i dont own a gun, im smart enough to know that im not resposable enough yet..i have a bad temper. i dont hunt cuz i cant stand the thought of killing an animal(for me...thats what supermarkets and friends that hunt are for) i wish i could cuz i love venison and wouldnt mind having a 'fridge full of it for the winter or summer. deer jerky and deer chili are the best! anyway, i am an NRA supporter and have been for sometime. i shot alot as a kid, all sport. the gun i use to protect my home is a really nasty air rifle. call me what you will but i dont want to kill anybody, just stun them enough to get the upper hand.

i have a cousin who is a state trooper for the great state of Virginia and another who is a police officer in our families home town of Keflavik, Iceland. the police in Iceland did not carry guns until last year and even now do not carry them in a holster but in the trunk and only in the few "major" cities. in a country of 250,000 people that is roughly the size of ohio, west va and kentucky and only 30% of that land is livable, youd think the police would never have to carry guns. i NEVER though id see the day when icelandic police would have a use for firearms. ill put it this way....you or your babysitter could leave your child in their stroller OUTSIDE(on nice days of cource) of the store you went shopping in and would never think twice about it. i know its hard to believe but for a LONG time, there was no crime in Iceland. now, drugs and "political refugees" from verious countries are turning the country upside-down. unlike america, there is no right to keep and bear arms. crime is starting to become a real problem and the police dont really know how to deal with it. i truelly believe that if icelanders were able to buy and keep firearms, these people would be beat into submition and they would be able to restore Iceland to the way it was. the whole country has less people than most sububan cities do in the US.


ill stop now........this is getting long.

 

Life member NRA

A reason for semi auto rifles?

Because once you start gun control it doesn't stop. In the lastest issue of American Rifleman, there is a short little articule about why the Japanese did not invade the USA after Pearl Harbor. The reason: They knew America was armed and it would have been impossible to confront each household in that manner.

Our own goverment is a reason for assault rifles. Where would this country be if gun control was implemented? No, they won't do it overnight, just a piece at a time.

Look at past history, Germany, Russia, now Australia and see what happens when you disarm.

Granted, our current system has dumbed down people (look at our driving system) but there is no question that a armed man is a citizan while a unarmed man is a slave.

 

As serious as this topic is (and no matter what side of what lines you may be on, it is a serious issue) I have to laugh over the notion that an "Assault Rifle" is somehow more deadly than other firearms.

I have always viewed what I think of as "Spray Guns" with contempt, because nobody brings home an 8 point deer with full auto and wishfull thinking.

The paranoid and frankly pampered knuckleheads that back such reforms have no more idea of what proper weaponry or it's uses are than Bill Clinton did of Chastity...

Consider the following:

From half a mile or more, it is possible to drop just about anything with a single round from a Remington 700, in any of a variety of calibers. (Read up on Carlos Hathcock sometime, it's an amazing story)

If someone was surrounded in a tight space, the optimum tool of choice would be a shotgun (either pump, or auto).
-A Browning or Mossburg pump with five rounds of double ought is more than enough to clear an entire room. (Read up on the adventures of "Doc Watkins" with the SEAL's in viet nam for more info)

The purpose of handguns is to provide an emergency backup in case of unforseen circumstances, they are not accurate beyond a limited range.

I once bought a .58 calibur black powder rifle through the mail. Although slow to load, it was more than enough to destroy a cast iron engine block...

As tough as wild boar are, with ribs coated with a layer of gristle that is best described as a natural form of kevlar - Chuck Adams once did a test using a freshly killed boar as a target. Several caliburs of gun were fired into it's side.

.44Mag and .357Mag had marginal penetration, but a three bladed 1 1/4" razor broadhead arrow from a 65 Lb. bow went in one side and out the other cleanly...

Police units are trained to treat knife users completely different (and as a much more deadly risk) than suspects displaying guns. They can do far more damage if they get in close.

I could continue at length here.

Try this one:

A compressor and air nozzle with a short piece of 3/8" threaded steel tube screwed in to replace the nozzle (with a suitably sized ball bearing in it) is a match for most .30 calibur bullets, given 120PSI behind it. (I tried that in a garage one day)

People who think full auto is the answer seldom aim at all. And the biggest joke I think I've ever seen, was a movie where a gang member held a pistol sideways when he fired it!

