Thanx for the heads up, I didn't know that...I will change it forthwith

J.

 

I don't know what side of the political fence your on but your last statement sounds just like the LIBERIAL LEFT democratic politicians who say "I don't see any reason for it, therefore you shouldn't need it". And low and behold, another gun law gets passed restricting our rights ever more. One of our liberal left wing state senators said the same thing. Sen. Boxer entertained the idea of limiting the capicity of handguns down to 5 because she doesn't see the need for any more that that.

Who elects these people into office? Liberal left wingers who agree with their agenda, that if we give them all of our money in taxes, they will give us free health care, free child care, perscription drugs, free education and the list goes on. It seems that the liberal left wing of the democratic party wants to control every aspect of our lives. If they can get the people to become dependent on them then they can stay in power. Ever wonder why they despise the rich? The are against the rich because the rich don't need or depend on them. To hear them talk, they would like to bring down big business and take all their money. If they were so concerned for our welfare, it seems to me that they would hope we all could become rich or at least earn a lot of money and make a good living. But all you hear from them is that they fight for the poor or working poor. So in order to get the votes to stay in power, they need to keep people in poverty and champian their cause . And if you live in poverty, your rights are easer to take away because those in power hold everything over your head.

Should we outlaw guns because some people will break the law using guns? Should we outlaw the Corvett because some will break the law and drive over the speed limit? Should we do away with elections because there will be voter fraud? Perhaps we should limit free speech because some people will label what others say as "hate speech". Who will define that one? I'll tell you. The left wing liberal feel good about myself do gooders who think whats good for them, is good for you. What a crock! Why do these people or the government want to tell me or you what we need and what we don't need, or what we should have? Who's business is it anyway? If we mind our own business and don't bother anybody else or break any laws, who cares how many bullets fit in my gun? I'm not the one you need to fear. Now perhaps your not a gun owner or you feel you only need a single shot. Well, good for you, that's your choice. It's nice to be able to have a choice. But remember, if they limit your right to free speech, they limit mine too. If they limit my gun rights, they limit yours.

 

Ruby Ridge? <!-- You gotta be F***ing kidding me. -->
(Removed by admin)Fabrication of evidence. Shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby. Shooting the dog and the boy in the back as they run away. Making false reports. Yeah there's something wrong with that.

Why should any arms be banned? The 2nd amendment is there to protect all of the other amendments. It was put there so that the citizens could put down an unruly government. Lets apply some "reasonable restrictions" to other amendments. Why do you Need to go to church more than once a month. Why do you need to be able to purchase more than 10 books at a time.

My gun rights are being infringed upon all the time. Right now the Rupublik of Maryland is trying to ban my Ar-15. I can't put a folding stock on my .22LR to make it more portable because, then it would be transformed into an "assault rifle".

Why do i have to pay a $200 transfer tax on silencers and automatic firearms? Why are machine guns no longer able to be manufactured? 4 crimes have been committed since 1934 with registered Class III firearms (machine guns, short barreled rifles, silencers).

 

This country is rapidly slipping towards socialism. They take the money form the rich and redistribute it among the poor and lazy. Universal health care is socialist health care. That worked real good in England. People are flying over to get medical care because it is soo poor over there.

Public schools are government propaganda camps. They teach that guns are bad, gays are good, the white man is racist and the black man is being put down by him. they liberalize the students before they have a chance to make up thier own mind.

Hear about gun-control/confiscation in England? Violent crime and burgularies have skyrocketed since most guns were confiscated.

 

I'm a gun owner, got the first one of my own at age nine (1957), still have it. Prior to that, I shot target about once a month.
As of today I have several rifles,and shotguns for hunting and target practice. I also have a "House gun", 12ga. and a 9mm carry.

Don't think I'm a liberal, I just don't see the need for full auto, high cap mags etc.. In military situations, I'm retired after22yrs, they have their place. The training I have had gives me the knowledge that what I now have is more than adequate for my personal needs.

The "liberal" thing does bother me, does hating Yuppies count for anything? Any redemming value.

Randy Turner - Fabricated, don't think so.

 

Hmmm ... in the Marine Corps, I was taught the one shot/ one kill theory. Spraying lead is wasteful, you gotta' carry every freakin' round. Along with that came the thought that rifles make extremely effective weapons even when they're not loaded (close combat). Pistols are for use when you need to put yourself down ' cause you ran out of ammo, and security blankets for people who can't perform in close combat.

 

I too fail to see the logic behind having so many handguns floating around out there. Sure doesn't make me feel safer.

I'm all for hunters keeping their rifles but full auto, high capacity
doesn't seem defensible.

There's no gettin' around the fact that most handguns in the possession of criminals were stolen from their registered owners.
That would suggest that many gun people can't be trusted to properly secure their weapons. How much worse if the crooks have stolen machine guns. Oh wait, here in LA they do.

I'm open to logic I've not heard yet.

And I have never gotten how anyone is going to take on the gov't
(national guard, cops or whoever) with their home arsenal. That's just crackpot.

Besides, the 2nd amendment talks about "well regulated" militia
not anyone with the desire to stockpile.

