebody is trying to enter the house who shouldn't be there and a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with magnum 00 buck if they do happen to enter. At night when it's dark and you're all disorientated, you want something that will give you a nice spread and a better chance to hit your target

[teetwoohsix]

This is one of those topics that I could get into all day long, because I think the topic goes much deeper than banning assault weapons/gun confiscation.

I try to figure out the logic behind : Arming foreign rebels in other countries who are trying to overthrow their governments (many of these groups have ties to Al Queda~ I thought we were "after them"?), but yet, imposing all of these restrictions (assault weapon ban/gun confiscation/Patriot Act/NDAA/etc.,etc.) on law abiding Americans. Does this make sense?

I mean, what's really wrong with this picture? I honestly wonder if people are even paying attention anymore.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cammb]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yeah, that was me.

Do you have an answer other then the usual "out of my cold dead hands."?

Why would you get nervous? I don't have any power and I'm not political.

I live 1/2 an hour from Newtown. I've been through there dozens of times. Adam Lanza had access to semi-automatic weapons because his mother had access to semi-automatic weapons. Can you give me a good reason why Adam Lanza's mother or anybody else needs a semi-automatic weapon?

To protect yourself from the people who want to take your guns?

Let's call a spade a spade.

..........and nobody's gonna take your guns. Any legislation will have so many loopholes it won't matter a lick. You'll get grandfathered in, or at worst you'll have to slightly modify the guns you already have.

"Nobody is going to take your guns"? Educate yourself and go to youtube and lookup videos on Hurricane Katrina You will see videos of the National Guard going to homes , not affected by the hurricane, and taking weapons away from these lawabiding citizens. Some are even put in handcuffs. Dont ever think it cant happen here.

[SetBuilder]

If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike? Sounds like a good investment right now. I can buy an AR or AK and just wait until they ban them, grandfather me in, and then I can re-sell in the future at a huge markup.

Look at the fully automatic rifles. They were once legal too, and probably sold as cheap as a semi-auto today. Today if you want to buy a full-auto rifle legally, it'll cost you over $30,000 in some cases.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike?

I don't think so. You're seeing a price spike right now because supply can't keep up with demand. Anybody that's ever seriously thought about owning one is buying now, pre-ban. I don't think they're buying them as an "investment" to re-sell later. The folks that are buying them are just afraid that they won't be able to purchase one later and want to do it now before any ban. So, if there is a ban, anybody that wants one will already own one. Ban or not, the prices will come back down.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cammb

"Nobody is going to take your guns"? Educate yourself and go to youtube and lookup videos on Hurricane Katrina You will see videos of the National Guard going to homes , not affected by the hurricane, and taking weapons away from these lawabiding citizens. Some are even put in handcuffs. Dont ever think it cant happen here.

cammb-

I'm convinced that the mainstream media has brainwashed people to the point of no return. They will only understand what is going on when the SHTF.
And then it's too late.

People need to start looking at alternative news on the internet, and start waking up fast. Learn the truth, it's out there. SNAP OUT OF THE TRANCE.
Sincerely, Clayton

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

If they do ban the semi-auto rifles, will there be a price spike? Sounds like a good investment right now. I can buy an AR or AK and just wait until they ban them, grandfather me in, and then I can re-sell in the future at a huge markup.

Look at the fully automatic rifles. They were once legal too, and probably sold as cheap as a semi-auto today. Today if you want to buy a full-auto rifle legally, it'll cost you over $30,000 in some cases.

Grandfather you in ? Try ban= felony so turn them in or get raided and arrested. If they are banned it will be against the law to own them, how can you resell something that is against the law to own? What will happen is our goverment will branch out from the DEA and form a GEA and go raid all registered gun owners that don't turn in weapons, then they will turn around and sell them to the Mexican Cartel.

[Ease]

Hey Johnny! Good to see ya!
Some of the firearms manufacturers are refusing to sell to LE/Gov't agencies in states where citizens are restricted. Not the big boys (Ruger, Glock, Sig, etc) but its a start.
Check it out.

[cubsfan-budman]

that is not how it worked during the previous clinton-era assault weapons ban.

Originally Posted by ChiefBenderForever

Grandfather you in ? Try ban= felony so turn them in or get raided and arrested. If they are banned it will be against the law to own them, how can you resell something that is against the law to own? What will happen is our goverment will branch out from the DEA and form a GEA and go raid all registered gun owners that don't turn in weapons, then they will turn around and sell them to the Mexican Cartel.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

that is not how it worked during the previous clinton-era assault weapons ban.

I didn't think so either. If I remember correctly (and I could be wrong), anything that you owned that fell under the ban was grandfathered in and was not illegal to own or shoot. It was just illegal to buy, sell or trade.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I wouldn't compare anything that happened 20 yrs ago to what is going on today.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by ChiefBenderForever

I wouldn't compare anything that happened 20 yrs ago to what is going on today.

+1

Sincerely, Clayton

*Agree, great to see you posting again Johnny

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Ease

Hey Johnny! Good to see ya!
Some of the firearms manufacturers are refusing to sell to LE/Gov't agencies in states where citizens are restricted. Not the big boys (Ruger, Glock, Sig, etc) but its a start.
Check it out.

