assault weapon ban again

[barrysloate]

Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon? We hear stories about Aurora and Sandy Hook but the fact is the chance of any of us confronting a crisis like that is about as likely as being struck by lightning. Furthermore, how many people would be able to react with nerves of steel in such a situation? From what I've read, and can imagine, people in a crisis situation tend to panic and freeze up, and the chances of actually being a hero and killing a potential attacker aren't great.

Earlier this year we had a gunman at the Empire State Building. The police got there in time and shot and killed him. They also wounded nine innocent people who were standing in the vicinity of the gunman. If trained professionals are that inaccurate, I'm pretty certain I don't want school teachers or principals packing heat.

So I make a distinction between the legal right to own a gun, and the actual need for private citizens to be armed. That's a debatable point.

[esd10]

a tool to protect my family and my property from people who would do me harm and have you seen the police responce times? i would have to wait 5 min or longer for a police officer to show up to protect me and thats enough time for me and my family to be killed so my ar15 and my glock 22 is my protection from people trying to do me harm. so a glock for instance carrys between 15-16 rounds so if that kid would have just brought in just the 2 handguns and no extra mags he would have had between 30-32 rounds and woud have shot all those rounds in the same amount of time as a so called assault weapon. these so called assault rifles fire just as fast as a handgun and what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto so what they call a assault rifle just looks the part but doesnt do the same because its semi auto. do you know the worst school shootings up till now happened in country's with strict gun laws?

[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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hi David- I think there are two things going on here. The first is a responsible citizen, especially one who has served in the military, has the right to own a gun. That point is beyond dispute.

The more important one to me, and I think this is what Dave was saying, is in what context does any citizen need to own or carry a weapon?

Barry, re-read you're post. You're saying one thing and then turning around and saying another. You're saying a responsible citizen has the right to own a gun, then you're turning around and questioning why does any citizen need to own a gun.

I'm confused. I really am.

[barrysloate]

It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

It's not confusing at all. The law allows a citizen to own a gun. That doesn't mean every citizen should have an arsenal of weapons. The OP is concerned that he needs all these weapons to protect himself and his family from harm. And I'm saying should he live to be a hundred, he will never have to use his weapons even once. There are millions of people stockpiling tens of millions of guns, for what amounts to a snowball's chance in hell of ever having to need them.

I guess it's a debate that will never be settled: half the country believes there are two many guns in America, and the other half believes we should have even more guns to protect ourselves. I don't have an answer, only an opinion. If you think I'm wrong that's your prerogative.

You're misrepresenting the facts. Nobody said any citizen should have an "arsenal of weapons" and where did you get that the OP has "all these weapons" to protect himself because I didn't read that. The OP said he had two weapons. Maybe he has more, who knows? But the point is that you're making things up.

If you (or anybody else) wants to continue the debate, let's be fair and use facts. And, just as a point of reference, what is an arsenal? More than 1 gun? More than 5 guns?

[barrysloate]

Hi David- obviously you don't want to really have this discussion, as you already have your mind made up. Have a healthy and happy new year. I've said all I could, and I'm done.

[novakjr]

I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Gun control laws do not/will not keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do others harm. The case of the guy who shot the two firefighters this past week prove that. By law, he was not allowed to own a gun (he was a convicted felon). Instead, he had his neighbor purchase them for him. He's now dead and the neighbor is now facing federal charges. This does not bring back the lives of the two firefighters. My prayers go out to their families.

For those who want stricter gun laws, please tell me what could have been done differently in this situation? The system itself worked, it prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. The problem is that criminals will always find a way around the legal system. To think otherwise is foolish.

I agree with almost everything you say David. The criminals will always have guns. What we do when we create laws is we keep the good people from doing something bad not the bad people from doing something bad. Bad people will always find a way. I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think we can appease folks with a law about automatic (or semi automatic) weapons but I don't think it really helps the problem.

If it results in less carnage during these attacks, then I'm for it. People can find another way to kill wild hogs.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I have to start by saying that I don't own a gun, and have NEVER fired one. Hell, I've only ever held one once(unloaded), and that was when helping a military friend move. Clearly, we all agree that the 2nd amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms. Duh! Where we all differ is in our opinions on why and the extent of guns we should be limited to.

The right to bear arm in America pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It was an existing right, that was to be protected or preserved by its inclusion in it, rather than established in it. Pre-bill of rights. the right to bear arms was viewed necessary for one of many reasons.

deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Now many of these reasons can be viewed as unnecessary, given the current law-enforcement and military programs, and I would agree However, deterring tyrannical government is the main reason that WE have the right to carry anything that the Military and Police do. Because they can be manipulated against us by a tyrant on any level.(Personally, to an extent, I can see how it can be argued that they already have, but that's a completely different topic for discussion)..

We have the right to carry any weapon we feel necessary due to these reasons. If someone could come at us with a semi-automatic or assault weapon, we ourselves have the right to be equally armed for protection. I understand the argument that putting more of them out there increases the odds of them falling into the wrong hands, however, you're foolish if you believe that the "wrong hands" can/will be stopped from achieving any level of firepower that they choose.. Accidents and wackos are a different story and they aren't the norm. But we should not be dictating law-abiding citizens based on these anomalies.

Great post David, well said.

Sincerely, Clayton

[drc]

I must admit that people who earnestly envision a war with the invading US Army sound rather scary. And bunker-in-the-back-yard cooky.

The second amendment seems (to me) to be a relic of another century, a time when we were preparing a revolution against the British.

But the second amendment is the law, and I don't argue otherwise. If people don't like a particular amendment, they can try and repeal it the standard, legal way.

[esd10]

one thing during ww2 the japanese emperor wanted to invade the usa but one of his commanders isoroku yamamto basically told him if they invade the US the american people are more a threat than our military and what he basically said was in america there is a firearm behind every blade of grass. So the 2nd amendment has protected us in the past with our right to bare arms that stopped a foreign invasion from happening so whats to say it would never happen again?