Details on the proposed gun ban Jan 3rd

[I`m Batman]

Ban sports bikes because there's no need for that kind of performance on public roads only race professionals could ride them on race tracks. Same goes for sport cars. We should all be driving mopeds and econoboxes.

What else can we ban?

[MRA 32]

I can certainly understand ones opinion that guns are bad. But that is an opinion and we are entitled for our opinions.

I am more interested in facts though...My fore fathers died for my rights to bare arms. Just like they died for others to have the right to speak their opinions. We don't speak Japanese as our language today because the Japanese knew every American was armed after they bombed us in '41!

Here is the facts: We protect our financial institutions with armed security, we protect our politicians with armed security, we protect the judicual system with armed security, college campuses for the most part have their own police force, For heavens sake we have armed security at sporting events....But mention protecting our children at school with armed security and the fucking world is coming to an end!!!

More facts: these armed gunmen should be just that! Take away their 5 minutes of fame! Who cares about them, they are no longer a good part of our society. If no one gives them their fame then they will stop trying to one up each other.

More facts: Rational people are the only ones effected by laws. Irrrational people could give two shits about gun control. They will kill regardless, did gun control stop the Oklahoma City bombing? Did gun control save the World Trade Center? No, it didn't because these were actions committed by irrational people.

I will write my representatives and express my opinion about gun control as it is the best way to stop this stupidity with out arming ourselves and doing the unthinkable...It will be a cold day in hell before I give up my guns.

[dirkterrell]

I can't think of one person that I know that has actually used their guns to defend themselves

I had to point a gun at someone once to thwart a burglary. I gave the guy the choice of getting off my property or getting shot. I think the world record for the 100 yard dash was set that night. And this was right in the middle of a series of murders of college students in Gainesville, FL back in 1990 (Google Gainesville student murders for the details). I learned that evening that if I felt I had to, I would pull the trigger on someone. Nothing romantic at all about it.

[ThorsTwin]

This country went through a similar event several years ago. It was called Prohibition. Look at how the black market for alcohol grew and got out of control. Does anyone in their right mind think that confiscating firearms will be a peaceful event? There are plenty of folks out there who will sell an AR-15 to an enterprising criminal for 5 to 10 times what they paid for it. You will see an unprecedented black market for guns if they are banned. And criminals and criminal organizations will be ready and able to buy a large number of them up. We can what if this to death. Facts are guns will always be here. Stiffen the penalties for gun crimes. Put these shitheads to death that get caught and are convicted of gun crimes. More legislation will not work. Most folks will turn up their middle finger to the government wanting firearms. I will be among them.

[asp_125]

Fact is, gun ownership is not bad. It's the assholes that spoil it for the rest of us that's bad. Get rid of the assholes and you solve the problem. But the NRA doesn't want to address that side of the problem, instead they want to proliferate a fortress mentality.

We have anti drunk driving campaigns for cars, crackdowns for squids and pipes for bikes. Both address the source of the problem without affecting our ownership and enjoyment of them. Why can't there be a similar solution here?

[Monster]

If you don't want guns in your home then don't have them. I don't care what the law says I will have them in mine. Stupid liberals are always telling everyone else how to live their lives.

[~Barn~]

If you don't want guns in your home then don't have them. I don't care what the law says I will have them in mine. Stupid liberals are always telling everyone else how to live their lives.

Dude, you totally seem calm and balanced enough to be a gun owner!

[~Barn~]

I had to point a gun at someone once to thwart a burglary. I gave the guy the choice of getting off my property or getting shot. I think the world record for the 100 yard dash was set that night. And this was right in the middle of a series of murders of college students in Gainesville, FL back in 1990 (Google Gainesville student murders for the details). I learned that evening that if I felt I had to, I would pull the trigger on someone. Nothing romantic at all about it.

It doesn't sound romantic, Dirk.
A few questions though, just out of my curiosity:
- Was the guy you needed "off your property" armed and threatening you with a gun or knife or similar?
- Had the burglary already been commited? Like aside from actually trespassing, had this person actually commited any actual portion yet, of the crime of burglary or theft or menacing (related)?
- Was he with others or was he alone? And aside from yourself, were you also in the company of others. Protecting others for instance?
- If push came to shove, do you feel you would have been able to successfully fight him off, if he would have attacked you, assuming neither of your had an advantage of a weapon?
- Was there ever an opportunity for you to reasonably seek defense from this person in any sort of "domain" per se.. Inside a house for example. WITH an opportunity to request help from the police?

