Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
We need more GUN CONTROL in this country
- Thread starter Sushi X
- Start date
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Specifically, which laws do you think we need to enforce more?
I also think it is pathetic that I have to pay a significan tax, get and FBI background check, and permission from local law enforcement simply because I want to own a AR-15 or an Israeli Uzi.
I also think it is pathetic that I have to pay a significan tax, get and FBI background check, and permission from local law enforcement simply because I want to own a AR-15 or an Israeli Uzi.
D
dballer
Guest
where the fuck have you been sushi???
Kalashnikov
New member
Bo cephus, I think you can buy an ar-15 with the same procedures as you would take if you were buying any other rifle in many states. That is, unless you were talking about Class III and fully automatic weapons in which case you need the chief LEO to sign off for you.
If it were up to me, buying a full auto would be just as easy as a bolt action hunting rifle. When are lawmakers gonna realize that the people who would use such weapons with criminal intent in the first place would not be able to buy them legally, nor would they go through the trouble when they could have it modified on the street for a fraction of the cost.
If it were up to me, buying a full auto would be just as easy as a bolt action hunting rifle. When are lawmakers gonna realize that the people who would use such weapons with criminal intent in the first place would not be able to buy them legally, nor would they go through the trouble when they could have it modified on the street for a fraction of the cost.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Kalashnikov said:
Yes, I was talking about the fully automatic and I totally agree with your post.
F
Frackal
Guest
Kalashnikov said:
Poor argument. Making fully automatic assault rifles easily accessible to the public would undoubtedly increase the amount of these in criminal, as well as civilian hands.... Now other than the argument that we need full autos for protection from our own government, (which I do think is a very valid one), what does the average civilian really need a full auto for? Not home defense, a shotgun is ideal for that....Can't really carry it concealed all that easily....Pathetic if you need an automatic for hunting.
So what will it be used for?
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
Recreation. I would love to be able to go out and shoot these weapons for fun. I have done this a few times and it is very relaxing and a nice stress relief. You could also want them for collection. I have an uncle who collects these "illegal"
guns.
F
Frackal
Guest
Why not be able to rent them at the shooting range and return them when they're done? Collecting isn't a very valid reason....besides can't you do all this with current FBI background checks?
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
How is collecting not a valid reason? It is a hobby much like bodybuilding is for you. I have a right to pursue happiness and collecting these gun would help me achieve this.
Why should I be subject to an FBI background check? You think it is right for them to invade my privacy simply because I want to own a gun? I guarantee you that the FBI check is much more than just some backgruond check that a company may do.
I also personally, have a problem with being placed on a government list simply because I chose to purchase a gun. Did you know that under the law in many states if say I and my wife get into an argument and she calles the police in a rage of anger that the state automatically presses charges. Period. Even if both of us cool off and neither one of us presses charges. While charges are pending, that record of my purchase is sitting there in their system, and the FBI is well within its right to initiate retrieval procedures of my property, because I'm involved in a domestic-type situation.
It's not that far-fetched, because it happens. And under the Lautenberg amendment, even if one of us is convicted of a third class misdemeanor, but it has something - ANYTHING - to do with a domestic dispute, we forfeit our right to keep and bear arms FOREVER.
I don't like having potential for that type of abuse at the hands of government officials.
Kalashnikov
New member
Frackal, American citizens should be able to own fully automatic weapons simply because they are granted that right by the second amendment.
You state that crime would increase substantially if fully automatic weapons were easier to purchase. Find me an example of a legally purchased machine gun used in a crime. You won't be able to. The few crimes that have involved fully automatic weapons are committed by people who have illegally modified their weapons.
For example: the famous bank robbery in California. Two men with fully automatic Ak-47's and thousands of rounds of ammo opened fire on police and civilians before they were finally stopped. These weapons were ILLEGALLY MODIFIED and would have been used wether laws against machine guns existed or not.
