Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1791076)

We probably should not divert from the subject of this thread, BUT a comment was made about "military style" weapons. I respect the fact that some fear what they might not fully comprehend, and "military style" or "automatic weapons" or "assault weapons" is definitely a subject that can be argued until .........the cows come home? When the Constitution was created, what constituted a "military style" or "assault weapon?" Not being a historian, I would still suggest that any weapon that could be picked up and used against the enemy, would fit the definition. Now, an interesting thought comes to mind. The second amendment was written to protect against Gov. tyranny, right? Wouldn't that mean, we should have military style weapons? Does it say anywhere in that Amendment that everyone should have a "hunting" weapon? Is the Amendment written to protect hunters, so that they may always have a hunting rifle?
I have absolutely no fear of anyone owning a military style rifle. I personally own a MILITARY rifle that was used in a war. It's an M1 semiautomatic rifle, capable of loading an 8 round (30-06) clip into the magazine. If I was to be limited to a military style weapon from the time the Constitution was written, I guess I would have to have a musket, right? Could you defend yourself from a rogue gov military force with a musket, today?
If a person is mature and sensible, a military style weapon is not dangerous. No nut case should own a firearm, sword, hunting knife or even a butter knife.
Someone correctly said that there are tens of thousands of military style weapons legally owned in this country. I am glad. The bad guys have the best weapons and our police forces can't even sustain a defensive posture with their limited armament, thanks to pacifists. I have seen city gangs with fully automatic Uzis, and MAC-11 machine pistols. Guess what? Those are illegally owned. You can own a fully automatic weapon IF you first obtain a special Federal permit, which the last time I checked about 20 years ago, cost $500.
Anyway, I apologize for diverting from the subject. I understand those that believe it is possible to get rid of all the guns in America, but that is not even realistic. Even the UK is finding out the hard way. And now the Bobbies that once used only a baton or billy to enforce laws, now carry concealed pistols.
But, I do respect those that WISH that we could live in a Utopia where guns were not needed or even existed. But, some of us live in reality and know what happens when citizens have no means of controlling or equalizing a rogue government. I have heard those that say that guns are not needed. Thank goodness not everyone agrees on that view. When the SHTF, there will be enough of us to protect the families of those that don't think that guns are necessary. Hope it never happens though.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1791074)

And some troublemakers use as an excuse. It's just the same trouble from the other end of the door.

Your ex-wife shows up asking for her late alimony check? Shoot her and tell everyone she was threatening you and you were standing your ground.

Some random guy you don't recognize comes onto your property hoping to find someone to help him find an address because he's hopelessly lost and the GPS isn't giving him Villages directions? Shoot him - and claim he was threatening you so you stood your ground.

It's an excuse to kill people, nothing more or less. The only interpretation involved is the REASON you took advantage of that excuse to kill someone. The end result is the same - someone is dead, and someone is holding the weapon that killed the corpse.

Do I think people shouldn't protect their property? Nope, absolutely not. I feel that people SHOULD have the right to protect their property.

But I call it what it is, not what sounds good in an NRA or anti-NRA video clip. It is "ending the life of another human being with a firearm."

Apply whatever justification you want to it, but the result is the same.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1790999)

Ok, you are saying would protesters and looters come to TV? Looters would be repeal with strong, deadly force as stated in many other posts. Peaceful protests MIGHT? be tolerated here if they were mostly locals and did NOT get out of control. But, WHAT I WORRY ABOUT HERE FOR TV is the one, lone crazy radicalized expert bomb maker. Or the lone, unaffiliated machine-gun wielding sniper like the one in Las Vegas. For those 2 situations, every place in the US is vulnerable, and especially a soft target like TV, and especially if entertainment were to return to the TV squares.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1791123)

Probably not the houses of the rich and famous though as they could afford to hire guards of different kinds and/or bribe.

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1790882)

...No guns for me anymore , don’t even lock my door here , let the police and insurance protect me lol

Originally Posted by Keeferinspace (Post 1791139)

This might be a good place to ask where the closest shooting range is. Is there a gun club in The Villages? I don’t own a firearm but want to purchase one. It’s been over 30 years since I picked up a weapon—Marine Corps. Would enjoy picking up the hobby again.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1791074)

And some troublemakers use as an excuse. It's just the same trouble from the other end of the door.

Your ex-wife shows up asking for her late alimony check? Shoot her and tell everyone she was threatening you and you were standing your ground.

Some random guy you don't recognize comes onto your property hoping to find someone to help him find an address because he's hopelessly lost and the GPS isn't giving him Villages directions? Shoot him - and claim he was threatening you so you stood your ground.

It's an excuse to kill people, nothing more or less. The only interpretation involved is the REASON you took advantage of that excuse to kill someone. The end result is the same - someone is dead, and someone is holding the weapon that killed the corpse.

Do I think people shouldn't protect their property? Nope, absolutely not. I feel that people SHOULD have the right to protect their property.

But I call it what it is, not what sounds good in an NRA or anti-NRA video clip. It is "ending the life of another human being with a firearm."

