National Now Country is jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon

[notazombie]

We have to do something! Anything! For the children! More laws and lists, quick!

 

[RVTECH]

Please see above reply. Perhaps these won't do much,

I did see the above reply and I don't know what the 'these' are.

but at least we are trying to take steps to address the 'issue'.

What 'steps' are 'we' 'trying' to take to address the 'issue'?
You've stumbled while retreating........

 

[No_Regerts]

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"?

There are no "degrees" in the 2nd Amendment. Destructive devices are already heavily regulated. The Heller decision identifies the right of the individual to keep and bear arms that are in common use. Nothing is more common that fires centerfire ammunition than the AR15. Its America's rifle.

Everything about the 2nd Amendment relates to defense, not sport. This is why magazine capacity limits don't hold water as it infringes upon the persons ability to deploy their chosen weapon in the manner in which it was designed as a defensive weapon.

You can't allow kneejerk infringements on your rights or you lose that right. There is free access to any right because its a...right. Its like passing laws to limit your computer time because the founding fathers never realized how much we could abuse the 1st Amendment at such a fast rate. Should you only get a certain number of words per minute?

Before you say words dont hurt, I can show you several live facebook videos of young girls hanging their selves because of words.

 

[albin25]

A knife is designed for only one thing, cutting....
... potatoes or people, it's not the knife's decision.

A hammer is designed for only one thing, pounding....
... nails or people, it's not the hammer's decision.

A baseball bat is designed for only one thing, whacking a ball....
... baseballs or people, it's not the bat's decision.

etc...................

There's GOT to be a Country song there somewhere!
Her hooha made her cheat, so...
My truck made me run her over
My tractor made me bury her
My Harley made me go to the bar
The honky-tonk made me forget

(There... back on track!)

 

[Andy54Hawken]

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"?

In this we are going to have to disagree...I see no "DEGREE in which the weapon accomplishes that purpose".
A firearm either works or not... in my mind.
Andy

 

[notazombie]

Degrees of kinda pregnant?

 

[CLT65]

I had a discussion with a coworker a while back about the scary, evil AR15. I mentioned that it was "just a rifle" and he about had a fit, saying it was so much more than "just a rifle". Somehow it's a scary death ray?

He has a Mini-14 and that's OK. I told him that they were functionally identical except that the AR is generally more accurate and arguably more reliable. From a civilian perspective it's not even that much different from the old M1 Carbine from 1940 except a more effective caliber, accuracy and reliability. Somehow in his mind an AR is some new, high-tech death ray. Should we really restrict a certain type of firearm because it's more accurate and reliable? He had no idea that the AR has been around since the late 1950's! Tell me again how it's some kind of new-fangled weapon of mass destruction?

The old saw about any gun having been designed for "only one purpose" is a ridiculous argument. It's a gun-banner's tired old catchphrase that really doesn't even make any sense. A Brown Bess musket was clearly designed for only one purpose, and I don't hear calls to ban them.

The reality is that the vast majority of us do not want weapons in the hands of bad people. I have children and their safety is of the utmost importance to me. How to do that without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding is the question. I for one am not willing to have California or Australia style gun control in the quest for "public safety".

For one thing, I think that level of control takes away rights completely and divvies back some privileges as the government sees fit. For another, it's clear that ultimately they are not effective at keeping us safe.

I do agree that if we're going to have background checks they should be as accurate as possible. I think a nut job or a criminal is going to get a gun either way even if a background stops them, but if we're going to do background checks they should be complete and accurate, and flag someone who shouldn't have a gun while not delaying someone who is clean.

As a society, as individuals in society, there is one thing that we can do to help keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Here's some gun control that I can get behind: control your own guns and keep them locked up! Guns get stolen all the time; it's the number one way criminals get guns. A good friend just had three handguns stolen from his truck. As much as I hate a thief, he really should have had them secured better. I had some guns stolen many years ago and now keep mine locked up tight. What has always bothered me more than the monetary loss is the thought of what some dirt-bag might be doing with my guns. I hope my S&W model 29 is rusting at the bottom of a river, rather than in the pocket of some drug dealer.

