Good thing this 80 year old had a weapon

[countryroads89_rivals]

People need to learn it's not about "Need" when it comes to round count, magazine size, gun action, etc. It's about "Right". You're a hunter. Great for you. You may be one shot one kill bad ***. I don't hunt anymore, but I do recreationally and competitively shoot, so I should be able to exercise my "Right" to enjoy my sport legally.

Since it's not about "need" and only about "right" as you say, shouldn't everyone be allowed to own and carry fully automatic rifles? What about grenade launchers? Where does the madness stop?

So, you can't enjoy your sport of recreationally and sport shooting with six shooters? or even a 10-round magazine for a hand gun? I thought re-loading was part of the competition?

 

[Mntneer]

I'm not moving any goalposts, here is your original post:

Sure you are. You're attempt to turn from some guns to all guns. PLENTY of politicians have called to ban "some" guns, for example many have called to actually ban handguns.

No politicians is going to be stupid enough to publicly call for a total ban on ALL guns, as they want to keep their jobs. But here's the rare exception.

 

[Mntneer]

Since it's not about "need" and only about "right" as you say, shouldn't everyone be allowed to own and carry fully automatic rifles? What about grenade launchers? Where does the madness stop?

So, you can't enjoy your sport of recreationally and sport shooting with six shooters? or even a 10-round magazine for a hand gun? I thought re-loading was part of the competition?

Currently we can own fully automatic rifles, and I have no problem with the ownership of fully automatic rifles. The paranoia that fully automatic is somehow more deadly than semi-automatic is just that, but I have no problem letting law abiding citizens own one. Grenade Launchers? Already can own "Launchers". The explosives... that's another story. The madness stops when the rhetoric stops.

Why should I have to compete with a 6 round firearm, or a 10 round firearm? So you can FEEL safe? So infringe my right to make people FEEL safe?

 

[rog1187]

Wrong. It is proof you are a moron and can't comprehend english without twisting an interpretation to fit your brainwashed agenda.

Bernie wants to take away guns that don't fit with his agenda...his words not mine...sorry you felt the Bern there.

 

[WVUBRU]

Bernie wants to take away guns that don't fit with his agenda...his words not mine...sorry you felt the Bern there.

He wants to ban SOME guns. That isn't your interpretation you posted. I agree with Bernie in his statement. But I don't want to ban ALL. Get it? I doubt you ever will.

 

[rog1187]

He wants to ban SOME guns. That isn't your interpretation you posted. I agree with Bernie in his statement. But I don't want to ban ALL. Get it? I doubt you ever will.

He wants to ban guns based on his definition of what people should own...that's good enough for me.

 

[WVUBRU]

He wants to ban guns based on his definition of what people should own...that's good enough for me.

Maybe good enough for you to disagree with his opinion but it isn't good enough for you to make a false statement on his position.

 

[rog1187]

Maybe good enough for you to disagree with his opinion but it isn't good enough for you to make a false statement on his position.

He said he wants to ban guns...is an AR not a gun?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Currently we can own fully automatic rifles, and I have no problem with the ownership of fully automatic rifles. The paranoia that fully automatic is somehow more deadly than semi-automatic is just that, but I have no problem letting law abiding citizens own one. Grenade Launchers? Already can own "Launchers". The explosives... that's another story. The madness stops when the rhetoric stops.

Why should I have to compete with a 6 round firearm, or a 10 round firearm? So you can FEEL safe? So infringe my right to make people FEEL safe?

I am fully aware that people can own fully automatic rifles. If you'll take care to read my post, I said own AND CARRY. I don't have any problems with the criteria that has to be met to own a fully automatic rifle. If you think semi-autos are as effective as fully autos, you are very sadly mistaken.
Again, there is no legitimate need for large capacity magazines. You won't find your "right" for large capacity magazines in the 2nd Amendment. Limiting magazine size gives victims somewhat (although not very good) of a chance to escape while the idiot is reloading. It's way past time that this country start using some common sense approach to firearms and reduce the number of tragedies. It's shameful.