Nice post Eric, thanks for that link.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

[daywalker2029]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

im glad somebody points this out, im a big supporter of the 2nd amnd and live in NY. ever since the conn shooting all these quick to action anti gun officails are trying to pass their gun restrictions fast (look what cuomo did virtually overnight here in NY ) but they arent really addressing the problem which is the people that are the problem, not the gun

i dotn hear alot of people speaking to the real issue which is, IMO (i know im not a big poster here so take it for what its worth LOL) , people control. not many mention that the conn shooter attempted to by a gun himself before the shooting but he store turned him down. fact of the matter is gun control worked, the guns owned by his mother should have been properly secured and kept out of his reach.

law makers need to focus on the illegal guns that are out there and work on better mental health programs and evaluations NOT quick bans and restrictions that only affect responsible gun owners

[teetwoohsix]

I think what people don't realize is that this has been an agenda way before these three mass shootings. These shootings are what they are using to push the agenda into the national spotlight. We all know that criminals have been shooting each other for decades with handguns, often not even hitting thier intended targets (innocent victims, often children in drive by shootings). They didn't care so much then, did they? Why now?

When you realize that this has been the plan for a long time, you can see how devious all of this really is. You really need to ask yourself, why do they want the guns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiydW83TYg

Sincerely, Clayton

*Edit to add:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

Naahh, no brainwashing going on....

[daywalker2029]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I think what people don't realize is that this has been an agenda way before these three mass shootings. These shootings are what they are using to push the agenda into the national spotlight. We all know that criminals have been shooting each other for decades with handguns, often not even hitting thier intended targets (innocent victims, often children in drive by shootings). They didn't care so much then, did they? Why now?

When you realize that this has been the plan for a long time, you can see how devious all of this really is. You really need to ask yourself, why do they want the guns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiydW83TYg

Sincerely, Clayton

*Edit to add:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

Naahh, no brainwashing going on....

im completely agree - its not like gun crime just came about recently - gun crime isnt some new problem, but why all of a sudden is it the main topic for all political debate ? its sad that anti-gun lobbyist wouldn't use horrible events like these shootings to push their agenda

frankly all the gun laws in teh world arent going to stop a criminal from hurting someone if thats their goal

theres an old bumper sticker in my fathers gun cabinet that says " when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them". it really holds true, why dont the people that are some against guns spend their time/money/energy on getting rid of illegal guns that are in criminal hands

[drc]

The pro gun argument often is "you don't need a gun to kill someone." Ala 'Take away a criminal's gun,and a criminal will kill you with a knife or brick or whatever." That argument merely begs the question of why then do you guys need guns?

Take it as a rhetorical question, or as commentary on a less than logically air tight slogan. Football beer commercials and political slogans (from all sides) are the lowest level of human communication, so I'm not pointing fingers just at the NRA. 99% percent of political slogans don't hold up to logical or reasoned analysis, and really just exist for emotional or visceral effect.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by drc

The pro gun argument often is "you don't need a gun to kill someone." Ala 'Take away a criminal's gun,and a criminal will kill you with a knife or brick or whatever." That argument merely begs the question of why then do you guys need guns?

Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters.

My guns serve me 3 purposes. Hunting, target shooting and home defense. I could care less what the person who breaks into my house it holding. It doesn't matter if it's a shotgun or a staple gun or nothing at all. If I can get to my gun, I am going to shoot them dead. Period! If I shoot them and they are not dead, I'm going to shoot again and again and again and again until they are dead. If someone breaks into my house and I am able to get my gun, they will not leave my house alive.

[teetwoohsix]

"Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters."

This is the point exactly.

Read history people. Read history.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Ease]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Why do I need a gun? I don't need a gun. But it's my 2nd Amendment right to own one. That's all that matters.

My guns serve me 3 purposes. Hunting, target shooting and home defense. I could care less what the person who breaks into my house it holding. It doesn't matter if it's a shotgun or a staple gun or nothing at all. If I can get to my gun, I am going to shoot them dead. Period! If I shoot them and they are not dead, I'm going to shoot again and again and again and again until they are dead. If someone breaks into my house and I am able to get my gun, they will not leave my house alive.

DJ is on point once again. Fantastic post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Matthew H]

Love, love, love all the "tyrannical government, home defense, 2nd amendment BS..... You own guns because they're fun to shoot, collectible, and because you look bad-ass in those pictures with one leg up on a rock and aiming off in the distance that you post on FB.

[teetwoohsix]

So now they are arguing that it's constitutional to drone bomb Americans on American soil. What next?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Cardboard Junkie]

Regarding all of the shootings to drum up support for banning weapons, I have 2 words. Sleeper Agents


Dave Pierson.....proud owner Mac 10's and 11's ,(with all the candy), 42 Hand guns, 870 Remington Pump w/pistol grip. And a dozen rifles from 22 to 500Nitro Express. My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Regarding all of the shootings to drum up support for banning weapons, I have 2 words. Sleeper Agents


Dave Pierson.....proud owner Mac 10's and 11's ,(with all the candy), 42 Hand guns, 870 Remington Pump w/pistol grip. And a dozen rifles from 22 to 500Nitro Express. My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

You, sir, are my hero