Therein lies the misconception. People think that "evil assault weapons" and machine guns should be controlled more than the average hunting rifle. Yet what has the Assault weapons ban done for the nation? Nothing at all. Crime has not decreased because of it. All that it has accomplished is robbing American citizens of their right to bear arms.
You state that crime would increase substantially if fully automatic weapons were easier to purchase. Find me an example of a legally purchased machine gun used in a crime. You won't be able to. The few crimes that have involved fully automatic weapons are committed by people who have illegally modified their weapons.
For example: the famous bank robbery in California. Two men with fully automatic Ak-47's and thousands of rounds of ammo opened fire on police and civilians before they were finally stopped. These weapons were ILLEGALLY MODIFIED and would have been used wether laws against machine guns existed or not.
Therein lies the misconception. People think that "evil assault weapons" and machine guns should be controlled more than the average hunting rifle. Yet what has the Assault weapons ban done for the nation? Nothing at all. Crime has not decreased because of it. All that it has accomplished is robbing American citizens of their right to bear arms.
the nature boy
New member
hmmm. I'm not sure any more gun control is needed. but assault rifles should still be banned.
I've not heard one instance where a law abiding citizen was forced to have a gun fight with a machine gun carrying criminal. If there came a time where the average citizen was outgunned and was getting mowed down in the street by criminals with assault rifles, then fine, let them have m-16's or ak's. Until then, no fucking way.
I've not heard one instance where a law abiding citizen was forced to have a gun fight with a machine gun carrying criminal. If there came a time where the average citizen was outgunned and was getting mowed down in the street by criminals with assault rifles, then fine, let them have m-16's or ak's. Until then, no fucking way.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
So we should just wait until people are getting killed before we are allowed to take action. Yep, as citizens are getting mowed down, we sit back waiting for the FBI to do a background check and approve us.
Why do you care so much if I want to own an fully automatic assault weapon? Do you think this predisposes me to committing a crime?
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Sushi X said:
I have read the entire bill and I must say that a majority of it is a load of bullshit.
For my opinion on the bradies, just check out the last line of my signature.
circusgirl
New member
Given how easy it is for a crim to move from state to state, a cursory background checks seem a good idea. But a bigger check jut because of the calibre of the weapon, imho, not a good idea. Time to do a quick crim record check of that social security number in all 50 states, and check the federal wanted database, if you're not on it, and haven't comitted a violent crime in the past, why not have whatever gun you want?
Plus given an ak47 is a bit difficult to conceal, I'd imagine it's not the criminal's weapon of choice - wouldn't a smaller-sized handgun be just as effective if you were intent on holding up a liquor store, without advertising your intentions to all and sundry? (Note I am not, obviously, condoning the holding up of any store here). And for home defence, a long range rifle? IMHO the only folks who would buy ak47's would be gun enthusiasts. Not the most ciminial section of society afaik.
Re known crims not owning guns, since they can't vote, why not strip them of that right too? That way if you pick them up on the street and they are carrying a gun, you can charge them immediately, rather than wait until they've committed a crime with it. This, imho, would prevent convicted crims for casually carrying a gun around - how about frequent stop and searches? And law-abiding citizens could still carry a weapon around legally.
Note I am not particularly pro-gun control - by crims I mean armed robbers etc, not jaywalkers and freeway speeders.
Plus given an ak47 is a bit difficult to conceal, I'd imagine it's not the criminal's weapon of choice - wouldn't a smaller-sized handgun be just as effective if you were intent on holding up a liquor store, without advertising your intentions to all and sundry? (Note I am not, obviously, condoning the holding up of any store here). And for home defence, a long range rifle? IMHO the only folks who would buy ak47's would be gun enthusiasts. Not the most ciminial section of society afaik.
Re known crims not owning guns, since they can't vote, why not strip them of that right too? That way if you pick them up on the street and they are carrying a gun, you can charge them immediately, rather than wait until they've committed a crime with it. This, imho, would prevent convicted crims for casually carrying a gun around - how about frequent stop and searches? And law-abiding citizens could still carry a weapon around legally.