Can anyone out there say that they've saved themselves or their family or a stranger with their handgun? These stories are pretty rare. The NRA looks hard for them for their publications.

 

This sounds just like the guys with their high dollar shotguns. "Why do you need one of those evil looking black rifles?" "Handguns are only used to kill people"

This is the same logic as the old story about "when they came for the jews, I didn't do anything because I was not a jew. When they came for me, there was no one to help.

When they get the so called "assault rifles", they will then be after your hunting rifles. The goal is no guns period.

 

I fail to see your parallel Mike.

The Jews are human beings like their non-Jewish neighbors.

A handgun is not generally a hunting weapon.

I can imagine there are hunters who have no interest in handguns just as there must be handgun enthusiasts who don't hunt.

I suspect the whole concept that our "freedoms" only exist because of the massive amount of privately owned weapons appeals more to you than me.

Ghandi and his followers were able to overcome well armed tyranny with no weapons at all.

What sort of ordinance do you think should not be privately owned?

 

I am merely trying to say that I would defend your right to own a weapon that I did not have any interest in owning myself.

Handgun hunting is quite popular although it is not my cup of tea. I really don't want to go into the subject of what we should be "allowed" to own as it always ends up talking about tanks and nuclear missiles.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike. I will give up my firearms only with "them" prying my cold dead fingers. Part of the idea in the constitution was for the civil population to protect themselves from the government.

Sinjin
I think the only firearms that should actually be outlawed for civilian ownership are full auto's. I see no reason to possess them. See my earlier post. You are right in that some folks have wierd firearms for sporting purposes, and I fully support them. A good marksman is the person I want owning weapons. The punks in LA are just indiscriminate cowards who hope spraying lead might get their target. Few of them can manage a real firearm.

 

of ya'll just don't know. Fully automatic or machinegun's are already ILLEGAL. The guns used in the LA shootout were ILLEGAL but that darn sure didn't stop the bad guys from getting them. I own an FAL, AR15 and AK47 because it is my RIGHT, and I happen to like them. Have I ever used a weapon to hurt another person? Yup, and it had "Property US Government" stamped on the side of it too. Do I need my AK, no, do you need a truck? You can say yes, but you would be lieing. You can always rent one, or hire someone with a truck. Trucks use too much gas, they pollute more than electric cars thay can go over the speed limit. And they KILL more people every year than guns do. So I can't see why you need one. And ya know what, there is nothing in the constatution that says you have a right to own one, unlike my FAL. Now, how stupid does that sound?

 

Yeah, I was a hitman for uncle sam too. How many shots would it take you to knock off the punks in LA? I think I know, one per guy. Following that logic, what the heck do you need with an automatic weapon? How many guys did you take out in auto mode? I think I know the answer there too; damn few. Fully auto weapons are to spray lead over a large area, not necessarily to take people out, they are meant to intimidate, except of course for a full frontal assault.

I still think they are dangerous to the user and innocents. To make people stop shooting at you, you need to hit 'em. Auto weapons don't fill the bill. I'm speaking of fully auto's, not semi's. Different breed of weapon altogether. People who shoot fully auto weapons to protect themselves (except frontal assaults in large groups) seldom hit the target. Instead, they hurt innocents. I still think full auto's should be illegal. They are dangerous and don't fulfill a purpose, except in rare instances of full combat. A fair marksman can take out more targets with a semi-auto than the same guy with a full auto.

What's more, hell yes it's your right and I'll put my life on the line for the concept of owning and using firearms.

 

I have a few friends that collect automatic weapons, I don't. They can be fun sometimes, but my billfold just can't come to terms with the transfur tax over and above the price of the weapon, then add in ammo "OUCH". So I settle for semi-auto's, levers, bolts and pumps, I like double action revolvers too. I do hunt with a handgun BTW. And you are right, as an infantry Plt Sgt in Gulf war I, if I heard automatic fire from anything but an M249 SAW I would have a sqd leaders a**. But the fact remains that the 2ed Admin was not wrote to protect duck hunters. I don't care for inline muzzle loaders, I see no use for them at all. BUT I know people that love them, I am happy for them when they bring home a new one. My current CCW is a 5 shot 2" .38 revolver. I take a lot of ribbing about my "stub nose" but the fact remains I can outshoot everybody at the range with it. Most of the guys can't keep my .38 on the paper at 10 yards. I have had it for almost 30 years, I know it well. But I have nothing against the man or woman that carries a 1911 .45. To each his own, use what works for you. If a person jumps through the hoops and pays the money and likes to collect belt feds, more power to him. I can see no reason to punish people for what they might do, and even less for what they can do. The military taught me a lot of things that can hurt people, so what I can do, would put me away for life. What I do, or don't do, that is what should matter.

 

Okay, I can't disagree with your logic. I just think there are a lot of fools out there who want to buy, can't safely use, full auto's. They hurt innocent people due to stupidity. The only way i can think of to keep full-auto's away from them is legal.

I think your comment on the 2d amendment hits it right on the nose (the primer, for those of us into it), 'taint to protect duck hunters. You imply and i agree that it is to protect us from "them", whoever them is. I think them is elected by the same fools who shouldn't have auto weapons.
Dono for prez.
Kenny