No, I don't think we need a law requiring everyone to keep their guns locked up. That's the knee-jerk liberal solution to everything- a new law telling everyone how to live their lives. Rather, I think we need to improve the safety culture of our own community, and securing our weapons is a big part of that.

 

[RVTECH]

He has a Mini-14 and that's OK.

Yet his 'line in the sand' is the AR? Doesn't make much sense.

 

[CLT65]

I think this is his perception of what an AR is:

 

[Caveman Jim]

What's our ammo worth?

Every penny I put into components to build my own ammo, PRICELESS in a life saving scenario.

 

[titsonritz]

I think this is his perception of what an AR is:

Thing is, a Dillon shouldn't be an issue either.

 

[Diamondback]

Nobody needs a whiny little b*tchtroll either, and yet here Party Unnamed is...

 

[Caveman Jim]

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'.

"1. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can't get guns.
2. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better find out what's making these kids want to kill, fix that, and then they won't want to use guns to kill teachers and classmates.

See what I did there? Which statement makes more sense? Don't bring up politics. Don't refer to statistical data. Don't nervously look at your cell phone. Just read the two statements and be honest with yourself. We can do better. We're smarter than this. WAKE UP."
― Aaron B. Powell, Guns Part 2

 

[CLT65]

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'.

You're looking at this from a very "statist" perspective. You're question seems to be "What priviledges should the almighty government allow?", when I think it might rather be "To what degree should we restrict inalienable rights?"

A statist view is that the government has the power and right to order society for, and paternalistically take care of, all the little people. A more traditionally American view is that the government is the servant of the people and should only govern to the extent required to maintain a civil society. Very few would deny the need for civil government and regulations, restrictions, and controls of some degree, but I think it really needs to be looked at as how much to restrict liberties, rather that what should we allow.

 

[Tully Mars]

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

What exactly is your idea of a destructive weapon?
A drum fed semi auto 12 gauge?
A drum fed semi auto rifle?
Any selective fire weapon?
A 40MM grenade launcher?
A 1878 Gatling (reproduction)?

 

[RVTECH]

Ah kin whip thu' lever uv wunna ma Winchesters purdy qwik!

 

[Diamondback]

What exactly is your idea of a destructive weapon?
A drum fed semi auto 12 gauge?
A drum fed semi auto rifle?
Any selective fire weapon?
A 40MM grenade launcher?
A 1878 Gatling (reproduction)?

A Doucheocrat's Soviet-sponsored, un-American Commie mouth.

 

[Tully Mars]

I have a reason for asking.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A flintlock or the latest issue Infantry rifle...There is no real difference.
If someone shoots you with either and you are hit in the right the place , either will make you dead.
The use of one over the other will not make you "deader"...
As for the argument of more or higher capacity magazines and a faster rate of fire makes a rifle "more deadly".. its only hits that count...no matter the amount of bullets in the magazine , shots fired , or how fast...

A gun only does what it is supposed to do , fire its bullet or shot , after someone pulls the trigger...it does not care what you think or feel about it....

It is time that folks understand that :
It is not the gun who is at fault...
It does not matter what gun was used in a crime , but that a crime was committed...
Owning one gun or a thousand guns , does not make a law abiding citizen dangerous...
It does not matter how many bullets a magazine holds or how fast a gun fires...neither makes one gun or magazine more "deadly" or dangerous...its the person using it.
Current firearm laws , while well intending , are faulty and not working at keeping folks from being shot...
Firearm laws also really only affect those who wish to be law abiding...
Andy

 

[CountryGent]

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....

True that. And if one has ever gone through the NFA process to buy or build, it becomes apparent the phrase "easy access" does not apply.