Had a gun debate today after Obamas latest comment about gun control.

[ZigZagZeke]

Perhaps it is sad. Perhaps it is not sad. 'Words do not mean, people mean.' Do you understand what he ment by 'Powerful' ? Maybe he was referring to the ability to fire 100 rounds without reloading as 'Powerful'. A deer hunter does not need the ability to fire 100 rounds without a reload, so he might be right on that point. Perhaps. I am constantly amazed how folks on both sides of any issue seem to enjoy defining what people on the other side really mean.

Which you just did. If you were to follow your own advice you'd go by what he actually said, which has no basis in fact. If he meant to say something like "fire power" he should have used those words, not the one's he did use.

Some states once, maybe some still do, limit a hunter to a 5 round magazine. I never heard any great complaint from hunters that bought these rifles. It seems it is the folks that want these illusions of a military assault rifle that harbor the need for high capacity magazines. For what purpose? Most likely, in my opinion, is so that they will not feel undergunned in a gun fight.

Illusion? No, that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It is not about guaranteeing the citizen's right to own a hunting rifle. It is about not BEING undergunned in a gunfight with the military forces of an oppressive government regime. That is PRECISELY what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, not hunting.

Perhaps this is what causes fear in your 2nd cousin's mind ... getting caught in a gun fight that he is unprepared for, and does not want to prepare for.

And right there you have identified the motivating force behind most anti-gun efforts. Most anti-gunners don't understand guns and are afraid of them. They want to remove them from the world so that they don't have to contemplate being prepared to use them to defend themselves from those who would misuse them.

 

[locobob]

A soldiers AK-47 is a select fire weapon with auto-load capability. I too believe these belong in the hands of soldiers and not civilians. I constantly read of folks on these gun oriented web sites commenting how they do not trust the guys on the range near them to be safe. You going to trust these same untrustables with auto-loaders ?

An unsafe shooter is unsafe with any weapon, doesn't make one bit of difference if it's an auto-loader or not. This is a people problem not a type of weapon problem... just like "gun crime".

 

[davemata]

Perhaps it is sad. Perhaps it is not sad. 'Words do not mean, people mean.' Do you understand what he ment by 'Powerful' ? Maybe he was referring to the ability to fire 100 rounds without reloading as 'Powerful'. A deer hunter does not need the ability to fire 100 rounds without a reload, so he might be right on that point. Perhaps. I am constantly amazed how folks on both sides of any issue seem to enjoy defining what people on the other side really mean. Some states once, maybe some still do, limit a hunter to a 5 round magazine. I never heard any great complaint from hunters that bought these rifles. It seems it is the folks that want these illusions of a military assault rifle that harbor the need for high capacity magazines. For what purpose ? Most likely, in my opinion, is so that they will not feel undergunned in a gun fight. Perhaps this is what causes fear in your 2nd cousin's mind ... getting caught in a gun fight that he is unprepared for, and does not want to prepare for. Maybe you can do so reflective listening to your 2nd cousin and try to understand where he is coming from. I doubt you will influence too many people by simply stating that their thoughts and ideas are 'Sad'.

Since we're defining words. What does infringed mean?

 

[Joe Link]

I invited him to have a sit-down with me to discuss my views and to go shooting with me! Can't hurt to try some honey, huh?

This is the exact method I've used to win people to our side. I've converted at least 20 people over the years. The key is knowing who is reasonable enough to accept the lesson and not wasting your time with people who will never change.

 

[Vantage]

Good, honest, non-judgement, non attacking information is the best way to go. True, some are adamant and will ignore even the most common sense arguments, but still, your best chance is a calm informational approach. Explain what the second amendment is about. The idea that an AK47 isn't suitable for hunting is irrelevant because the second amendment isn't about hunting, or sport shooting.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

(link)

Additionally, bans like the purposed ban on high capacity magazines are worthless. We all know that James Holmes armed with 10 -10rd magazines would have been MORE deadly than he was with his 100rd mag. Because the 100rd mag jammed, and 10 round mag's don't. (or are less likely). And changing out a magazine takes a second or two.

High Capacity Mag bans are just knee jerk reactions by politicians to show that they are "doing something" in order to win support by those that are scared.

The truth of the matter is that you can't stop bad things from happening. James Holmes would have passed every security measure that the Brady Campaign asks for. He has no record, no history of mental illness, and was a PhD candidate.

As much as I'd like too, there is no way for me to stop my son from falling off his bike and hurting himself. Even if I cover him in pads from head to toe, he can still get hurt. The only answer would be to deny him the bike all together. But I can't keep him locked up in the house laying on a mattress because I'm afraid he might get hurt. The same holds true for our society. Guaranteed Safety doesn't exist. Do people really want armed security guards at the entrance to every building in america? Doing pat downs and frisks for every person that comes through? Do we want people looking through our medical records to see if I'm on Prozac to determine if I'm mentally stable? What if my doctor tells me she wants me to take a mild anti-depressant and I refuse... have I refused medical treatment from my doctor for a mental condition? Would that deny me my right to own firearms?

