A Serious Gun Question

[Guest]

This is NOT about 2nd Amendment rights but is merely a question. I know the Constitution allows gun ownership and if that is your thing, I have no problem with it.

However, I saw an advertisement from Gander Mountain Sports in the Daily Sun yesterday that has me wondering as to the "why these guns are needed". One was a very nice rifle that looked just like an M-16. It even came with a 30 round magazine - and cost $1000. The second was a 12 gauge "tactical pump shotgun" with a tactical stock and pistol grip that held 5 rounds in the magazine plus one in the chamber and had spaces for 5 shells in the tactical stock for easy reloading.

I suppose the shotgun could be used for hunting but seems to me it was clearly meant for "anti-personnel" means. The rifle, with a 30 round magazine, looked totally for "anti-personnel". The rifle was 5.56 NATO which is the same as an M-16. 30 rounds for home defense? Maybe the answer is simply that you might miss with the first 29 shots?

Again, not an anti-gun posting but just why would someone want an M-16 knockoff for home defense? Wouldn't a 9mm pistol with a 10 round magazine be plenty good for that? Same thing for the shotgun. I would think a long gun would be a disadvantage for home defense unless you keep it under the bed. The pistol could be easily kept in a bedside table-except when the grandkids are around, of course.

[Guest]

For the same reason men that live in town feel they need 4 wheel drive expeditions and big pick up trucks. It compensates for other things too small to impress anyone. I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to own a handgun, rifle and a shotgun, But automatic machine guns, 50 cal rifles, assault shotguns etc are the toys of a man or women with a problem.

[Guest]

For the same reason men that live in town feel they need 4 wheel drive expeditions and big pick up trucks. It compensates for other things too small to impress anyone. I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to own a handgun, rifle and a shotgun, But automatic machine guns, 50 cal rifles, assault shotguns etc are the toys of a man or women with a problem.


Compensates for other things too small to impress anyone! Now, that gave me a laugh! Jay Leno could use you as a writer!

[Guest]

think about paint ball and why people buy the paint ball guns and equipment....for the gaming aspect.

Why do folks buy shot guns? to hunt; to shoot skeet (think game); to shoot trap (think game) and many other shot gun sports.

Why do some of us have 6 shooters and cowboy rifles and cow boy guns from the 1800's? There are clubs that shoot western style competition (think game again).

Now let's go get the high powered military stuff...too many to mention...think competitive shooting based on military ordinance (again think gaming).

And on and on and on.

There are some of us who buy guns to just collect them like everybody else that buys what ever to collect.

The above is only the tip of the ice berg for gun enthusiasts.

It is unfortunate the public, trained by the media and the anti gunners who only think shoot some one....the absolute smallest percent of gun use gets the press. The other 99.9% gets very little if any play.....ever.

btk

[Guest]

Its interesting to hear liberals same in the same breathe I understand your
2nd Amendment Rights but do you really need.................

I read in this morning's paper wherein doctors operated on a 17 week old fetus to remove what they determined was a tumor. And then I asked myself I understand why liberals believe a woman's body belongs to her but why.....

In both instances here neither agrees that people are entitled to those claimed rights. In the first instance authority is granted by the U.S. Constitution. In the second instance authority is granted by the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade. In the second instance left open was the question of when life begins. Rand Paul has a bill circulating through Congress to answer that question to be at conception.

In the first instance liberals cite the number of senseless deaths resulting from the more sophicated automatic and repeating rifles.

Rand Paul cites government statictics that explain 54 million babies have been aborted since the inception of Roe v Wade. And to add insult to injury
the subject of that case eventually rejected abortion and admitted she had made a serious mistake. The loss of life clearly should not be occuring in either case but the losses from guns pale in comparison of those from abortions.

I opine others to decide.

[Guest]

Its interesting to hear liberals same in the same breathe I understand your
2nd Amendment Rights but do you really need.................

I read in this morning's paper wherein doctors operated on a 17 week old fetus to remove what they determined was a tumor. And then I asked myself I understand why liberals believe a woman's body belongs to her but why.....

In both instances here neither agrees that people are entitled to those claimed rights. In the first instance authority is granted by the U.S. Constitution. In the second instance authority is granted by the Supreme Court via Roe v Wade. In the second instance left open was the question of when life begins. Rand Paul has a bill circulating through Congress to answer that question to be at conception.

In the first instance liberals cite the number of senseless deaths resulting from the more sophicated automatic and repeating rifles.

Rand Paul cites government statictics that explain 54 million babies have been aborted since the inception of Roe v Wade. And to add insult to injury
the subject of that case eventually rejected abortion and admitted she had made a serious mistake. The loss of life clearly should not be occuring in either case but the losses from guns pale in comparison of those from abortions.

