>I also agree with the elimination of assault weapons. NRA
>members went crazy with that one. What do you need an
>assault weapon for? They are not used for hunting anything,
>except man. Can't you kill someone with a pistol or a
>shotgun?
If you can kill someone with a pistol or a shotgun, why not ban those using the logic you use with banning assault weapons?

Assault weapons aren't used for hunting, but they are FUN to shoot. So few of the population legally owns full auto, and there are almost NO ctimes comitted with them by people who own them legally. So why make them illegal to own?

 

Assault rifles are particularly dangerous, even in "neutered" (semi-auto) form, for one reason -- they are powerful enough to pierce standard body armor wore by law enforcement (not to mention car doors, walls, etc., which makes bystanders much more susceptible to injury). Pistols and shotguns are not. While it is true that a deer rifle can also pierce body armor, most hunting weapons do not have semi-automatic action, which makes it much harder to get off a lot of rounds quickly.

I'm on the fence on this one. I've owned and fired many semi-auto versions of military assault rifles, including a Colt AR-15 and a HK-91. They are fun, but they are not really useful for anything. They are also extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. My brother is a police officer and a SWAT team member, and nothing scares him like a bad guy holed up with an assault rifle. Incidentally, his SWAT-issue assault rifle is a modern fully automatic (selective, actually, with single shot, burst and full auto modes) hi-tech weapon, and it's a blast to shoot. We got kicked off a local range recently that didn't appreciate us ripping off bursts at a hillside of clay pigeons.

I think it would be reasonable to prohibit civilian ownership and use of autoloading high-powered rifles, because they have no real legitimate uses and they present a significant danger to the lives of those we trust to protect us and our families. Don't take away my bolt-action deer rifle or autoloading pistol or shotgun, however.

 

I'm an NRA member and have a bunch of guns and go hunting quite often. I think taking away guns is the dumbest thing ever. That would just punish the innocent for not doing anything. As for banning autoloading rifles. You could, but if you're gonna do that then you would have to ban autoloading shotguns/pistols. A shotgun/pistol won't go through body armor, but how many people that get shot are wearing body armor? A shotgun will EASILY kill any civilian walking around. That's just my opinion.

 

>I think it would be reasonable to prohibit civilian
>ownership and use of autoloading high-powered rifles,
>because they have no real legitimate uses and they present a
>significant danger to the lives of those we trust to protect
>us and our families. Don't take away my bolt-action deer
>rifle or autoloading pistol or shotgun, however.

One of the historical reasons that gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilege, is prevention of a tyranical government's intolerable treatment of its people. When private citizens have no serious means of offering resistance to factions of the government which may or may not follow the general legal procedures, they become helpless. Now, I know that we are nowhere near that situation in our (God Blessed) USA. But we can not afford to assume that we will have 'good' government forever. Look at what has happened in Albania and other countries, where citizens were mass murdered by agents of the government. Then think about the recent developements in security clampdown in this country because of 9/11, and it's far from over.

I support keeping guns from criminals, minors and non-citizens. But I think there should be just cause in order to run a check, keep a record, etc. I basically prefer to keep what I do private, unless there is reason to suspect that I am breaking the law, or about to do so. Just because I have nothing to hide does not mean I want my life to be transparent to everyone.

Now that terrorism is a real threat inside our borders, gun ownership is even more critical. If terrorists learn that no hi-powered weapons are in a certain location, they can target it for attack, without fear of deterrent, only final reprisal, which they don't care about anyway, as they are willing do die for their cause. On the other hand if a majority of Americans carried firearms, terrorist acts such as what happened at LAX would end with much fewer casualties.

I only own a few guns. I rarely use them, although I enjoy target practice, and eliminating varmints in my yard. Other things have taken priority, and the limited access to facilities caused by resistance to gun ownership and it's "baggage" makes it difficult to practice without annoying my neighbors.