Note I am not particularly pro-gun control - by crims I mean armed robbers etc, not jaywalkers and freeway speeders.
Doktor Bollix
New member
Kalashnikov said:
True dat. The whole assault rifle angle is a red herring.
i have pulled a gun twice. one time, the criminals were attempting to come through my window. i thank God that i had my grandfathers old .243 assault rifle that he had bought in an army surplus store back in the day. when you stick that in somebodies face, watch them run.
the second time, somebody was peeping in my sister's window at 1 in the morning. that is scary. when you pull back the slide and put one in the chamber pointing it at that piece of shit that probably wants to rape your sister, it's a good feeling watching him run and knowing he's probably just shit his pants.
i like guns. guns keep me and mine safe. when you get robbed or your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend gets raped, don't go bitching to people like me. i would have shot the mother fuckers.
the second time, somebody was peeping in my sister's window at 1 in the morning. that is scary. when you pull back the slide and put one in the chamber pointing it at that piece of shit that probably wants to rape your sister, it's a good feeling watching him run and knowing he's probably just shit his pants.
i like guns. guns keep me and mine safe. when you get robbed or your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend gets raped, don't go bitching to people like me. i would have shot the mother fuckers.
I agree with instant background check when you purchase a gun. But i don't believe in an outright ban on the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms. Washing DC doesn't allow anyone to carry a handgun unless they are in some sort of law enforcement. NYC is very strict as well.
Well, all the drug shooting, car jackings are from thugs that have the guns. They know the citizens of the District can't own a gun, so chances are they will be not resist/ fight back when they try to rob or jack you.
What they need to pass is a universal concealed weapon permit. Just like a drivers license. Once you get that permit, you should be able to carry in any 50 states/territory. My VA drivers license allows me to operate a car in any of the 50 states. Why not a CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT do the same??????????? That would be stupid to get a license for whatever state you want to drive in. It is the UNITED STATES (united, right??) of AMERICA????
I get so miffed about anti gun advocates. How often does one use a gun they own versus the car they drive?? I use my gun maybe once a month at the range. As for my car, i drive about 40 miles a day. That 2200 lb car becomes a weapon if i tbone someone at an intersection, dragrace, change lanes and cut someone off. But of course i don't let it become a weapon due to the way i drive. You can argue that the intent use of a gun as deadly results . I agree. But i think they are more traffic accidents that are deadly. I don't see people suing companies that make beer, liquor cause of a drunk driver killing their loved one. But they can sue the gun makers/ammo companies.
Crime will always be committed. Even if you restrict gun ownership like Washington DC or NYC. knives will be used in subsitute or something else, like razors.
Well, all the drug shooting, car jackings are from thugs that have the guns. They know the citizens of the District can't own a gun, so chances are they will be not resist/ fight back when they try to rob or jack you.
What they need to pass is a universal concealed weapon permit. Just like a drivers license. Once you get that permit, you should be able to carry in any 50 states/territory. My VA drivers license allows me to operate a car in any of the 50 states. Why not a CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT do the same??????????? That would be stupid to get a license for whatever state you want to drive in. It is the UNITED STATES (united, right??) of AMERICA????
I get so miffed about anti gun advocates. How often does one use a gun they own versus the car they drive?? I use my gun maybe once a month at the range. As for my car, i drive about 40 miles a day. That 2200 lb car becomes a weapon if i tbone someone at an intersection, dragrace, change lanes and cut someone off. But of course i don't let it become a weapon due to the way i drive. You can argue that the intent use of a gun as deadly results . I agree. But i think they are more traffic accidents that are deadly. I don't see people suing companies that make beer, liquor cause of a drunk driver killing their loved one. But they can sue the gun makers/ammo companies.
Crime will always be committed. Even if you restrict gun ownership like Washington DC or NYC. knives will be used in subsitute or something else, like razors.