We don't need gov't restricting our access to firearms. We don't need further regulation.

We're already winning the fight for gun rights. Maybe the actual best thing you can do is to take a kid out shooting. So the next generation can keep up the fight.

 

[CharonPDX]

Show an uninformed person these two pictures:
http://i33.tinypic.com/ae7ghw.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ABunJ7_jGFU/T4woX6RejUI/AAAAAAAAAVE/JnzCAqrQ8F0/s1600/IMG_2710.jpg

Ask then which one is the "assault rifle" and which one is the "hunting rifle".

I bet they get it 'wrong'. (Not even taking into account the fact that an SKS (the first one) isn't by any reasonable definition an "assault rifle".)

I also remind people that an "AK-47" is extremely hard to get. An AK-47 *IS* by any reasonable definition an "assault rifle", because it is a select-fire weapon. But they have been illegal to import since 1968. This means that, even though they are plentiful and cheap overseas, they cost a lot in the US, plus you have to go through the long background check and pay the $200 NFA tax stamp fee.

On the other hand, there are semi-automatic rifles of the style of the AK-47 available. But other than the look, they are no different than other hunting rifles.

 

[lazerblazer]

Hook, all of "my pistols" are auto-loaders does that make them an assault pistol?

Me and my father just spoke about the real issue is, most folks want to displace blame. Wake up and smell the responsibility, this guy James Holmes, made a series of choices to:

- break the the law.
- be mean and terrorize others.


Nothing more nothing less! Furthermore I bet the only gun law he broke was discharging a firearm within the city of Aurora, and possibly a concealment law.

He is just a person who made bad decisions. The blame is not on guns; James' responsibility to uphold to laws of his area! I do it, as I am sure most of you do. I know the consequences if my actions, because of this I wake up and live my life with responsibility. I alone chose the path in which I take.

Responsibility to our well-being means retaining the rights and means to defending what this nation was built upon. The Constitution is real and was made for a reason.


Airing of grievances over :beer:

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[ZigZagZeke]

A soldiers AK-47 is a select fire weapon with auto-load capability. I too believe these belong in the hands of soldiers and not civilians. I constantly read of folks on these gun oriented web sites commenting how they do not trust the guys on the range near them to be safe. You going to trust these same untrustables with auto-loaders ?

There are only two places where large numbers of people handle loaded guns in close proximity to each other:

1. In a fire fight.
2. At a target range.

In the former situation people are shot by mistake frequently because it's hard to be careful when other people are shooting at you and trying to kill you.

In the latter, why would I trust anyone with any loaded weapon in close proximity to me and mine? I'm trained to not even trust myself with what might or might not be a loaded weapon. I check the chamber every time I pick it up. I treat it as if it were loaded, even after I've checked to see that it isn't. Why would I trust the guy next to me about any of that if I'm trained not to trust myself?

 

[deen_ad]

There are only two places where large numbers of people handle loaded guns in close proximity to each other:

1. In a fire fight.
2. At a target range.

In the former situation people are shot by mistake frequently because it's hard to be careful when other people are shooting at you and trying to kill you.

In the latter, why would I trust anyone with any loaded weapon in close proximity to me and mine? I'm trained to not even trust myself with what might or might not be a loaded weapon. I check the chamber every time I pick it up. I treat it as if it were loaded, even after I've checked to see that it isn't. Why would I trust the guy next to me about any of that if I'm trained not to trust myself?

And how wrong you are!

What if one or two people had been armed in the Aurora shooting?

 

[Mark W.]

Hollywood glorifies violence and yet they are the worst anti gunners around! Is it me or did this shooting happen a week before the u.n small arms deal for a reason?

tin foil hat to tight you need to adjust it.

 

[Mark W.]

A soldiers AK-47 is a select fire weapon with auto-load capability. I too believe these belong in the hands of soldiers and not civilians. I constantly read of folks on these gun oriented web sites commenting how they do not trust the guys on the range near them to be safe. You going to trust these same untrustables with auto-loaders ?

let me correct that for you sir

An enemy soldiers AK-47 is a select fire weapon with auto-load capability. I too believe these belong in the hands of enemy soldiers and not civilians. I constantly read of folks on these gun oriented web sites commenting how they do not trust the guys on the range near them to be safe. You going to trust these same untrustables with auto-loaders

The people in the USA who have full auto capable AK-47's have paid a fortune to own one and have jumped through the hoops of federal regulation to accuire their TAX STAMP for said weapon. they also know that a single accident event could cost them their investment and toy. SO I have observed them to along with all other select fire weapons owner to be very very careful with their toys.

 

[Hook686]

ZigZagZeke perhaps you are right. Then again, perhaps ....

 

[Hook686]

What if one or two people had been armed in the Aurora shooting?

I think that there would most likely be a lot more dead people.

 

[locobob]

I think that there would most likely be a lot more dead people.