Winford

 

>Assault rifles are particularly dangerous, even in
>"neutered" (semi-auto) form, for one reason -- they are
>powerful enough to pierce standard body armor wore by law
>enforcement (not to mention car doors, walls, etc., which
>makes bystanders much more susceptible to injury). Pistols
>and shotguns are not. While it is true that a deer rifle
>can also pierce body armor, most hunting weapons do not have
>semi-automatic action, which makes it much harder to get off
>a lot of rounds quickly.
>
>I'm on the fence on this one. I've owned and fired many
>semi-auto versions of military assault rifles, including a
>Colt AR-15 and a HK-91. They are fun, but they are not
>really useful for anything. They are also extremely
>dangerous in the wrong hands. My brother is a police
>officer and a SWAT team member, and nothing scares him like
>a bad guy holed up with an assault rifle. Incidentally, his
>SWAT-issue assault rifle is a modern fully automatic
>(selective, actually, with single shot, burst and full auto
>modes) hi-tech weapon, and it's a blast to shoot. We got
>kicked off a local range recently that didn't appreciate us
>ripping off bursts at a hillside of clay pigeons.
>
>I think it would be reasonable to prohibit civilian
>ownership and use of autoloading high-powered rifles,
>because they have no real legitimate uses and they present a
>significant danger to the lives of those we trust to protect
>us and our families. Don't take away my bolt-action deer
>rifle or autoloading pistol or shotgun, however.

Well I've just got to disagree with your entire post in the name of all that is decent, holy, and morally right. I, like most accomplished riflemen, can fire a lever or bolt action accurately just as quickly as I can fire a semi-auto accurately. In terms of power and penetration, most assault calibers are either in wide use as deer rounds, or would be terribly ineffective on deer.

I can think of plenty of legitimate uses for so-called assault weapons, but do I really need to prove a purpose, other than I want one, can pass a NICS check, and it's my right as an American citizen, guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment?

Finally, this "ban assault weapons, but don't touch my deer rifle, autoloading pistol, or shotgun" crap is the most hypocritical jargon I have been witness to so far this week without a doubt.



Bill

 

>One of the historical reasons that gun ownership is a RIGHT,
>not a privilege, is prevention of a tyranical government's
>intolerable treatment of its people. When private citizens
>have no serious means of offering resistance to factions of
>the government which may or may not follow the general legal
>procedures, they become helpless. Now, I know that we are
>nowhere near that situation in our (God Blessed) USA. But
>we can not afford to assume that we will have 'good'
>government forever. Look at what has happened in Albania
>and other countries, where citizens were mass murdered by
>agents of the government. Then think about the recent
>developements in security clampdown in this country because
>of 9/11, and it's far from over.
>
>Winford

Actually, you're wrong. The Second Amendment says: "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."

A couple of points. First, the fathers of our country did not consider it important enough to enshrine in the Constitution. The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment was added later.

Second, and more importantly, the text of the Amendment itself, and all of the records of the period, make clear that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with providing citizens with the means to overthrow the government. In the late 18th century (when the Amendment was added), there was no standing army. "Security" of the "free State" meant protection of the fledgling United States of America, and its components States, from aggressors such as France, Spain and Great Britain. The only means of defense in those days was by calling out the local militias, which were basically bands of men from a particular area who trained to fight on behalf of the state, if needed. The weapons were owned by the State, not the individuals, although the militia members were entrusted to keep and maintain them so as to be ready if needed. There were no standing armies, no government armories, etc. That's why it allows people to "keep and bear" arms, but not necessarily to own them.

Still, our founding fathers were concerned about guns in the wrong hands. Rebellion was a real problem back then. The language of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is only in the context of a "well regulated militia" that exists to protect the security of the State -- not for private citizens to use guns to overthrow the state.

In any case, what would such a right mean? If the purpose really was to make sure that "the people" (whomever they may be) could rise up and overthrow the government, then shouldn't it be interpreted to say that "the people" can have whatever arms the government can have? Otherwise, there's no chance it would ever be a useful right. Using that logic, the Second Amendment would have to allow private citizens to own M1 tanks, tactical nuclear weapons, etc. Ridiculous.

Moreover, the United States has a long history of using force to put down attempts at rebellion. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? No? How about the Civil War? That one was about some states that decided not to be a part of the "United States" anymore, but the "United States" said, "oh, no, you don't."