Apply whatever justification you want to it, but the result is the same.

Originally Posted by ALadysMom (Post 1791125)

Fortunately for Villagers, the worst radical drops F-bombs on the golf course and the highest perch is probably atop a palm tree.

The ‘protests’ always start out peaceful. The thugs are cowards who hide within the crowds of people. Many of the people who march actually believe they are the voice of freedom from tyranny. But later, things get ugly and the tyrannical thugs rule the night. These are not a sit-in peace rally, folks.

BLM is enabling thug rioters

And we are being duped into quiet submission by BLM claims of desiring racial justice while they ignore or even facilitate chaos, destruction & lawlessness.

We are being tricked. We are too easily distracted by racial & political divisions to see what’s really going on. As long as we are busy squabbling with each other, we miss the real problem—one which we don’t disagree about. Socialism and a tyrannical government would be vehemently fought by both political parties & all races of American people.

It’s the old adage:
Divide & Conquer

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1791123)

List of riots - Wikipedia

Sure have been a lot of riots in the 2000s and 2010s all over the world.

Also looks like some sections of ancient Rome were often places for riots. Probably not the houses of the rich and famous though as they could afford to hire guards of different kinds and/or bribe some Roman Army official.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1791079)

That's one NRA rationalization. They are just profiting off of male testosterone and bias. There are 10 other talking point rationalizations that someone will probably list. Bit, I appreciate that someone took the time to read and analyze my post. Thank you.

Originally Posted by nututv (Post 1791166)

Lets not forget this is the same place that hosts a ton of conservative rallies. Care to imagine what a kook could do in the Sumter Square during one. It would mimic the Vegas deal easily.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1791085)

Semi-auto does NOT mean auto as in automatic firing. Semi-auto means auto LOADING after each trigger pull. The Las Vegas sniper used a quasi-LEGAL accessory to achieve his automatic firing. Hopefully, that cleared something up. Visit your NRA quasi-military recruitment web page for further clarification.

Originally Posted by nututv (Post 1791166)

Lets not forget this is the same place that hosts a ton of conservative rallies. Care to imagine what a kook could do in the Sumter Square during one. It would mimic the Vegas deal easily.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore (Post 1791057)

Hmmm... :wave:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1791170)

There is no rationalization there at all, just the unvarnished, inconvenient truth. Heroin, cocaine and all the other dangerous drugs are illegal to possess, use or sell but you can go into the smallest Podunk farm town in fly over country and buy these drugs. Why? Because there is a demand and organized crime will fill that demand. Prohibition proved that beyond a doubt and gave organized crime it's start on becoming what it is today. Prohibition really worked well! :ohdear: There was more alcohol consumption per capita during Prohibition than before and after. If a criminal wants a weapon there will be someone who will have one for sale illegally. It really doesn't take much common sense to understand that.

Originally Posted by ffresh (Post 1791177)

I think you mean you were told/read that The Las Vegas shooter …

Some of us are skeptical about such things (for VERY good reason) and, thus, do not believe everything we're told/ "fed". Also, "honorable Mention" award on your attempt to disparage the NRA, whom many Americans believe does a decent job of protecting the Second Amendment from people who share your reverence for it. It's in the Bill of Rights, you know :icon_wink:

P.S. I'm a lifetime NRA member but often feel the organization is too compromising; I'd rather put my chips on GOA

Consider: all that firepower the "lone" Vegas shooter supposedly had, all by his lonesome, but he had to use a bump stock … I have a bridge :1rotfl:

Fred

Originally Posted by nututv (Post 1791090)

I consider myself to be rather well informed. It really surprised me the other day when my son told me tear gas isn't allowed in war due to the Geneva convention but police use it against the citizenry nearly daily.
I gave that a lot of thought, it's spooky.

Originally Posted by ALadysMom (Post 1791176)

There would be many happy returns.

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 1791145)

Massachusetts and Hawaii are the 2 hardest states to get a gun period they alternate between the lowest murder rates by guns Florida is 19th makes you wonder

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1791188)

I had to fact check to see if what you said was true. Yes, it seems so. However, it is very interesting that the Marine Corps trains recruits in the "gas chamber" with tear gas. We also had tear gas in Vietnam and used it. It was in the form of grenade rounds shot from a M79 grenade launcher. Right or wrong, it was used in combat. We also had White Phosphorus rounds, which are way more dangerous and wicked. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1791188)

I had to fact check to see if what you said was true. Yes, it seems so. However, it is very interesting that the Marine Corps trains recruits in the "gas chamber" with tear gas. We also had tear gas in Vietnam and used it. It was in the form of grenade rounds shot from a M79 grenade launcher. Right or wrong, it was used in combat. We also had White Phosphorus rounds, which are way more dangerous and wicked. Just saying.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1791186)

What I understand is that ANY problem can be solved IF large resources ($) and expertise and time are devoted to it. That's why the US was 1st to the moon. (Note : in a time when the tax law did NOT favor the rich who stop it circulating by putting it in Swiss bank accounts). Today, with respect to the problem of auto-loading military-style rifles, IF--IF the rich profiteering gun manufacturers (that take your $ on their high margin m-style weapons) were to STOP manufacturing THOSE and the Police had the resources ($) to do BUY-BACKS it would WORK. Society would have to pony up the big bucks, YES. Don't forget that Police are the ones NOT killed by single-shot and bolt action (used by hunters). The Police who sat down and thought about it would LIKE the idea of those BUY-BACKS. Matter of fact they do NOW, but don't have enough $ to buy enough from the marginal criminals, who would gladly sell them and go back to being pick-pockets as...like maybe 1940 or so. PS...single shots and bolt are LOWER margin weapons.