Wow, strange attitude for someone on a gun forum...

I drove down the freeway today surrounded by thousands of people zipping around at 60+mph in 2 ton vehicles, amazingly I did not see a single crash. I was also at the gun club last week next to a bunch of people with auto-loading rifles, by some miracle no one was injured. By your logic there should have been mass carnage because the average American is not to be trusted with anything that is potentially dangerous. While we like to bubblegum about all the stupid people in the world the evidence would seem overwhelming that most people can in fact be trusted to behave responsibly most of the time. So why would you assume that a CHL holder would start wildly spraying bullets in a crowded movie theater?

 

[orygun]

I just had a facebook conversation with a much younger 2nd cousin. It revolved around the recent shooting in Colorado. He didn't understand why the public needed an "assault rifle" as it was certainly overkill for hunting, as it was so powerful.
This is a perfect example how someone who has absolutely no experience with firearms is quickly led to believe that an "assault rifle" is overly powerful and shouldn't be in the hands of a typical civilian.
Sad.
However, his late grandfather was a WWII Purple Heart winner and owned firearms himself. (something I doubt my cousin knows too much about) I invited him to have a sit-down with me to discuss my views and to go shooting with me! Can't hurt to try some honey, huh?

Update:
My cousin admitted to me that it's very likely that his "sources" on guns and gun control are probably biased and that's the only place he's learned anything about the subject. It about floored me. But it made my day.
I told him that any time he had a question related to guns and or "gun control" I'd give him my best shot at an honest answer.

I'd say that education is the most powerful tool.

 

[orygun]

I think that there would most likely be a lot more dead people.

Are you nuts? No, after looking at your other posts, I think you are a troll.

In the conversation I had with my cousin this was brought up. My comment was that if someone shot back, that coward would probably have turned tail and run. He was looking to shoot "fish in a barrel". Other than that, it would only take one good shot and it would be over. I'd rather be in a position to take a few shots at him as opposed to trying to hide in a movie theater.

 

[Hook686]

Wow, strange attitude for someone on a gun forum...

I do not have the confidence in the average shooter that you folks seem to. I have seen a SWAT officer have a ND at a 3 gun match, a guy point his gun down line at the range when he had a missfire and pull the trigger, and guy continue to shoot when a teen walked forward beyond the firing line to add another staple to his target when the range was hot. No I do not have a lot of confidence with people drawing their firearms in a very stressful situation. There seems to be difficulties when it is not a stressful situation. Obviously some here think otherwise. That is fine. I have my opinion and I shared it. Bash it if you wish, but all you have is your opinion to back it up.

locobob ... it is dark, there is teargas in the air, smoke, gunpowder, people screaming and moving every which way, blood, there a number of people with guns drawn. Who are the good guys, and who are the bad ? Who are people going to shoot at ? Of course they are not scared, because they visit gun friendly boards and have a CHL. hmmmm I'll pass.

 

[Hook686]

Are you nuts?

Maybe, but what does that have to do with it ? You and your brother can come up with all the opinions you want. That does not make them any more real than my opinions. It might be beneficial to ease up in your judgements.

 

[locobob]

I do not have the confidence in the average shooter that you folks seem to. I have seen a SWAT officer have a ND at a 3 gun match, a guy point his gun down line at the range when he had a missfire and pull the trigger, and guy continue to shoot when a teen walked forward beyond the firing line to add another staple to his target when the range was hot. No I do not have a lot of confidence with people drawing their firearms in a very stressful situation. There seems to be difficulties when it is not a stressful situation. Obviously some here think otherwise. That is fine. I have my opinion and I shared it. Bash it if you wish, but all you have is your opinion to back it up.

locobob ... it is dark, there is teargas in the air, smoke, gunpowder, people screaming and moving every which way, blood, there a number of people with guns drawn. Who are the good guys, and who are the bad ? Who are people going to shoot at ? Of course they are not scared, because they visit gun friendly boards and have a CHL. hmmmm I'll pass.

Well I am aware that once in a while people will have accidents or do stupid things but... those are the statistical outliers not the norms. If you live your life based on fear of outliers then you're not going to have much of a life.
I agree with you that the recent theater shooting would have been a difficult scenario for a CHL holder... but I also think most CHL holders are not going to randomly blaze away if confused or unsure. I'm thinking most would instinctively seek cover then draw and probably not fire a shot unless they had a pretty good idea who the target was. It's hard to say what might have happened, I wasn't there and I'm guessing neither were you.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yep, he's nuts.

The BAD guy was the one shooting at innocent people.

The GOOD guys, the ones that needed protection, were the ones running and hiding from the guy trying to kill as many of them as possible.

Geez. People who don't have the common sense to tell the difference shouldn't carry. And they shouldn't believe that others share their lack of judgement.

Would you trust the police to shoot back at BAD guys or should they be disarmed too? Or do you think that they are superior to civilians, being government employees and all?

I will not cower in hope that a murderer will show my family kindness because he's a murderer!