Gun control IS about being on target. And there are specific tools for each situation.

Thank god the morons that steal them have no clue what that is...


~Wolf

 

I love to hunt and own a variety of hunting rifles, shotguns, and a pistol. I believe gun control has gone far enough. I support background checks and registry. I don't support the ban of assault rifles or any other gun. It's just another victory for the liberals who are trying to take away our rights given by the Second Ammend. It really chaps my behind to hear that folks are now trying to sue the manufacturers for gun related crimes. It's not their fault some idiot went postal. Our focus needs to be toward punishing criminals who use guns in committing crimes. Guns don't kill people, someone has to pull the trigger.

What is happening to our society today? My kids can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, we have terrorist's living among us, and there are those who don't want me to own a gun.

There are more people killed by drunk drivers every year than guns. Are we going to ban the alcohol or the vehicles they were driving?

Bronco894x4

 

>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.

Bush and Ashcroft have alredy said they will support it :-X23

 

A few points about gun usage.

Most people treat a gun as a "pick up, shoot and hit" tool. That is too much hollywood crap. It takes time to shoot well. I have shot thousands of rounds through my rifles and pistols and still find that if I do not shoot on a regular basis, I have to retrain myself.

You might be able to scare the hell out of someone by pointing a gun at them, but stopping them is a whole other game when you're nervous and not familiar with the firearm you are holding or have forgotton how to make it work.

I think if gun ranges where more available it would do wonders for proper gun use. Unfortunately, most people have to make to do with some backwater place that has junk to shoot at and even then it's treated as a suspicious activity.

 

My experience has been - Learn well, and you'll have it forever.

I hadn't shot in over a year when I picked up "Expert Pistol Marksman".

I really do like the M9, but the .45 is my first love...



~Wolf

 

>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.
Bush and Ashcroft have alredy said they will support it


-I suppose if worse came to worse, I would have to "steal" one of my own guns and report it...

(not that I'm suggesting anything...)


(joke)

 

"From half a mile or more, it is possible to drop just about anything with a single round from a Remington 700, in any of a variety of calibers. (Read up on Carlos Hathcock sometime, it's an amazing story)"

Marine Sniper is the book about Carlos Hathcock. An outstanding story of an AMAZING individual.

you won't regret reading it......

Brian A

 

I really don't disagree with most of what was said above. Unfortunately, some people have a knee-jerk reaction to anything other than "all guns are great and good and everyone should be able to have whatever they want."

It is true, as I said above, that hunting rifles are just as powerful, and in some cases more so, than military style assault rifles. The military .223 and .308 are powerful cartridges, but pale in comparison to some of the common large game cartridges. So I will never argue that assault rifle cartridges are somehow more lethal than hunting rifles. It's also true that you can hunt with a AR-15, SKS, HK-91 or 93, FN FAL, FN LAR, or pretty much any other military style assault rifle. As I've said before, they're also a lot of fun to shoot. My brother has a selective fire HK G36 that is a blast, thanks to his role as a member of the Cobb County, Georgia, SWAT team.

I'm also not, as someone suggested, either a "liberal", a "gun grabber" or "someone who knows little about guns." I own several Glocks (a model 26 is my concealed carry gun), a couple of Ruger Mk II's, a Ruger 77-22 (that I was given for my 16th birthday for use as a squirrel rifle), and a Remington 870. I have owned other guns in the past, including a AR-15. My father has owned a HK-91 (which I've shot), and currently owns a fantastic collection of Colt model 1911 .45 autos. I've even had the opportunity to shoot (many years ago) an authentic WWII MP40 smg and a Thompson smg. My first job, at age 12, was as the "trap boy" at our gun club. I grew up shooting rifles, pistols and trap & skeet. My brother and I both shot competitively, he in pistol and me in smallbore rifle (I competed with a single shot Anschutz .22). I am an excellent shot, and can field strip and clean my weapons in minutes.