The United States system is based on the rule of law, and change through participation in the political process. Violent rebellion and overthrow is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent. Read the text of the Second Amendment, the text of the debates, the Federalist Papers (op-ed pieces written by James Madison and others arguing in favor of ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and you can come to no other conclusion.

What the Second Amendment says and means, of course, is not the real issue. The real question should be what our rights SHOULD be. As I've said before, I believe strongly that an armed populace is a safe populace, and the best deterrent against crime is a large number of armed law-abiding citizens. Pistols and concealed carry should not be restricted unnecessarily. Require people to have a clean record, be an adult, and pass a safety course. If they do, let them buy as many guns as they want, and let them carry them. Let them keep sporting weapons for traditional pasttimes, and other weapons that are reasonable for defense of their families and property. Don't let them have M60 machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, heat-seeking antiaircraft missiles, or fully automatic military assault rifles -- all of those will do far more harm than good. As far as semi-auto rifles and submachine guns, it's a tough call. I like them and enjoy shooting them, but I'm not sure that the few benefits they offer offset the great risks to us as a free society.

 

>I can think of plenty of legitimate uses for so-called
>assault weapons, but do I really need to prove a purpose,
>other than I want one, can pass a NICS check, and it's my
>right as an American citizen, guaranteed by the 2nd
>ammendment?
>
>Finally, this "ban assault weapons, but don't touch my deer
>rifle, autoloading pistol, or shotgun" crap is the most
>hypocritical jargon I have been witness to so far this week
>without a doubt.
>
>
>
>Bill

I appear to have touched a nerve. I'm curious, though:

1. So what are some of the "plenty of legitimate uses" for assault rifles that you can think of? Maybe I just lack imagination, but I have a hard time thinking of any. Like I said, they're fun. But is the enjoyment we get from sport shooting a military weapon enough of a benefit to offset the great risk they pose when they get into the hands of criminals?

2. If you believe I'm being hypocritical, please explain why. I think I'm anything but. Unlike a lot of people, I'm trying to take a carefully reasoned and unemotional approach to this issue. I'm a gun owner myself, and come from a family of longtime gunowners. My father is a lifetime NRA member and rabidly against any form of gun control. I understand his position, though I don't agree with it. If you don't agree with me, try arguing my points with facts and logic rather than simply calling me names, and we might get somewhere.

 

Like I
>said, they're fun. But is the enjoyment we get from sport
>shooting a military weapon enough of a benefit to offset the
>great risk they pose when they get into the hands of
>criminals?


How does banning them from the use of legal citizens stop criminals from using them?

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-Jul-02 AT 03:44 PM (EST)]Karlsd:

I believe that in the 2nd amendment, "militia" and "people" are two distinct subjects, and that "people" means private citizenry. This is widely debated, but also widely accepted (my interpretation).

I can't argue the historical bit, I will concede that I don't know that much about it.


But make sure you understand that I agree that as our government now is, there is no need for private citizens to rise against it. I am a Vietnam veteran, and would go again today if necessary, although I am nearer retirement age than military. I am saying, though, that situations like have occurred around the world would not have happened if the private citizenry were armed, with more than pea-shooters, and if we ever lose the right to protect ourselves in that hopefully very unlikely event, we will never regain it.


Winford

 

>How does banning them from the use of legal citizens stop
>criminals from using them?

Good point. It's the old "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" argument. It's also why I would never support banning all firearms. Law abiding citizens have a right and a need to be able to defend themselves, their families and their property.

Legal gun ownership does, however, result in guns being more available to criminals. Most guns used in crimes are stolen from law abiding people who bought them legitimately. Reducing the numbers of legally owned assault rifles also necessarily reduces the number in the hands of bad guys. It would take time, but they would eventually become very scarce and extremely expensive even in the black market. You'll never completely eliminate them (drug lords can buy pretty much anything), but you'll significantly reduce them.

Like I said before, I'm on the fence on this one. I don't really feel strongly about it. The reality is that assault rifles are almost never used by criminals, because they are already expensive and they are hard to conceal. Pistols and shotguns are far more effective weapons for common criminals, and far cheaper. My brother's experience as a police officer is what makes me more willing to consider a total ban on them. Even the SWAT team will rarely use assault rifles because of the danger they pose to "innocents" -- the preferred weapon for close-in use is the MP5 submachine gun because it is less likely to penetrate walls with sufficient velocity to injure or kill people on the other side. Assault rifles are only used where the bad guys are believed to be wearing bullet proof vests or are otherwise armored.