You'll pardon my line of questioning if it's too personal or none of my business, but you did tell us the story and it's obviously a very open ended scenario. I'm just trying to come to terms with my own sensibilities and what (I think) I know about you, to weigh justification of drawing down on another human being. I'm not going to comment either way or try to publicaly pass judgement at you, so don't feel like these are too loaded of questions to reply to (excuse the pun...). Obviously it was your life and time and decision, but rather I trully would like to know these things, so I can pose the question toward myself and again try to see if I can justify the action. Again though, if it's not any of my business, please don't be compelled to answer me; I am curious though.

[Ezzzzy1]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

And for what its worth, thats what the founding father were trying to give everyone. Capable means to protect themselves and what was theirs.

[asp_125]

#Because WOLVERINES!!!!

[TFOGGuys]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

And for what its worth, thats what the founding father were trying to give everyone. Capable means to protect themselves and what was theirs.

Borrowed. Concise.

To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment demonstrates a logical disconnect. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter the old saying that “all men are created equal”, with the caveat that a man may be included, provided he can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that he is in fact part of the larger group you will now redefine as men as a whole?

Now, I shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
I cite the following examples courtesy of Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.eduand) (reprinted here http://chezjacq.com/well.htm): The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".

Now let us move on:
"Militia": mi·li·tia n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army”? Perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms, clearly a conflict. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means. Shall we now define what "is" is?

And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State at any time.

And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that “the people” should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. To truly guarantee a free State, you must make available the same common Arms as the military.

And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?

Many I know use their ARs for target practice, hunting, and tactical training. An AR can also be a very effective close quarters defense weapon.

[ThorsTwin]

Hell, if you can afford one & pass the background you can have an automatic weapon in this country. If somebody wants an assault rifle and they are responsible with it, who cares? I coulda poisoned 16 people at my house with a doctored christmas turkey if I wanted to. You gonna ban turkeys now? Fact is there are some fucked up people out there. Utopian societies are a sham. Folks have been killing other folks for several thousands of years. You can't stop somebody who is determined to do what they're gonna do with whatever weapon they choose. Besides, too many people just sit back and watch or even video bad acts occur. Maybe if they had taken action, they could have prevented or minimized the bad act. It's tragic when anyone gets murdered. Some ass clown just pushed another person in front of a New York subway, killing that person. That's two this month. An object is just that....an object. Bad people making bad decisions kill people.

[dirkterrell]

It doesn't sound romantic, Dirk.
A few questions though, just out of my curiosity:

Keep in mind what was going on in Gainesville at the time: Several college students ( 4 women and one pretty big guy, football player in high school) had been brutally murdered and mutilated. I had two female roommates.

- Was the guy you needed "off your property" armed and threatening you with a gun or knife or similar?

I don't know if he was armed. With what was going on, I wasn't about to let him be in the position of becoming a threat.

- Had the burglary already been commited? Like aside from actually trespassing, had this person actually commited any actual portion yet, of the crime of burglary or theft or menacing (related)?

He was rummaging through stuff in the garage and had a pile of stuff he intended to take off with.

- Was he with others or was he alone? And aside from yourself, were you also in the company of others. Protecting others for instance?

He was alone.

- If push came to shove, do you feel you would have been able to successfully fight him off, if he would have attacked you, assuming neither of your had an advantage of a weapon?

No way to know. A key to survival in hand to hand combat is to avoid making assumptions about the outcome of a potential encounter. Give yourself maximum advantage and go from there.

- Was there ever an opportunity for you to reasonably seek defense from this person in any sort of "domain" per se.. Inside a house for example. WITH an opportunity to request help from the police?

I was already inside the house. With a serial killer on the loose, I wasn't going to do anything that might diminish the advantage that I had in the situation. Being in that position, I gave him an opportunity to extricate himself from the crime he was committing rather than shooting right away. He made the right choice.

You'll pardon my line of questioning if it's too personal or none of my business, but you did tell us the story and it's obviously a very open ended scenario. I'm just trying to come to terms with my own sensibilities and what (I think) I know about you, to weigh justification of drawing down on another human being. I'm not going to comment either way or try to publicaly pass judgement at you, so don't feel like these are too loaded of questions to reply to (excuse the pun...).

No worries. I brought it up in response to Patrick's question. I know I did what was appropriate in that specific situation.

Obviously it was your life and time and decision, but rather I trully would like to know these things, so I can pose the question toward myself and again try to see if I can justify the action. Again though, if it's not any of my business, please don't be compelled to answer me; I am curious though.

Yep, a situation like that answers some important questions about how you will respond, and that is a good thing to know.

[I`m Batman]

Serious question, tell me why anyone would HAVE to have an "assault rifle" over a shotgun or pistol?