I believe that armed citizens are safe citizens, and that we have a duty to protect ourselves, our families and our communities. I can handle those tasks with a pistol and shotgun, however, and don't see how or why anyone would need an autoloading military style assault rifle for defense of themselves, their homes or their families. A good 9 mm, .40S&W or .45ACP, along with a 12 gauge, are the weapons you need, and that $2000 HK or FN won't be of much use at all when a bad guys tries to carjack you or break into your house. I keep #9 birdshot as the first two rounds in my shotgun so if fired it won't penetrate walls and kill my wife or son. The next two rounds, however, are buck, just in case they're needed.

I like assault rifles, and I enjoy shooting them. I have, however, seen police officers killed in the line of duty, trying to get the bad guys and protect you and me, because those bad guys had an AR-15 or AK-47 that put a lot of high velocity, vest-piercing rounds into the police team. Yes, I know that some of you claim to be able to shoot just as fast and accurately with a bolt or lever action rifle as with an autoloader, but if you really can do that, then you are in a very talented and exceptional minority. Watch the tapes of the bank robbers in California a few years back. Those guys were not expert marksmen, and few violent criminals are. An autoloading high-powered rifle gives them the ability to spray a lot of lead into and through cars, buildings and police officers with far more effect than they would ever be able to achieve with a Remington 700 or the like.

There was a program on the History Channel on Friday about "Gangster Guns." It examined in depth the preferred weapons of the 1920s and 30s gangster era. As it turns out, Bonnie and Clyde's favorite weapon was the classic BAR. Why? Because one person with a BAR was a match for a dozen cops with pistols and shotguns.

Unless you expect to have to defend yourself, your home and your family against an entire armed gang, you don't really need an assault rifle. Yes, they are fun, and can be used for some things like hunting, but there are much better tools for those things. Is your ability to go have a little fun at the range more important than the lives of our nation's police officers? Would still claim that if it was your brother, or your son, who was shot and killed by a bank robber with a AK-47?

We have to draw a line somewhere. Not all weapons are going to be available to every citizen. Most states currently draw the line at fully automatic weapons, though they are legal (but very expensive to own) in a few states. That line seems pretty arbitrary to me. A semi-auto AR-15 is just about as dangerous as a selective fire one. If you don't think we can draw lines anywhere, do you think it would be o.k. for people to own land mines, bazookas, RPGs, heavy machine guns, antiaircraft missiles, etc.? If not, why not? You might need them to overthrow an evil U.S. government someday, and they could be even more "fun" than that AR-15 or SKS you love so dearly.

 

I don't own a single firearm, my choice. Im the past I have, raised in the country, served in the military, hunter, collector. Put a Colt Combat Commander .45 ACP on like I put on my pants for most of my life. I made a choice not to own firearms, but I would fight (again)for the right for others to do so. The issue is the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs. As one of the people I have, and all of you have, a right to keep and bear arms. A right is something that you don't have to justify ( by need )to someone else, anyone else. There are those that want to take away your right and replace it with a need. Example, you don't need to hunt so you don't get to arm yourself. Or this or that weapon is only good for offense and you have no need, no firearm for you. Where does it stop. Your right to vote perhaps? Nope, there are those that would take that from you also. Our constitution is set up with a process for amendments. If the PEOPLE want to change it and eliminate the RIGHT to keep and bear arms and replace it with a need base privledge that is the system, a good one, lets do it by Constitutional ammendment. If not in order to protect our rights we have to hold onto all rights, give one up and it's gone forever. So it is not a true gun control issue, it a rights issue. That focus on controlling guns one way or the other, pro or con, is not as important as the issue of rights in general.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-Jul-02 AT 01:41 PM (EST)]O.k., Oneof6. But what exactly does that "right" include? Even ignoring the part about a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", the 2nd Amendment only says that the right to keep and bear "arms" will not be infringed. That is the age old question -- what does "arms" mean? If you want to be a strict constructionist (which is what the conservatives argue for when the question is how to interpret any other portion of the Constitution), "arms" means what it meant when the 2nd Amendment was passed, i.e., muzzle-loading flintlock muskets and, perhaps, small muzzle-loading artillery pieces.