I opine others to decide.

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

[Guest]

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

Liberals war on babies.

[Guest]

Rubicon, my friend, first let me say something about my thread. I did not say I understand the 2nd Amendment rights but... I stated that first so the post would not be first interpreted as an anti-gun post. I was asking why some might feel the need for the model of an M-16 or a tactical shotgun. I was not making judgements.

Now, let's get to the tumor on the fetus. First, amazing piece of medical technology, isn't it? A peach sized tumor on a 17 week old fetus must have been larger than the fetus' head. It was the mother's choice to keep the fetus. It was also her choice if she wanted an abortion. This is what Roe v Wade is about - CHOICE. If the baby is born all deformed and may end up "in a basket" for the short time it lives, that is the mother's choice. However, if Rand Paul would have his way, that would not be a choice and, to me, is not acceptable to force an unwanted birth on a parent.

I am an old guy, but the CHOICE as you call it should have been made BEFORE !

[Guest]

Buggyone, since you brought it up, here is the reason for owning a M16 with a 30 round mags. I have done and will do again, 3 guns shoots. You can have up to 60 targets that you engage during the course of firewith your rifle. This is a timed competition and the less times that you have to reload the quicker you finish the course of fire. Then you move on to a shotgun. Mine holds 9 rounds, eight in the mag and one in the chamber. Again you may have up to 20 targets to engage. Again reloading takes time. Same reasoning for a high cap pistol.

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

[Guest]

I'm for whatever you want to buy, but I myself feel you need more training if you need more than a couple of shots. As far as a long gun for home defense, a shot gun is considered the best. Pay your money and take your choice.

[Guest]

Buggyone, since you brought it up, here is the reason for owning a M16 with a 30 round mags. I have done and will do again, 3 guns shoots. You can have up to 60 targets that you engage during the course of firewith your rifle. This is a timed competition and the less times that you have to reload the quicker you finish the course of fire. Then you move on to a shotgun. Mine holds 9 rounds, eight in the mag and one in the chamber. Again you may have up to 20 targets to engage. Again reloading takes time. Same reasoning for a high cap pistol.

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

Figmo, you mean you believe that Joe Citizen should be allowed to have M-60 machine guns, M-79 40 mm grenade launchers, LAWs, a howitzer or two, a Bradley tank, Patriot missles with launcher, and a Nike silo in the backyard? My nomenclatures are outdated, I am sure.

I see nothing wrong with someone having a reasonable number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols for hunting, sport, or personal defense but to say all citizens should be armed with the same weapons as the military, to me, is going beyond the beyonds.

[Guest]

Figmo, you mean you believe that Joe Citizen should be allowed to have M-60 machine guns, M-79 40 mm grenade launchers, LAWs, a howitzer or two, a Bradley tank, Patriot missles with launcher, and a Nike silo in the backyard? My nomenclatures are outdated, I am sure.

I see nothing wrong with someone having a reasonable number of shotguns, rifles, and pistols for hunting, sport, or personal defense but to say all citizens should be armed with the same weapons as the military, to me, is going beyond the beyonds.

Figmo gives you a concise answer, and as usual when you don't like an answer but have no response, you go a bit off.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to pose a deterrent to a government gone wild. This is the genius of our founders vision and forethought. They'll still be in possessions of superior firepower, but the numbers of armed citizens outnumber the forces which can be mobilized against them in the case of a rogue government.

This is why every country who's government devolves into socialism has the number one priority of disarming it's citizens.

[Guest]

Figmo gives you a concise answer, and as usual when you don't like an answer but have no response, you go a bit off.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to pose a deterrent to a government gone wild. This is the genius of our founders vision and forethought. They'll still be in possessions of superior firepower, but the numbers of armed citizens outnumber the forces which can be mobilized against them in the case of a rogue government.

This is why every country who's government devolves into socialism has the number one priority of disarming it's citizens.

I will go along with your post up to the last sentence. I believe that a dictator will first take away guns. Look at the Nazis. Do not tell me that the German Nazis were socialist, either. They were a ultra right wing group.

Look at Switzerland and Israel. Both are pretty socialist. Almost every household has a gun.

Canada is pretty socialist. Lots and lots of guns there.

As I said before, Richie, if you were reading, I have no problem with people who want guns for sport, hunting, or defense.

[Guest]

Now, to finish this, the 2d Amendment, which you seem to like to use a lot, does not say its for hunting, or sport shooting. It was written during our war against the mother land. They lost, we won using modern military weapons of that time. Times change, weapons change and We the People have the right to be armed with the same weapons that our military use to insure that our government respects the Constitution that We The People enjoy. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. That is one of the main things that you libs seems to have forgotten that without the 2d Amendment the other nine would soon be consigned to the trash heap.