 

[rog1187]

I am fully aware that people can own fully automatic rifles. If you'll take care to read my post, I said own AND CARRY. I don't have any problems with the criteria that has to be met to own a fully automatic rifle. If you think semi-autos are as effective as fully autos, you are very sadly mistaken.
Again, there is no legitimate need for large capacity magazines. You won't find your "right" for large capacity magazines in the 2nd Amendment. Limiting magazine size gives victims somewhat (although not very good) of a chance to escape while the idiot is reloading. It's way past time that this country start using some common sense approach to firearms and reduce the number of tragedies. It's shameful.

You wont find language in the 2nd amendment banning 'large' capacity magazines either.

How many crimes have been committed by weapons with 'large' capacity magazines? And since we're on that subject, what has the gun violence rate been doing since 1994 - trending up or down?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Who, in their right mind, believes people with criminal backgrounds should have guns?
Who, in their right mind, believes people with mental disease or defect should have guns?
Who, in their right mind, believes domestic abusers should have guns?

All of these are very common sense approaches to solving problems.

Once again, you guys have failed miserably to provide a link showing where any politician has said "let's take away their guns". (The fake quote doesn't count). I always thought the NRA went too far in their advertisements when they try to get voters to vote against certain candidates because they claim those candidates are going to take away your guns and have entered the realm of the absurd and thought, who in the world really believes their nonsense. This board answers that question.

1. Criminal backgrounds? No issue with it. If you say felons, then it's a different discussion.

2. Mental disease? Bound it effectively and maybe. What constitutes a mental illness? Should you deny someone a constitutional right because of a disability? Americans with Disability Act might have an issue with this measure.

3. Domestic abuse could be a loud argument where the neighbors call the police. If the police are called, someone goes to jail.

4. Military style weapons? Outside of mag capacity, the rest are cosmetic. I would argue if I were to get down with my crazy, you'd rather me have my SCAR-H than my bolt action.

 

[WVUBRU]

He said he wants to ban guns...is an AR not a gun?

Damn, you are dense and incapable of understanding even the most simple position.

Exactly why these type of threads are boring.

 

[rog1187]

Damn, you are dense and incapable of understanding even the most simple position.

Exactly why these type of threads are boring.

He wants to ban a gun that is legal to own...how hard is that to understand?

 

[WVUBRU]

He wants to ban a gun that is legal to own...how hard is that to understand?

A type of gun. Not all guns. Why can't you understand?

 

[Mntneer]

I am fully aware that people can own fully automatic rifles. If you'll take care to read my post, I said own AND CARRY. I don't have any problems with the criteria that has to be met to own a fully automatic rifle. If you think semi-autos are as effective as fully autos, you are very sadly mistaken.
Again, there is no legitimate need for large capacity magazines. You won't find your "right" for large capacity magazines in the 2nd Amendment. Limiting magazine size gives victims somewhat (although not very good) of a chance to escape while the idiot is reloading. It's way past time that this country start using some common sense approach to firearms and reduce the number of tragedies. It's shameful.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

A type of gun. Not all guns. Why can't you understand?

Unfortunately, you are banging your head against the wall with a couple of these guys. They have dug their heels in on a position that has serious logical flaws and that's what happens when you try to have a conversation with them. They end up having to defy logic to defend an extreme and irrational position.

 

[WVUBRU]

Unfortunately, you are banging your head against the wall with a couple of these guys. They have dug their heels in on a position that has serious logical flaws and that's what happens when you try to have a conversation with them. They end up having to defy logic to defend an extreme and irrational position.

I know and I expressed that same opinion earlier talking about an agenda

 

[rog1187]

A type of gun. Not all guns. Why can't you understand?

He wants to ban a gun (or types of guns) that are legal.