I think we can all agree that is ridiculous. In order to mean anything, our interpretation of the the 2nd Amendment has to change with the times and technology. A well regulated militia armed with muskets and horse-drawn muzzle-loading artillery pieces wouldn't contribute much to the "security of a free state."

That still leaves the question, however, of what "arms" we have the right to keep and bear? Some argue that the 2nd Amendment is about guaranteeing the ability of the citizens to rise up and overthrow an unjust government (not true, but let's leave that point aside for now, as I've addressed it earlier). If that is the case, then "arms" should be interpreted to mean that citizens should have the right to keep and bear whatever "arms" are necessary to fight against an unjust federal government. Of course, our government is armed with F-16 fighters, Stealth Bombers, smart bombs, tactical nukes, M1A tanks, etc. A broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would mean that "the people" have to be allowed to "keep and bear" all of those things.

That's obviously ridiculous, too. No civilian uprising stands a chance against the U.S. Army. Over a century ago, half of the United States couldn't defend itself against a Union Army that was armed with far more primitive weapons than we have today (remember the Civil War?). What makes you think that citizens armed with semiautomatic rifles would be able to defeat the modern U.S. Army? And don't say that "the Army would be on our side." If that's the case, then the citizens don't need weapons at all, because the Army would be fighting for them against a helpless Congress and White House.

Nobody wants religious fanatics or other loonies running around with armored vehicles, high explosives, or even automatic weapons. We can see on TV every day what that leads to (Israel, anyone?). The question, then, is where do we draw the line? There are some people (the "gun grabbers", to use a common epithet) that want to ban all private ownership of guns, including revolvers and shotguns. Others just want to ban handguns (Hangun Control, Inc. -- remember them?). Most states draw the line at automatic weapons. The 1994 federal gun law drew the line at hi-capacity magazines and many forms of military style assault rifles.

The question isn't "right vs. need." The question is, "how broad is that right?"

Regardless of what the Second Amendment says, I believe that personal firearms are important. They allow the smaller, weaker, older and slower among us, or just the outnumbered, to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm. That's why I oppose any attempt to restrict handgun ownership, and I am a strong supporter of right-to-carry laws. I believe that right-to-carry laws lead to less crime, not more, and that crime would drop even more if more law abiding and well-trained citizens would keep guns in their homes and on their persons. I encourage my friends and family to learn to shoot, to learn self and home defense, and to keep a good defense weapon in the home (secure from kids, of course). I don't hunt, anymore (no time), but support those who do. I don't, however, believe that the Second Amendment requires us to permit private ownership of assault rifles, and I don't see how it benefits us as a country. I do see how they routinely are used to commit crimes and kill law enforcement officers, and I think the loss of the "fun" that comes from sport shooting military style weapons is a small price to pay for saving the lives of those who protect us and our families.

 

Yes, let's draw the line somewhere.

I say, and there are statistics that back me up...

All cars are dangerous, cars kill more people than almost anything else in this country. We still need cars, so I say, let's make it illegal to own any car capable of faster than 55 stay alive. Any car with more than 4 cylinders is just a tragic death wating to happen. Who really wants a 400+HP Viper convertible? It has no practical use and in the wrong hands is lethal. Only properly qualified and trained people should be allowed to even drive one of these menaces.

Another major killer is heart disease. I know that Big Macs and any other lethal heart stopper with too much fat will eventually get to me. I think it should be illegal to sell these things. We should also put up a quota system where no person is allowed to buy more than 1 burger(Single patty, no mayo, no cheese) every other day(odd and even days perhaps). Don't start me on "Do you want fries with that?"

Cell Phones cause accidents, give brain damage, cause illicit affairs etc. They should be regulated and any user should be properly trained and licenesed.

DO you own a stove to cook food on? Why? Most home fires are started right there in the kitchen. Any sane person would realize the only safe method of cooking is microwaves. No one really needs 4 flaming or red hot burners right there where your family gathers in the home. Why in the world would anyone want a high performance model like those Vikings? Even the name conotes danger.