If we are talking about protection then why would anyone need anything more than those two?

Maybe I am missing something but unless you really think that we will be combat fighting on US soil you shouldnt really need anything more than that.

Tell me why you need to HAVE a sportbike over a moped?

If we're talking about transportation then why would anyone need more than a moped or a Toyota Corolla?

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

[rforsythe]

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

What else am I going to outrun the cops on?

[Ezzzzy1]

Ban all cars too while they're at it. Cars kills a lot more people per year than guns. There are a lot of idiots on the road everyday that put my life and my family's lives in danger everyday. Ban all cars that can go over 25mph. Because it's dangerous.
Ban Apple too, NY crimes has increased because of Apple.

I'm just thinking like them politicians.


Maybe they need to concentrate on the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.

Motorcycles are dangerous too. There's no need for them. We need to ban them too. Drive cars because its safer.

There's also no need to drive over 25mph either. Lets limit all the cars to the top speed of 25mph.

Only certain transport vehicle like semi trucks can travel faster because they need to transport goods.

I have a friend that ruin his life because of alcohol. Tried to kill himself because of alcohol. I'm sure that a lot more people die every year because of alcohol related incidents than guns. Why not ban alcohol?

Ban sports bikes because there's no need for that kind of performance on public roads only race professionals could ride them on race tracks. Same goes for sport cars. We should all be driving mopeds and econoboxes.

What else can we ban?

Tell me why you need to HAVE a sportbike over a moped?

If we're talking about transportation then why would anyone need more than a moped or a Toyota Corolla?

Maybe I'm missing something but you don't need a vehicle that can go 0-60 in 3 sec or less on public roads. They only belong on race tracks.

We get it dude... The real reason no one has respond to any of your great ideas is because thats not what this is about.

I feel like I am trying to talk to my wife about guns because her responses would be the same exact as your

[Ezzzzy1]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

[TFOGGuys]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

I, and many others, are more prepared than that.

[The Black Knight]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

Oh I have my reasons for having an AR but I also don't feel the need to justify those reasons to anyone else. Which is why I haven't posted about needing an AR15.

As far as ammo goes, I've got way more than 200 rounds. In fact I think the only gun I have 200 rounds for is my 7mm hunting rifle. Everything else I have is well let's just say, a lot....


Concerning a next civil war. I'm sure there will be plenty of rifles from both sides laying on the ground to choose from....

What else am I going to outrun the cops on?

Yeah but if the cops have mopeds as well, it's going to be one nail biting high speed chase. The suspense would be captivating

[modette99]

A great video on the proposed law:
http://youtu.be/JDglpt8hpyg

[salsashark]

So thats it? Only one person has a reason that they NEED an AR? And that answer pertains to us going to war on our own soil.

What I think is funny is how many people would fight tooth and nail over their guns but have less then 200 rounds What, 90% of all gun owners have less then that....

Bout how far does anyone think 200 rounds will go when we are fighting our own government? But at least you have your gun right! Im sure you will be able to find more ammo during our next civil war.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the citizens of the United States would not fall under a tyrannical government. One of the founding principles that drove the settlers out of Europe. It ensures that the citizens will remain armed at a level equal to or better than its military. This amendment is what keeps our government in check and ensures that we remain a republic. Once the government disarms the populace, what's left to prevent them from completely taking over?



How many more reasons do you need?

[jcj81]

The AR sporting rifle is no different any other semi-auto firearm rifle/handgun/shotgun, I shoot mainly pistol matches thruout the year for competition as a hobby, last year I shot 15k rounds (no one got shot). For rifle matches the AR platform is usually the rifle to go with if, they restrict ban it will hurt the shooting sports which I and many others find great joy in competing. The current bill as is will hurt the shooting sports dramatically in all areas to me that is were it sucks the most. THE only reason the AR platform has a bad rap is the medias misinformed conception of the truth as in all media dislikes. Also the AR has been around since the 60's for sale to the average person. And AR does not stand for "assault rifles" it was the two letters giving to the product lines from the original company that designed it ArmaLite

[~Barn~]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

[salsashark]

Hold dear what you must, but we are nowhere near the same atmosphere, as being equally or better armed than those who serve government militaries, just because our constitution affords us the "right" to have guns.

Hell.... a Second World army would easily (yes EASILY...) overthrow the citizens of the USA, if it were not for the military might of our government. Guns and ammo might as well be water balloons.

...and who's fault is this? We get what we vote for...

I'm sure more than a few political prisoners were under the impression that their government would never in slave them and work them to death because they believed differently, held opposingpolitical views, were educated, were wealthy, held differing religious beliefs, different sexual orientation, skin color... and so on.