National Now Country is jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon

[Mark W.]

if there are as now estimated some 300+ Million firearms in the USA and if we conservatively estimate the average value at $500 (keep in mind there are collectable rifles worth in the 10's of thousands of dollars and the average hunting rifle and scope now runs more then $500). At $500 each my calculator says the liquid assets of the firearms owners in the USA would be about 150 BILLION DOLLARS

if there are as estimated 100 million firearms owners in the US then the average owner would stand to loose $1500 if they were all confiscated. THATS ONE HELL OF A TAX bill on top of everything else.

 

[notazombie]

What's our ammo worth?

 

[Layton]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with Sports, Target Practice, Skills, etc. Read it myself. You should try it.

I have, your reply puzzles me

 

[Layton]

So when our Fore Fathers spoke of a Citizenry that put down a tyrannical Government of which they were familiar, do you just dismiss it as folly? Curious.

No I took it seriously and understand the intention. Not how it is used today.

 

[Layton]

The choice of firearm should be personal .... after all if a gun does not fit how, what and where you shoot , it does you no good.

As for the 2nd Amendment , It was written to mean that a citizen should be able to own arms equal to what the military considers "small arms".
As long as you are a law abiding citizen , one should be able to own whatever firearm you want without providing a "need or reason".

A better question than the tired old statement of : "The Founding Fathers did not foresee AR15's and the like"...Is :

Would the Founding Fathers want us a citizens and our society of today have the same rights and responsibilities that go with said rights as they intended , back when they drafted the Bill of Rights?
Would they approve of what we , as a nation or society have become?

These two questions carry more "weight" in my mind over the question , of what someone from the 1780's-90's might think of a AR15.
Andy

These are all very good points. It is not an easy question. But it needs to be answered with thoughtful discussion such as yours.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The 2nd Amendment states the word: "Arms".
Which in the context of the times meant anything from knives , bayonets , tomahawks , pistols , rifles , muskets and even cannon , just to name a few.
Nothing in the text of the Amendment says the arms are to be limited to certain uses or types....
Arms today mean:
Weapons and ammunition at least according to Webster...
Again no wordage regarding certain types of firearms or uses....
Andy

 

[Layton]

In this case the firearms were used a weapons to assualt innocent people. Doesn't matter if it was a gun or a vehicle used to assault people.

As far as firearms abuse the left has been very quiet when it comes to light government is failing to follow it's own laws, as with the Texas shooter.

Layton you fail to acknowledge laws are to punish. If the bad guy doesn't intend to be alive for a trial, the law is moot. In the meantime Layton, feel free to wait for government protection as in Florida, Portland, Texas, Vegas, San Bernardino, ect. Wait as long as you like. I will take as many measures of self protection as I see fit. Regardless if you think it's grown-up or not.

No that is not my point. The point is why should we as a society make it so easy to put firearms that were designed for ONLY one purpose into the hands of those who could abuse them and harm others under the guise of 'Freedom'.

 

[RVTECH]

The point is why should we as a society make it so easy to put firearms that were designed for ONLY one purpose into the hands of those who could abuse them and harm others under the guise of 'Freedom'.

If it is 'we as a society' are making it so easy what do you propose 'we as as society' should do about it ? Remember I said 'WE' as a society - not the government.

 

[Layton]

The 2nd Amendment states the word: "Arms".
Which in the context of the times meant anything from knives , bayonets , tomahawks , pistols , rifles , muskets and even cannon , just to name a few.
Nothing in the text of the Amendment says the arms are to limited to certain uses or types....
Arms today mean:
Weapons and ammunition at least according to Webster...
Again no wordage regarding certain types of firearms or uses....
Andy

No argument there. I am not contesting the 2nd Amendment at all. I am simply contesting the easy access of certain types of weapons. It appears that I did not make that clear in my earlier posts.

 

[Layton]

If it is 'we as a society' are making it so easy what do you propose 'we as as society' should do about it ? Remember I said 'WE' as a society - not the government.

Exactly. WE as a society should act responsibly and take steps to minimize the issue of destructive weapons possibly getting into the hands of people who will abuse them. We won't get anywhere by immediately going to our respective corners whenever the issue comes up for discussion.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

What then do you mean by "easy access"?
I have to go through a FFL and a NICS background check to purchase or obtain a firearm....
Finding a dealer who has what I want or is willing to do a transfer and having to pass a background check , which at times is faulty...doesn't seem like easy access to me....
Andy

No argument there. I am not contesting the 2nd Amendment at all. I am simply contesting the easy access of certain types of weapons. It appears that I did not make that clear in my earlier posts.

 

[RVTECH]

Exactly. WE as a society should act responsibly and take steps to minimize the issue of destructive weapons

You are sidestepping my question - So what 'steps' should we take to 'minimize the issue? And what do you mean by 'issue' ? Only the military and LEO agencies 'issue' weapons - private citizens have to obtain them on their own.

 

[notazombie]

Oh come on, Andy. We all know guns rain from the streetlights.
"We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book."
–President Obama

 

[slimmer13]

This guy will never get the fact that a bolt action hunting rifle is just as "dangerous" as a semi auto mag fed, and a lever action is "designed for only one thing" also.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No that is not my point. The point is why should we as a society make it so easy to put firearms that were designed for ONLY one purpose into the hands of those who could abuse them and harm others under the guise of 'Freedom'.

All guns are designed for only one purpose .... to launch a bullet or shot , accurately at a target , be it a paper target , a "plinking" target , game animal or man.
It is not the fault of the gun with how it is used... that rests with the man who uses it.
Andy

 

[Layton]

You are sidestepping my question - So what 'steps' should we take to 'minimize the issue? And what do you mean by 'issue' ? Only the military and LEO agencies 'issue' weapons - private citizens have to obtain them on their own.

First the 'issue' is high capacity weapons in the wrong hands.
I don't have a concrete answer to the 'issue'.
We can take some steps by having more accurate and more stringent background checks through the many 'outlets' for the agreed upon weapons and accessories. The current 'date base' is a joke, mostly paper records from dealers.
We could make sure that the data base is updated to the latest technology and is kept current with LEO and Armed services input.
We could do some real research into the issue of gun violence that has been banned for decades.
These are only a few that could be used to lesson the possibility of the wrong people getting access to whatever weapons/accessories are agreed on.

 

[titsonritz]

Exactly. WE as a society should act responsibly and take steps to minimize the issue of destructive weapons possibly getting into the hands of people who will abuse them. We won't get anywhere by immediately going to our respective corners whenever the issue comes up for discussion.

You mean like Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc.?

 

[Layton]

All guns are designed for only one purpose .... to launch a bullet or shot , accurately at a target , be it a paper target , a "plinking" target , game animal or man.
It is not the fault of the gun with how it is used... that rests with the man who uses it.
Andy

True, but it is the DEGREE to which the weapon accomplishes that purpose that presents the 'issue' in our discussion. I absolutely agree that it the 'operator' at fault. My question is why do we make it easier for the Bad "operator"?

 

[RVTECH]

We can take some steps by having more accurate and more stringent background checks through the many 'outlets' for the agreed upon weapons and accessories.

Give us at least 3 of your proposed 'some steps' that would improve the aforementioned.

 

[Layton]

Give us at least 3 of your proposed 'some steps' that would improve the aforementioned.

As I said I don't have a concrete answer to the question. Please see above reply. Perhaps these won't do much, but at least we are trying to take steps to address the 'issue'.