I am sure by now , most of you realize I am stretching things a bit here. "Drawing the line" begins to be a ridiculous solution to something that should be solved with common sense. EVERY day we deal with risk. Many risks are voluntary and or "fun" and really not necessary. Why in the world would anyone want to climb a rock wall, literally risking death and injury. Because. You may think some of my statements are way out there. Yet, ask McDonalds about hot coffee and there have even been lawsuits about hamburgers causing heart disease. Humorously, cell phones are starting to take on demonical attributes. They are dangeours sure, but so is getting lost in your music from your CD player. We take a lot of risky actions because we like to. If we made illegal everything that was risky, you would not be allowed to do anything. Just where is the line anyway? Who said that is where it belongs?

I own several "Assault" rifles, not because I plan to hunt anything or defend my home with them, I have a nice little 9mm with Glasers in a combination mini safe handy for that. I own "assault" rifles and many other guns(most military in origin, with worlds of history behind them) because I like to. None of them will be used by me or my family for evil. Most would make terrible guns to commit crime with. Also with all the gun grabbing mania, my investment in firearms has increased in value significantly over the years. I also enjoy shooting most of them. I find the level of concentration and discipline to shoot well is relaxing. My sons have an absolute blast and I hope that someday they will be allowed to inherit my valuable collection, not just for monetary value but also historical, they will never be recreated. Who knows what many of my old warhorses could say if they could speak. And the workmanship is something that will not pass our way again in this age of cheaply manufactured plastic junk.

None of my weapons are dangerous. It takes the idiot at the trigger to make them so. Gun Laws don't necessarily make things safer for all of us, just maybe a few select segments, like criminals and crooked politicians? It is also a great rallying cry for fund raising by people who really don't care about the issues, as long as they can get money for being on the bandwagon.

This debate has been going on for quite some time, but it is people like myself and organizations like the NRA who work to preserve our rights. It is your right to own or NOT own firearms, make your own choice but don't try to prevent me from mine just because you don't like it. Funny how so many who do get faced with the harsh realities suddenly convert.

Heck I hate soccer moms who drive around in tank sized Suburbans and use them like tanks. But I would not vote against their right to own one. I do vote to prosecute to the fullest, those who would misuse it. Same goes for guns. Throw their a$$ in jail and lose the key if they use a gun to commit crime, but then there are groups who feel that is wrong too. Don't come to me and confiscate my registered guns. That won't stop crime. Ask Britain, Australia, Russia, China etc. Sometimes it actually raises it. How come fewer guns in civilian hands didn't lower it like promised?

We laugh that the common citizen doesn't need guns to defend themselves or their country, it'll never happen right? Look at Great Britain at the start of WWII when Hitler was licking his chops just 25 miles across the channel. Just think, an entire country with no armed citizens and the army in disarray. Lucky for Britain, US citizens who HAD retained their rights sent many sorely needed civilian firearms to GB to help stave off the *****. Did this save Britain? Maybe, maybe not, but it did give the **** warplanners a bit to think about. Still, the government of Britain felt it was important enough that they begged the US to send any firearm available, including types similar to those that were illegal for their own citizens to own. Imagine that.

Oh well, I ramble yet again and I am not good in this type of argument since the reasons against the right to bear arms are often illogical to begin with.

Just my opinion, hope you have you own. And fortunately for now, you still have the right to express it. Would it have been different if Hitler did cross the channel

Jim Henderson

 

Don't know if any of this has been mentioned before.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"(i am not sure if this is a direct quote.)

Can you guess who said this?
Adolf Hitler. Just before he confiscated all civilian weapons and began to round up the Jews because they couldn't defend themselves any more. Funny how you never learn that going through high shcool governed by liberals.

Just thought that might be interesting for some of y'all.

 

>I'm also not, as someone suggested, either a "liberal", a
>"gun grabber" or "someone who knows little about guns." I
>own several Glocks (a model 26 is my concealed carry gun), a
>couple of Ruger Mk II's, a Ruger 77-22 (that I was given for
>my 16th birthday for use as a squirrel rifle), and a
>Remington 870. I have owned other guns in the past,
>including a AR-15. My father has owned a HK-91 (which I've
>shot), and currently owns a fantastic collection of Colt
>model 1911 .45 autos. I've even had the opportunity to
>shoot (many years ago) an authentic WWII MP40 smg and a
>Thompson smg. My first job, at age 12, was as the "trap
>boy" at our gun club. I grew up shooting rifles, pistols
>and trap & skeet. My brother and I both shot competitively,
>he in pistol and me in smallbore rifle (I competed with a
>single shot Anschutz .22). I am an excellent shot, and can
>field strip and clean my weapons in minutes.

