[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.

All guns are designed to "kill people." The statement "Not for hunting and not for home protection" doesn't make sense, since hunting and self-protection would seem to indicate the ability to kill with the firearm. Have you ever heard of a Mosin Nagant Russian rifle? Invented in the 1800's and you can still purchase them from military surplus. They are a bolt action rifle that was used in combat/war. Very powerful and was also used as a sniper rifle. Many purchase it in America and surely in other countries as a cheap hunting rifle. An M1 Garand is a semiautomatic military surplus weapon that fires powerful bullets loaded by an 8 round clip, not a magazine. You can also get the MIa which has the ability to select fully automatic and uses a 20 round magazine. Is that an assault weapon? Folks purchase these old military weapons for hunting and/or target shooting and competition. Labeling a firearm as being lethal is almost humorous if not so serious. The old guns are more powerful than the newer, smaller cal rifles, but are generally heavier and usually have less ammo capacity.

Millions own firearms, but only one in millions decides to become a mass murderer. One too many? Ok, then concentrate on the one in the millions, not the law abiding millions of good citizen gun owners.

Ever play "wack a mole?" One person attempts to use a mallet to knock down a mole that may pop up at any given time from a choice of many holes. One person is responsible for the mole. Now, give ten people a mallet and tell them to cover an assigned hole or holes and see how that works out.

There has been millions of lives saved by good citizens carrying firearms. A lot more saved than murdered.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

I owned over a dozen firearms and my wife said that I had enough. So, I bought her a new gun and she is happy. Why? Why not? Some folks enjoy collecting and some enjoy target shooting or hunting. I know a guy that owns several motorcycles. He can only drive one at a time. Why? Because he enjoys different types of rides. If a person does not harm others, why does it matter their reasoning?

[Engine12]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

You mean your guns don’t go out on their own and shoot people ? Your firearms must be defective, because a lot of the public think guns kill people . 😂

[Blackbird45]

The other day a reporter asked a simple question why the United States is the one with this problem and other countries are not.
Now all countries have mental illness, they all watch the same violent movies, and they all play the same video games. DA! what could possibly the difference between us and them?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

At first I thought this was a stupid question, but then realized it’s a naive question from someone who knows basically absolutely nothing about guns. There are several reasons to own multiple guns. Hand guns are very different than rifles. Semi automatics, revolvers, bolt action, break barrel, pump action, lever action, muzzleloaders, are all different and offer the shooter different experiences. Different calibers or shot types have different applications. Bird hunters use a scatter gun (shot gun with different choke tubes), while hunting small game (varmint hunting) a 22 or 223 would be appropriate. Bear, moose, or elk hunting would require something like a 30-06. Some hunting requires a firearm for close shots in a wooded area while others require very long shots in open areas. Hunting regulations are another reason to own several guns. In Massachusetts there are three deer seasons, archery, shot gun, and muzzleloader, but one can travel to a neighboring state and use a center file rifle such as a 30 30 or 30-06. During the day one can hunt coyotes with a center fire 223, but after dark must use a rim fire 22. Many hunting firearms are designed for specific game targets or hunting situations, and regulations often require hunters to own several guns. Hope that answers your question.

[MDLNB]

If offered, I would not sell "back" any of my firearms. Each has a different intended function, and some are collector items. I enjoy shooting all of them. That said, I have no problem with any gov entity that wishes to remove unwanted firearms from those wishing to get rid of them. My problem would be if the gov wished to FORCE a buy back of citizen's firearms. I don't see that happening anytime real soon. Before I leave this world, I intend on giving my children my firearms for their collection. I already gave a few away to my grandson that enjoys hunting. Hunting is a necessary function of assisting ecology when there is an over population of certain species, where there is a lessening of natural predators. Supposedly, there are more deer in the U.S. now than in 1900.
I do not have even one firearm that isn't worth more than twice the $50 they are offering in trade. So, I imagine they might get some junk firearms off the street, but nothing of value. I'm sure it made for a great photo OP though.

[Blackbird45]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

At first I thought this was a stupid question, but then realized it’s a naive question from someone who knows basically absolutely nothing about guns. There are several reasons to own multiple guns. Hand guns are very different than rifles. Semi automatics, revolvers, bolt action, break barrel, pump action, lever action, muzzleloaders, are all different and offer the shooter different experiences. Different calibers or shot types have different applications. Bird hunters use a scatter gun (shot gun with different choke tubes), while hunting small game (varmint hunting) a 22 or 223 would be appropriate. Bear, moose, or elk hunting would require something like a 30-06. Some hunting requires a firearm for close shots in a wooded area while others require very long shots in open areas. Hunting regulations are another reason to own several guns. In Massachusetts there are three deer seasons, archery, shot gun, and muzzleloader, but one can travel to a neighboring state and use a center file rifle such as a 30 30 or 30-06. During the day one can hunt coyotes with a center fire 223, but after dark must use a rim fire 22. Many hunting firearms are designed for specific game targets or hunting situations, and regulations often require hunters to own several guns. Hope that answers your question.

I totally agree you should own as many guns as you want. But AI also notice you did not mention assault weapons. There is no need for these things to be on our streets. Again you want the experience of this type of firearm, they should be restricted to gun ranges and not permitted to leave the grounds.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

I totally agree you should own as many guns as you want. But AI also notice you did not mention assault weapons. There is no need for these things to be on our streets. Again you want the experience of this type of firearm, they should be restricted to gun ranges and not permitted to leave the grounds.