That said, I agree that banning them completely won't totally eliminate them from the streets. Perhaps it's best that we don't ban them, just so the police don't get a false sense of security. It's bad enough as an officer to have to wonder if the lunatic hiding in that apartment has an assault rifle -- it would be far worse to assume that he doesn't and get the unpleasant surprise of a .308 round tearing through your vest and embedding in the back plate. That's why my brother prefers laws that allow motorists to carry weapons in their cars -- he approaches every stop with the assumption that the driver has a firearm.

 

Boy of boy, for awhile there I was starting to think that truck owners are all on the pro gun side but after reading a few of the "typical" gun grabber comments I would guess we are more like 70/30 or so.

I have used and or owned guns since I was 7 in the early 60s, back then it was almost PC to admit this. I am now a life member of the NRA. I own more guns than my miniscule mind can count and by general acclamation, by a former Palestinian "terrorist" yet, that I would do a Warlord proud. And yet I have never killed anyone, threatened anyone or misused a gun in almost 40 years of being afflicted with this surely mental disease. My two boys, 8 and 10, are trained about gun safety, know I will wale the tar out of them if they touch any gun without adult supervision and permission(yes I guess I am also violent, so says the pc crowd). All guns are locked up or stowed away and are separated from the ammunition. I guess what I am getting at is that I consider myself relatively normal and law abiding with very few criminal tendencies and I keep my guns in a safe condition and train my family proper handling and safety. I doubt I will ever be found guilty of any gun related crime except where I am legislated into being labled a criminal, this might happen someday too with all the new laws being sought.

A lot of the gun grabbers quote, strange misterious statistics out of the air about how much danger I and my family are in. Now, there ARE official government statistics that refute most claims that legally owned guns are a menace to society. I don't think there is any FBI statistic where a military assault rifle like the M14 has been used in crime. an M14 will easily penetrate armor, but it is too bloody heavy and long. I seem to recall most serious criminals like small weapons, not rifles. Some countries(Britain and Australia for ex) that were once proudly pointed at as shining examples of a gunless society are now starting to have horrendous increases in violence, including criminals with guns. There have been well documented cases in the US where when gun laws were carried to the extreme, crime goes up. There are also cases where, when guns were a "required" article in every home, crime went down. Strange if you ask me. I would guess that when criminals know the general public is unarmed, the criminals have a field day. Also read a story several years back where the local PD in a Ma town went on strike and crime went down. Hmmm, wonder if the criminals didn't feel safe once the home owners took responsibility for their own protection, interesting that the PD stopped striking once the statistic appeared. Also strange that many of the strongest gun control advocates either have a gun for their own protection or have hired armed body guards. Is this a case of "I'm important so I deserve gun protection"? Rosie where art thou and thy hired guns?

I once had a gun held in my face for what felt like forever during a robbery. The police, less than 1/2 mile away took more than 20 minutes to respond to our silent alarm. Not that I recommend guns in businesses, but I certainly don't want to wait 20 minutes for the police to show up if me or my family is in danger. BTW, police are not obligated to protect your individual sorry butt, so they don't necessarily have to show up during an emergency. Their job is to protect society as a whole. One can expect collateral damage I suppose, but I would like the right to protect myself push come to shove, if the PD is tied up elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I believe that 99.9% of police officers do an admiral job, they just can't be everywhere. I know that I felt much safer armed, when I showed up at home one day and heard on the news that there was an armed robber in the woods not 200 yards from my home.

"Assault" weapons for the most part are a political creation built to satisfy a gun grabbing political group and to make the laws so archane that it takes a lawyer to interpret them. I own several legally owned "assault weapons". I do some competition shooting with them or I just go out to relax at the range. If I wanted to, any of these "assault" weapons would be more than adequate to hunt game with, although I don't since my wife is something of a tree hugger. "Assault" weapons are not the only thing that can penetrate a police vest. Any decent medium to larger calber deer rifle will do just fine. But then the gun grabbing lobby has their sights set on those for later. After all a 180 grain expanding point 30 cal bullet is an armor piercing weapon of destruction with no logical use other than warfare, isn't it. BTW such a bullet is considered illegal for warfare by convention, so I guess there is no practical use for any of these types of bullets. I suspect millions of deer hunter will argue the point, afterall it is a rather popular caliber and design.