So you own some pistols, a .22, and a shotgun. I don't see any emphasis on large bore rifles, or anything that would tell me you have more knowlege of their operation, characteristics, capabilities, and limitations than the average liberal media figure. I'm glad you're a good shot and know how to maintain your weapons though.

>
>I believe that armed citizens are safe citizens, and that we
>have a duty to protect ourselves, our families and our
>communities. I can handle those tasks with a pistol and
>shotgun, however, and don't see how or why anyone would need
>an autoloading military style assault rifle for defense of
>themselves, their homes or their families. A good 9 mm,
>.40S&W or .45ACP, along with a 12 gauge, are the weapons you
>need,

Please don't tell me what I need. I do have extensive experience with pistols, revolvers, shotguns, large bore rifles of all types, as well as several select fire rifles. Part of that experience, and I stress that only a part of that experience, comes from serving as an infantryman in combat. I will continue to make my own informed decisions based on years of personal experience. Incidentally, all of your pistol calibers are grossly ineffective as a manstopper in a defensive situation. Handguns are a convenience, last-ditch weapon.

>I like assault rifles, and I enjoy shooting them. I have,
>however, seen police officers killed in the line of duty,
>trying to get the bad guys and protect you and me, because
>those bad guys had an AR-15 or AK-47 that put a lot of high
>velocity, vest-piercing rounds into the police team. Yes, I
>know that some of you claim to be able to shoot just as fast
>and accurately with a bolt or lever action rifle as with an
>autoloader, but if you really can do that, then you are in a
>very talented and exceptional minority. Watch the tapes of
>the bank robbers in California a few years back. Those guys
>were not expert marksmen, and few violent criminals are. An
>autoloading high-powered rifle gives them the ability to
>spray a lot of lead into and through cars, buildings and
>police officers with far more effect than they would ever be
>able to achieve with a Remington 700 or the like.

The LA bank robbery suspects were armed with select fire AK's. I thought we were talking about semi-auto's. I'll have to agree with you that I can pull the trigger faster on a semi-auto than I can on a lever action, but I can be no more effective with one.

>
>There was a program on the History Channel on Friday about
>"Gangster Guns." It examined in depth the preferred weapons
>of the 1920s and 30s gangster era. As it turns out, Bonnie
>and Clyde's favorite weapon was the classic BAR. Why?
>Because one person with a BAR was a match for a dozen cops
>with pistols and shotguns.

Again, you're talking about select fire weapons, but yes, a machine gun will beat a pistol almost every time.

>
>Unless you expect to have to defend yourself, your home and
>your family against an entire armed gang, you don't really
>need an assault rifle.Yes, they are fun, and can be used
>for some things like hunting, but there are much better
>tools for those things. Is your ability to go have a little
>fun at the range more important than the lives of our
>nation's police officers? We have to draw a line somewhere.

And unless you expect to tow a trailer or haul gravel every day, you really don't need a truck that gets 8 mpg and has poor emission control. Is it really worth what you're doing to the environment, our children's health, and our natural resources? Can we draw the line there? Oh.....that hits a little close to home.

Karl, Karl, Karl. You just don't get it. A rifle with a plastic stock is no more dangerous to police officers or anyone else than a rifle with a wooden one. These rifles you keep referring to as assault weapons are merely cosmetically different to rifles you consider acceptable. Somehow these differences seem to scare you. Your attempts to categorize them with select fire weapons seems like a thinly-veiled attempt at creative reasoning.

I will say that you have a unique ability to sound like the voice of reason to someone who in uninformed. Many people would read your comments and base their opinions on yours. Maybe that's how you formed your opinions in the first place. I am sorry for you that they are based on inaccuracies, half-truths.