The second amendment was most certainly not written during "our war against the mother land" That war ended in 1781 with the surrender in Yorktown, although it took two more years for the treaty to be finalized, so 1783. The bill of rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It is best to have the facts correct before you offer an opinion based on errors in fact as it then appears your opinion is as invalid as your incorrect fact.

[Guest]

The second amendment was most certainly not written during "our war against the mother land" That war ended in 1781 with the surrender in Yorktown, although it took two more years for the treaty to be finalized, so 1783. The bill of rights was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It is best to have the facts correct before you offer an opinion based on errors in fact as it then appears your opinion is as invalid as your incorrect fact.

The 2d Amendment was fresh in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. That was one of the first things that the Brits did was try and disarm the general population. So if you think that the war with the mother land had nothing to do with the 2d Amendment you had better re-read history.

An armed society is a free society, and unarmed society is subject to the wims of the government currently in power.

[Guest]

Why don't you just admit you got your fact wrong instead of making up what you believe was "fresh in the minds of the framers" You certainly are entitled to your opinion that the framers insisted on the second amendment. My opinion was that if the framers of the constitution felt it was so important they would have included it in the original document. The Bill of Rights was not in the original document as the Framers didn't feel these were essential. Some may have felt it was self evident. However, several states indicated they would not ratify the constitution with these additions. You may impute whatever motives you like, I only challenged your statement of a fact that was not a fact and I pointed it out to you. Perhaps your location in the State of Confusion should have been my clue. Sorry if I hurt your feellings.

[Guest]

Really doubt if the writers of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution would want the same kind of reasoning you find in the late 1790s to apply to the world they would see-- if they could--in the 2010s.

My feeling is that some common sense should be applied to exactly which arms should be available to citizens of the United States. Doubt if the NRA would go for a common sense application of the 2nd amendment though.

And, to take on the government, a group of individuals would need the type of weapons you see in terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda and other guerilla fighters. Cannot really see the Founding Fathers backing IEDs and suicide bombers even if these were US citizens doing this violence.

The checks and balances in the US Constitution were placed in there so that the violence you see in the French Revolution does not occur here.

[Guest]

Good thoughts alround. Figmo has his viewpoints and he has plenty of experience to back him up. I have met Figmo and he is one doggone decent character.

The viewpoints to counter Figmo are valid also.

No one is going to change each other's mind but let's respect each other. I like Figmo as he is a semi-decent poker player. :clap2:

[Guest]

I will go along with your post up to the last sentence. I believe that a dictator will first take away guns. Look at the Nazis. Do not tell me that the German Nazis were socialist, either. They were a ultra right wing group.

Look at Switzerland and Israel. Both are pretty socialist. Almost every household has a gun.

Canada is pretty socialist. Lots and lots of guns there.

As I said before, Richie, if you were reading, I have no problem with people who want guns for sport, hunting, or defense.

When I said a country moving toward socialism, I mean an new kind of tyranny, and I stand by my comment.

The U.S. under Obama is moving in the direction of a form of tyranny. The latest example being the almost $3 Billion Obama's HHR Dept. has spent on ObamaCare funding while the Supreme Court is deciding on it's legality. This is not money that had to be spent. Obama is spending this money in the pipeline with wild abandon before a Supreme Court ruling which could dry up these funds.

If Obama is reelected I expect an end run on weapons ownership among private citizens. He's already shown he thinks he can override the Congress.

[Guest]

Myth: Gun registration works
Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.
Fact: Not in Australia. “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.” And this costs the Australian taxpayers over $200 million annually.
Fact: Not in Canada.
• More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association. "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them", according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino .
• The system is so bad that five Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register.
• A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian parliament which, if passed, would eliminate the registry completely.
Fact: Not in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for.
Fact: Not in Boston, Cleveland, or California. These cities and states require registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%. California originally had a 90% non-compliance rate.
Fact: Criminals don’t register their guns.

Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation

Fact: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.

Fact: It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

Fact: It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens.

Fact: It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of “assault weapons,” many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

Fact: It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and “registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
Fact: It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

The "Assualt Weapons Ban" was a farce. Not one "assualt weapon" was banned. All it did was take away some components of the "assualt weapon." You could still buy the very same firearm, minus, a pistol grip or the bayonet lug. It was all cosmetic and did not really do anything to ban any of these firearms. It was a feel good law.

The 1968 Gun Control Act, sponsored by Senator Dodd, was taken directly and almost word for word from the Germany Gun Control Act. Gun Control is not about controling firearms it is about controling PEOPLE.