Oh well, I cannot solve the great gun debate and I am not truly qualified enough to argue the point against paid for lobbiests so I guess I will stay a member of the NRA and try to spend my $ with businesses and organizations that recognize my right to keep and arm bears, yes? Oh and I do vote.

I will give up my guns when my two boys pry them from my cold dead fingers and haul them away in a rather large truck, maybe the F250 can handle the load. I am no where near death, I hope, but my boys are already arguing who will get my weapons of destruction when I croak.

Jim Henderson

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-Jul-02 AT 05:30 PM (EST)]>I appear to have touched a nerve. I'm curious, though:
>
>1. So what are some of the "plenty of legitimate uses" for
>assault rifles that you can think of? Maybe I just lack
>imagination, but I have a hard time thinking of any. Like I
>said, they're fun. But is the enjoyment we get from sport
>shooting a military weapon enough of a benefit to offset the
>great risk they pose when they get into the hands of
>criminals?

I get a great deal of enjoyment shooting them. Is recreation a legitimate use? If not, do you own anything, and I mean anything that has no other purpose than recreation? If you do, I don't know why you need such items....Ban them all, Damnit!! Seriously though, I have taken deer with my SKS and Moisin Nagant(WWII's assault rifle of choice by many countries, although pretty tame today), coyotes with my AR-15. I have also defended my family with an "assault weapon". I consider all of these legitimate uses.

>
>2. If you believe I'm being hypocritical, please explain
>why. I think I'm anything but. Unlike a lot of people, I'm
>trying to take a carefully reasoned and unemotional approach
>to this issue. I'm a gun owner myself, and come from a
>family of longtime gunowners. My father is a lifetime NRA
>member and rabidly against any form of gun control. I
>understand his position, though I don't agree with it. If
>you don't agree with me, try arguing my points with facts
>and logic rather than simply calling me names, and we might
>get somewhere.

Your arguement is a common one among gun-grabbers. Firearms are bad...except the ones I'm interested in. You use all the catch phrases, feel-good, generalized, sounds-good-but-has-no-basis-in-fact rhetoric. I am beginning to believe that you are either fairly ignorant of firearms, or have no interest in entertaining a reality other than your own.

Now I don't recall any name-calling going on. I'm sure you're a stand-up guy and a wealth of truck knowlege. We obviously have different views on this subject. How about if you don't like millitary style firearms, don't buy them? I personally detest cantaloupe and therefore don't eat it, but you go ahead and knock yourself out.

Incidentally, don't sell yourself short. You have plenty of imagination.

 

>So what are some of the "plenty of legitimate uses" for
>assault rifles that you can think of?

Hmm lets see
1.Competition-I have been i several competitons involving these so called assalt weapons i have used my AR15 and a M1A in these events.

2.I to have hunted with a SKS as well as a AK47,AR15 and even got a chance to use a druganov Russian sniper rifle i also hunt deer with a 45/70.

3.My kids and i love to shoot and we often shoot my AK47,SKS and AR15. I also call this one quality time with my kids something a lot of people don't do these days.



Wiz

An Equal Opportunity Truck Lover!

http://www.clubfte.com/users/thewiz427/index.html

 