The argument that fully automatic weapons are far more dangerous is BS. Sharpshooter and other experimented shooters will al tell you that it is a lot effective to use a weapon in semi-auto rather than fully auto in most circumstances. There's a reason why the US Army switched from the M-16A1 (which had single and full auto) to the M-16A2 (which has single and 3 round burst). Most people dont know how to use an automatic riffle.
Kalashnikov
New member
manny78 is correct. The two robbers in the California bank of america incident had full auto's and fired thousands of round yet they did not manage to kill a single person! (wounded several, however).
Do a search for Charles Whitman. He's the crazy asshole who climbed a clocktower in Texas and began to pick people off from long range. He was an ex-Marine and obviously was a good marksman. The weapons he used were nothing more than several high powered hunting rifles and a couple of semi-auto's with low capacity. Skill and cold bloodedness is more important that the weapon an individual is using.
Do a search for Charles Whitman. He's the crazy asshole who climbed a clocktower in Texas and began to pick people off from long range. He was an ex-Marine and obviously was a good marksman. The weapons he used were nothing more than several high powered hunting rifles and a couple of semi-auto's with low capacity. Skill and cold bloodedness is more important that the weapon an individual is using.
circusgirl
New member
Kalashnikov said:
Wasn't that the dude who turned out to have some kind of tumour pressing down on the aggression centre in the brain? Drove him nuts?
The Iraqis had plenty ak47s in the Gulf war [1]. They sure didn't manage to shoot many folks...
[1] crappy ones apparently - a friend of mine had a civilian job with the DoD here and got to play around with the guns they confiscated from the Iraqis in the Gulf - most of 'em didn't work properly apparently, Saddam went for the lowest tender...
F
Frackal
Guest
Bo you're right that we should have a right to collect assualt rifles if we wish, but I don't see why they need to be full autos for a collection....can't they modify it to make them single shot, and it looks the same from the outside anyway?
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
First, that would decrease the value.
Second, I also want to collect them for my arsenal. Not much use if they are modified.
circusgirl
New member
Frackal said:
not as much fun shooting them at the range? I'm assuming you collectors like to bring your collection out to play, like classic cars, right?
the nature boy
New member
BO-CEPHUS said:
so people like you and I are getting killed in the streets by automatic weapons? please show me some links from news websites where this is happening. I'd like to see this.
As for your wanting to own automatic weapons, I don't care what you do. But I'm sure your neighbors would care if you emptied a clip at a would-be burglar at your door and a shit load of bullets hit the house across the street.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
When did I say that people were getting killed by auto weapons? I said why should we wait UNTIL that happens. I will be prepared.
I also would not use them for home protection. So there goes that argument. I like to shoot them for recreation.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
I will also say that there is not one person on this board or in the world for that matter that could change my opinion on this subject. It is one of the most important to me. This is what I use for the most part to determine who I will vote for.
I think people should be able to own any type of weapon they want even if that includes grenade launchers, missle launchers, AR-15's, and tech 9's.
I think people should be able to own any type of weapon they want even if that includes grenade launchers, missle launchers, AR-15's, and tech 9's.
the nature boy
New member
BO-CEPHUS said:
my arguement is still valid. just because YOU don't use your automatic for home defense doesn't meant others feel the same way. So there goes YOUR arguement.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
I could logically assume that most people who would even consider buying these weapons (they are not that cheap) would understand quite a bit about guns. Because of this they would also know that automatic weapons are not ideal for home protection.
Funny you also ignored the rest of my above post of be prepared for the situation in which you described.
Funny you also ignored the rest of my above post of be prepared for the situation in which you described.
F
Frackal
Guest
LOL...that's ridiculous bo...grenade launchers and missle launchers huh...I'd bet you'd change your mind when some kid was playing with daddys anti tank missle launcher and blew your house up.