All guns are or can be "assault weapons" so how are you going to define the term? No one else seems to understand the term. A musket was an assault weapon when the Constitution was created. A pistol can be an assault weapon. An ax can be an assault weapon. Anything used to attack another person or persons can be construed as an assault weapon.

[MDLNB]

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government.” - George Washington

"When the government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away the government's right to govern." - George Washington

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” - Ronald Reagan

"Guns don't make criminals," Reagan said. "Hard-core criminals use guns, and locking them up and throwing away the key is the best gun control law we could ever have.” - Ronald Reagan

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." - John F. Kennedy

[Blackbird45]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government.” - George Washington

"When the government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away the government's right to govern." - George Washington

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” - Ronald Reagan

"Guns don't make criminals," Reagan said. "Hard-core criminals use guns, and locking them up and throwing away the key is the best gun control law we could ever have.” - Ronald Reagan

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." - John F. Kennedy

In the days of Washington all men had the same weapons. It was the duty of citizens to take up arms if the government were to try to impose another king. Today that is not the case. You, your neighbor could arm yourselves with all the assault weapons you want but if a tyrant takes over the government you're not going to be able stop it. This is not a Hollywood movies. Assume I am an evil ruler and my general comes into the oval office, interrupts me from watching The Price Is Right, while I'm eating my PB&J.
He informs me that we are meeting resistance in The Village. My instruction would be as follows: send a drone to take out the whole block and if continues flatten The Villages.
Now I know this is totally ridicules, but what I'm trying to get across, if the day ever comes where this country is taken over by a dictators, there are no weapons that can match what the government has stock pilled.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

In the days of Washington all men had the same weapons. It was the duty of citizens to take up arms if the government were to try to impose another king. Today that is not the case. You, your neighbor could arm yourselves with all the assault weapons you want but if a tyrant takes over the government you're not going to be able stop it. This is not a Hollywood movies. Assume I am an evil ruler and my general comes into the oval office, interrupts me from watching The Price Is Right, while I'm eating my PB&J.
He informs me that we are meeting resistance in The Village. My instruction would be as follows: send a drone to take out the whole block and if continues flatten The Villages.
Now I know this is totally ridicules, but what I'm trying to get across, if the day ever comes where this country is taken over by a dictators, there are no weapons that can match what the government has stock pilled.

Perhaps so. Especially when folks have a losing attitude. From what I have seen in my lifetime, Americans are generally not that way. I wonder if Ukrainians feel the same way. Probably not, or they would not be hanging on so long against the overwhelming forces of Russia. I bet there were many Colonialists that felt that they might lose against the great force of Great Brit.

But, I think you may have missed the quote from President Reagan above, that pretty much fits the current situation.

[MrFlorida]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.

Obviously, you don't participate in shooting matches, such as 3 gun events....if you did, you would know that an AR 15 is a very precise target rifle.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards

See what you started?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with these buy back programs (who cares what they are called), especially with the offer of amnesty. Reality is that it is a “spoonful from an ocean”, and it isn’t going to get those “scary assault weapons” (typed with ALOT of sarcasm) off of the streets, so it is symbolic. However, what if there was a nationwide one week/one weekend amnesty program? It would still be symbolic, but perhaps people might feel as if something to move the needle forward is being done?

Since it is voluntary, no one is compelled to participate. Worried about the tax dollars spent? I am pretty sure we can all agree that the government has wasted more tax dollars than this.

I’ll pick an average of 1000 guns per state that are turned in. This is a WAG, so let’s not debate a higher or lower amount as this is purely theoretical. So with 50 states participating, the cost of the “buy back” to tax payers @$50 per firearm is $2,500,000 not including salaries, supplies, transportation and disposal costs. Please, this is still theoretical!

Both the government and the NRA can issue a joint statement in support of the buyback and can tout the results. Yes, most of the weapons may be in essence junk, but it will also remove functional firearms that are in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (for whatever reason) or as in my note below, don’t want them at all.

On a personal note, I suggested to a party in another state that they take advantage of an upcoming amnesty buy back program. Without going into details, they found themselves unexpectedly in violation of the law involving a fully functional firearm. I wouldn’t trust just calling the police to collect the weapon (and won’t go into details why), so rather than paying an attorney to get them legal, I suggested the amnesty program. I told them to wrap up the firearm, put it in the trunk of the car and drive directly to where the firearms were being collected and turn it in. Note that they did not want to keep the firearm at all, so becoming “legal” AND retaining the weapon was not their goal.

[RickyLee]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

Forward me a priced list, I may be interested in a few. Rick rickyleehall@gmail.com

[Blackbird45]

I have come to the conclusion no matter what someone does to try to find a compromise it will always end up, that owners of guns will not admit there is a gun problem. Video games, violent movies, mentally ill people, to many doors in schools. Their solution is to arm teachers, until comes the day a teacher loose it and shots one or more students. Then the next step will be a bill which I will call gummy and guns. Where each parent will be responsible to put a gun in their child backpack next to their gummy bears.
This line that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun does not always work. At the Top supermarket there was a retired cop working as a guard with a gun, no question he ended up becoming a hero and he also end up dead and the killer kept killing.