>Assault rifles are particularly dangerous, even in
>"neutered" (semi-auto) form, for one reason -- they are
>powerful enough to pierce standard body armor wore by law
>enforcement (not to mention car doors, walls, etc., which
>makes bystanders much more susceptible to injury). Pistols
>and shotguns are not. While it is true that a deer rifle
>can also pierce body armor, most hunting weapons do not have
>semi-automatic action, which makes it much harder to get off
>a lot of rounds quickly.
>
> From what I've seen most bulletproof vest won't stop a any hi-powered rifle or a deer-slug at close range. For one most assault rifles use a common round just like a 30-06 or 22-250. As for most not having semi-automatic actions, I see just as many semi-autos as bolts or levers. Also I was taught if ever put in the position were I was forced to kill someone shoot to kill not to wound, so a vest isnt going to help you any. Whats wrong with the crime in this country is not enought people have guns. Would you rob a bank or pull a drive-by if you know everbody other than you had a gun. And if you did chance are your not going to get more than one person before your dead yourself. Same goes with the school shootings (NOT SAYING KIDS THAT YOUNG SHOULD HAVE GUNS) But I think the outcome would have been way different if they did.
Thats what should be outlawed is political parties. The Democrates could create a law that says everbody has to drive a ford truck, Republicans would agreed and vote yes, so the Democrates would vote no On the bill they just created. As for liberal this and liberal that. Who gives a flying . Thats whats wrong with this country is people get caught up in that bs. You guys sound like a bunch of two year olds calling each other names. Thats what most our politicians act like as a matter of fact, Call each other names, its not there fault its the other parties if something doesn't work, get hardly anything done, entertain us a little and **** us off quite abit, and take most of our money and waste it, but what worst of all we create them. I just wish people will vote for what the think would be best for the country is all and not get more than what they give back to the country. No pay-offs or bribes or anything to sway the way they vote. If our government would work like it did on the weeks following Sept 11, this would be a great place. Its all going to come to a screeching halt one of these days and I hope use arm-bearing citzens are ready.

 

My word, cool.. A debate on my favorite subject.. I am a life member of the NRA, who are not a bunch of crazies, just a group of people attempting to ensure that our grandchildren will be able to defend themselves against criminals with guns.. I am also a life member of the NAHC, a group of people who like to ensure that our grandchildren will be able to hunt, and I am a life member of the American Gunsmiths Association, a group of people dedicated in the finer arts of ensuring that the guns you all fire, remain safe, secure and working.

Intelligent Gun Control is the lesson learned from a good instructor, who teaches the safe way to handle and fire guns. To assume that there should a government body responsible for making guns safer, or making them inaccessible is the assumption of an ostrich - a gun locked up in a steel box is not safe, it is not a weapon anymore. In a box it cannot help to save lives, so to lock away a gun defeats the object of that gun - ie to protect against armed aggression. I am horrified that nobody cares to vote against the liberal relaxation of actions against criminals, or the efforts to disarm us all. I have been in disarmed countries - the country from where I came to the US no longer has the right to own or bear arms.. Crime has gone through the roof - My family is under constant threat of home invasion, because they can no longer shoot the 2 legged dingos. In the UK the same - no longer can you defend yourself against aggression, and to make sure, they confiscated all the guns. Canada - no longer can you defend yourself against aggression.. and they are taking the guns away, as I write. What do people want, Freedom, the reason for America, or to relinquish the right to defend that freedom. Hitler took over the 1st place in horror, by first removing the firearms of the populace. He did it by lying and faking terror attacks - he bombed his own headquarters, and blamed the Jews and Gypsies..

Every country that has disarmed it's people has increased criminal activity, or treated those people as chattels, to be used in any way. By all means, America, do as usual, and ignore the start, you will notice more when the momentum is too great to stop the deluge of Anti Gun hatred, and you will shake as the troops come to the door, to collect your weapons. How many of you will resist?? Probably none, because the only people that will have weapons confiscated are law abiding people, who obey all laws, however crass, stupid or immoral.

Gun control is the current bleat, even as more and more people are purcahsing firearms - currently there are over 85 million people in the US with guns, Over 200 million guns. WHY are you all not VOTING against the anti gunners???

In a couple of years, the Firearms Act of 1994 is to be looked at - either to remove it, or strengthen it - Start looking into this, folks, because if you ignore it, you will loose out. Magazines will be smaller, guns will be less, more will be banned, and another nail will be hammered into the coffin of freedom.


Wm
'96 F450 White with Grey interior Crew Cab. Banks Turbo, Intercooler and Exhaust,
Power pack Chip, shift kit, Auxiliary transmission, electronic enhanced transmission control,
16 forward and 4 reverse ratios. 340hp 660ft lb 4 wheel drive, 4.10 gears, 12,ooo# winch