 

[rog1187]

I am fully aware that people can own fully automatic rifles. If you'll take care to read my post, I said own AND CARRY. I don't have any problems with the criteria that has to be met to own a fully automatic rifle. If you think semi-autos are as effective as fully autos, you are very sadly mistaken.
Again, there is no legitimate need for large capacity magazines. You won't find your "right" for large capacity magazines in the 2nd Amendment. Limiting magazine size gives victims somewhat (although not very good) of a chance to escape while the idiot is reloading. It's way past time that this country start using some common sense approach to firearms and reduce the number of tragedies. It's shameful.

By the way - the rate of gun-related deaths has been on the decline since 1994.

 

[WVUBRU]

He wants to ban a gun (or types of guns) that are legal.

First thing you said correctly all day. Miracles do happen

 

[mneilmont]

He wants to ban a gun that is legal to own...how hard is that to understand?

Rog, I believe he is about to tell you the parameters for what you are discussing. That is where you loose many of these discussions. After you get a firm grasp on what you are discussing, the parameters may change a bit because they are living and breathing.

 

[rog1187]

First thing you said correctly all day. Miracles do happen

Thanks for agreeing that Bernie wants to ban guns

 

[WVUBRU]

Thanks for agreeing that Bernie wants to ban guns

Like i said, this is a bore talking serious issues with morons.

 

[rog1187]

Like i said, this is a bore talking serious issues with morons.

Yet you continue to post....Can you die of constipation? I am a little concerned how full of **** you are.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Unfortunately, you are banging your head against the wall with a couple of these guys. They have dug their heels in on a position that has serious logical flaws and that's what happens when you try to have a conversation with them. They end up having to defy logic to defend an extreme and irrational position.

I agree and the stuff you posted earlier was wrought with logical flaws. It's an extremely complex issue and the half assed feel good type measures you were talking about are akin to the dumb assed rhetoric from the NRA.

 

[WVUBRU]

I agree and the stuff you posted earlier was wrought with logical flaws. It's an extremely complex issue and the half assed feel good type measures you were talking about are akin to the dumb assed rhetoric from the NRA.

Very good assessment.

 

[Mntneer]

I agree and the stuff you posted earlier was wrought with logical flaws. It's an extremely complex issue and the half assed feel good type measures you were talking about are akin to the dumb assed rhetoric from the NRA.

It's a topic where people who have zero understanding of the logic behind it use fear and rhetoric to attempt and make a point. So often these politicians behind the legislation are completely clueless to firearms, how they work, what they do, etc. And somehow I'm supposed to be comfortable with them restricting my rights. [eyeroll]

Yeah, I tend to dig my heals in when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially when I have the facts and data at my back.

 

[dave]

Sure you are. You're attempt to turn from some guns to all guns. PLENTY of politicians have called to ban "some" guns, for example many have called to actually ban handguns.

No politicians is going to be stupid enough to publicly call for a total ban on ALL guns, as they want to keep their jobs. But here's the rare exception.

That fake quote again. He cant accept a video of it he needs the original VHS tape with Dan Rathers bloody thumbprint as a seal or it is fake.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

By the way - the rate of gun-related deaths has been on the decline since 1994.

That's not a very good argument against gun control since that happens to coincide with the signing of the Brady bill.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

That's not a very good argument against gun control since that happens to coincide with the signing of the Brady bill.

IMO, the Brady Bill is common sense legislation. There are some drawbacks to it like with any legislation, but that is a good one that I think you will find most firearms enthusiasts don't have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with gun control despite what you may get from my shooting holes in half assed plans. I think we can do it smartly and effectively, with controls and measures applied in a manner to bound it so as to not infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizenry. It's very hard to do that though. Nothing coming from the left fits that model. It's all reactionary non-sense based on fear and a fundamental lack of understanding of not only the problems but the causal factors and third order effects of what is proposed.

As you said and I am in agreement, effective gun control measures might not have anything at all to do with gun control itself. It might be a byproduct of something like mental health awareness, research, and treatment coupled with a host of other initiatives.

 

[rog1187]

That's not a very good argument against gun control since that happens to coincide with the signing of the Brady bill.

It has also coincided with an increase in gun ownership.