The Nature Boy said:
read my previous post. If you're dumb enough to use an automatic weapon for home protection then you dont deserve the right to have weapon. It has been proven that over 3 rounds its useless. and thats so true with high recoil weapons like AK-47. Thats why they're issueing MP5 carabine instead of the full-auto (which is reserved for SWAT) for RCMP's patrol car.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
Not ridiculous to me at all. I doubt people who own these type of weapons would have them out for their kids to find. Do you also support the banning fireworks? If not I bet you would change your mind if some kid shot a few in your yard and your home went up in flames. (I do not support banning fireworks)
What about cars? Would you change your mind if some kid drove the damn thing through your front door and damaged quite a bit of the house? It happened to my friend.
F
Frackal
Guest
Sorry Bo but humans in general are too irresponsible and stupid to be trusted with weapons of that potential for destruction...you wouldn't support nuclear bombs being legal for purchase would you? There is literally NO valid reason for a person to need to own a weapon that, when a button is pushed, has the potential to level a house, blow an airplane out of the sky, or if shot into a crowd kill people in the high double digits.....
Besides, since when are humans responsible, you should be able to say the same things about guns, "Well the parents wouldnt actually leave guns out for their kids to find..." Happens everyday and kids kill themselves and others too....You really think some kid isnt going to want to try out daddy's bazooka after watching a couple movies?
Anyway it is FAR less likely that a firework is going to burn my house down, or that someone is going to drive a car through my front door....
Also, both of those instruments are for other purposes, what the fuck does anyone need a surface to air, surface to surface missle launcher for?
Besides, since when are humans responsible, you should be able to say the same things about guns, "Well the parents wouldnt actually leave guns out for their kids to find..." Happens everyday and kids kill themselves and others too....You really think some kid isnt going to want to try out daddy's bazooka after watching a couple movies?
Anyway it is FAR less likely that a firework is going to burn my house down, or that someone is going to drive a car through my front door....
Also, both of those instruments are for other purposes, what the fuck does anyone need a surface to air, surface to surface missle launcher for?
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
Know any firefighters? I know plenty and you would be surprised at all the fires caused by fireworks. Especially if you live here in the south where it is extremely dry at times.
Why does it matter that I want to own those weapons? As for the nuclear option, I still have not come to a 100% decision but I am leaning towards people being able to own them.
So now I get the shitend of the deal simply because many people are ignorant. Did you not post on my thread about taking responsibility for oneself and that people should not get screwed over because of idiots out there.
These type of weapons are much different then your ordinary gun. People such as I do not keep them in the home. We keep them in our bomb shelter in the backyard.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
nordstrom said:
If your guns get stolen, that is your own damn fault. You should have the shit protected. As for the criminal record, only those convicted of crimes involving a gun or things like murder should not be able to own guns.
The brady bills allows those who have been convicted of any crime in which force was used to no longer be able to own guns. That is bullshit in my opinion.
Like I said before, other peoples actions should not effect which type of gun I can own.
F
Frackal
Guest
Are you an anarchist bo?
the nature boy
New member
BO-CEPHUS said:
the reason why I "ignored" your post because it was a little to far fetched to me. We don't live in downtown beriut, we live in the US. Running gun battles in the street or people getting shot up my machine gun toting thugs is a very uncommon occurance. If it was an everyday event, we'd all be on lockdown and living in a police state.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
Frackal said:
No! Just a constitutional extremist.
And I was not joking about the bombshelter.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
One day it will be reality and I will be prepared.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
nordstrom said:
No could I hug them if they were killed by an intruder.
The Nature Boy said:
Actually, it doesn't, NATURE. Are we a society that penalizes the whole due to a few (actually we are growing towards this, but that is another argument)? If your argument was valid then we would have a total ban on arms, just as many socialist nations do. The collectivist mentality allows for the tyranny of opinion, so in a world driven by this logic, we would have nothing, since I can find some idiot who disagrees with ownership of something, such as pets, SUV's, guns, TV's, gas, cigarettes, fast foods, etc.
But the real issue is not what hypothetical argument can one make for an issue, but what has been the history of the issue. How many home defenses were performed with automatic weapons, when these guns were legal, not "lets extrapolate this scenario to the n'th power and assume that all would do the same".