Originally Posted by ALadysMom (Post 1791200)

The argument for or against use of tear gas is a “straw man” argument. It’s not that it’s not accurate or valid. It just distracts from the subject. Much like BLM and racism is being used to distract police & public attention away from the thugs.

Our current police force is made up of a cross-section of
Americans. Just like us, they vary. They are imperfect human beings of all races, genders, and backgrounds.

If the thugs can get us to believe all of the police are bad, the thugs win.

The thugs are using horrific incidents to make us believe we should “throw all of the bums out & start over.” Ask yourself this: Who would really benefit a lot if that were to happen? The thugs!

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1791204)

Back in the late 80's there was a report put out by the BATF investigating that all the illegal guns in Mexico came from the US. What they found was that foreign countries were smuggling automatic (machine guns) weapons and other weapons into Mexico where they were purchasyed by the drug cartels. China, South Korea, and South American countries were some of the biggest suppliers of these guns. Now whether the governments of these countries were knowledgeable of it is left up to conjecture.
The M16 rifles in the hands of the cartels were from Mexican army deserters who took their assigned rifle with them and joined the cartels.
AGAIN, if there is a demand someone will fill that demand. The cartels needed guns and criminal organizations filled that need.
The FBI lists more deaths by hammers and clubs than by rifles of all types. Back in the early 2000's if I remember correctly and I believe it was in Baltimore the mayor had a media dog and pony show on weapons used in crimes. They claimed that the AK was the weapon of choice in killings. The only problem they had was that they had no confiscated AK rifles used in a shooting to put on display, they had to go to a gun shop and borrow one for the show. There had been no shootings with an AK.

Originally Posted by ALadysMom (Post 1791190)

Nope, wonder no more.
Chicago is a gun-free city.
Last weekend there were over 100 people shot In Chicago from Friday night to Monday morning. If BLM then why don’t ALL black lives matter? Don’t the innocent black childrens’ lives matter who die in the crossfire too? They are just babies! (but don’t even get me started about THAT!) There’s barely a whisper about the carnage.

We are being duped. Played based on our sensitive, caring nature. Guilted into silent submission. The thugs are USING all of us.

If they can get the police defunded, demoralized, side-lined or (Better yet) eliminated, who will stand between the thugs & the citizens?

BLM is like an attractively decorated store window but there is actually no store inside. You still want to buy that beautiful stuff even though it’s not really in there.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone who has escaped a tyrannical government? There are plenty of those folks around since there are many governments that have slid into that abyss. I have talked to many. Not one of them wanted to go back into that situation. Most of them didn’t see it coming until it was too late.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1791163)

You do not understand the law on Stand Your Ground at all. A person shooting his ex-wife because she shows up at the door demanding a late alimony check or any of the other scenarios you presented will not hold water unless there is proof of an ACTUAL threat of death or serious bodily harm to the defender. A claim without evidence to back up the alleged threat will result in a murder charge.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1791235)

You don't seem to understand the phrase "he said she said." "I opened the door and my wife stormed in and reached for [insert heavy object nearby]. She said she was going to kill me. So I shot her."

Her response: nothing. Because she's dead. She has nothing to say about it.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1791235)

You don't seem to understand the phrase "he said she said." "I opened the door and my wife stormed in and reached for [insert heavy object nearby]. She said she was going to kill me. So I shot her."

Her response: nothing. Because she's dead. She has nothing to say about it.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1791204)

Back in the late 80's there was a report put out by the BATF investigating that all the illegal guns in Mexico came from the US. What they found was that foreign countries were smuggling automatic (machine guns) weapons and other weapons into Mexico where they were purchased by the drug cartels. China, South Korea, and South American countries were some of the biggest suppliers of these guns. Now whether the governments of these countries were knowledgeable of it is left up to conjecture.
The M16 rifles in the hands of the cartels were from Mexican army deserters who took their assigned rifle with them and joined the cartels.
AGAIN, if there is a demand someone will fill that demand. The cartels needed guns and criminal organizations filled that need.
The FBI lists more deaths by hammers and clubs than by rifles of all types. Back in the early 2000's if I remember correctly and I believe it was in Baltimore the mayor had a media dog and pony show on weapons used in crimes. They claimed that the AK was the weapon of choice in killings. The only problem they had was that they had no confiscated AK rifles used in a shooting to put on display, they had to go to a gun shop and borrow one for the show. There had been no shootings with an AK.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1791244)

No jury would believe a story like that.