All you who fear firearms are welcome to come take my firearms class and learn that a firearm will not hurt you, learn to control your fear of a piece of metal, I will help you transfer that fear to your toaster so that when you walk into your kitchen you will hid from that "toaster" who can burn your bread until it is no longer good for you.

As to the information above, google Gun Fact 6.0 it is really interesting reading.

None of this will change anyone of your minds, but be thankful for the 2d Amendment for without it this forum would not exist for how long do you think it would be, before the Right to Free Speech would be outlawed and those that did exercise that right would be allowed to remain free.

[Guest]

Aside from hunting, the answer is simple really. People like to own and fire weapons of all types. Shotguns make the best home defense IMO. I have a small collection myself. I have a tactical shotgun for home defense, a 9mm and 22 pistole for target shooting and I also own an assault riffle that's quite fun to shoot as well. I have property so I can shoot whenever I want. Not much more complicated than that. Some own just a few and others have larger collections.

Generally is has more to do with collecting, operating and associating with other enthusiasts than it does amassing large collections of military grade weapons because they are afraid of some kind of government action against the people. Some individuals do have rather large collections of new and vintage military grade weapons... the one's with LOTS of disposable cash and federal permits. It's not an inexpensive hobby.

Most people in my neck of the woods are pretty well armed. But guess what, very little crime around here. I don't keep much under lock and key and it's known that people don't mess with other peoples stuff.

I have a seven grand commercial zero turn mower and I can park it out by the street with the keys in it and no one will mess with it. In San Diego it would be gone by morning. I have a pretty nice Honda rancher 4 wheeler that I keep in my driveway with the keys hanging in it. It's never touched. In San Diego it wouldn't last the day before it was gone. I don't even lock my shop. I can't imagine doing that in CA.

Back in San Diego the first thing I would do each morning is check to see if my car was still in one piece and I lived on the nice side of town.

Why isn't that the case here? I think one, generally people are more honest and two, everyone is pretty well armed and looks out for their neighbors and their possessions. The crooks know it to. I feel a lot more safe here than in CA, that's for sure. Everyone around me has property and sometimes on the weekends it sounds like a war zone. Not to many bad guys skulking around here at night. :laugh:

[Guest]

"Guns don't kill people; drug cartels armed by our government kill people"

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Figmo Bohica;510617]Myth: Gun registration works

Fact: Not in Canada.
• More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association. "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a
law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them", according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino .
• The system is so bad that five Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register.
• A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian parliament which, if passed, would eliminate the registry completely.
[QUOTE]

In April 2012, Canada passed Bill C-19 ending the Long Gun Registry. The Registry was considered by most citizens to be a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Guest]

People kill people.

[Guest]

Lets dis-spell another popular Main Street Media myth:

90% of all the weapons that are in Mexico come for the United States. Well in fact that is most likely true. One thing they are not telling us is if they are automatic select fire weapons. To own a automatic select fire weapon you have to get one that was registered prior to May 19 1986 and it takes lots of paper work and mucho, mucho dinero, money, lots of it. So if any of the weapons in the 90% number fit the auto category, then yes they were sold to the Mexican government, but they were sold to them by the United States Government, then someone in Mexico transferred them to the drug cartels. Our government and the Mexican government need to start tell the truth about what type of weapons they are recovering, and besides its way cheaper to by a fully automatic AK47 than it is to buy American made weapons of the same type.

[Guest]

Lets dis-spell another popular Main Street Media myth:

90% of all the weapons that are in Mexico come for the United States. Well in fact that is most likely true. One thing they are not telling us is if they are automatic select fire weapons. To own a automatic select fire weapon you have to get one that was registered prior to May 19 1986 and it takes lots of paper work and mucho, mucho dinero, money, lots of it. So if any of the weapons in the 90% number fit the auto category, then yes they were sold to the Mexican government, but they were sold to them by the United States Government, then someone in Mexico transferred them to the drug cartels. Our government and the Mexican government need to start tell the truth about what type of weapons they are recovering, and besides its way cheaper to by a fully automatic AK47 than it is to buy American made weapons of the same type.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people in the Mexican government are corrupt? Wow, that is shocking! :beer3:

[Guest]

Buggyone, boy am I proud of you. You got that one right off. The Mexican Government is most likely just as corrupt as our own criminal politicans. That also makes the MSNBC that you libs seem to think is the only one telling the truth corrupt also. What a shocker!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

yes people kill people and they do not need a gun to do it.

Blaming it on guns is the same as blaming the eraser on a pencil for mis-spelled words!:laugh:

btk