RRC Archives

just kill the members of congress and criminals and make a cage with their bones

gonzobeer wrote:

gunslnga wrote:
I only have one problem with that logic, if you have a gun and you don't use it, will you let the guy take it, to be used on others??? So, if no, then why have one at all? I carry, legally, and I'm well trained to use my weapon if need be, so the question changes to, what do I do if he takes my gun because I didnt want to defend myself, because inherently I knew he would not kill me if I gave him everything?

I hear ya! If you choose to carry a gun then you accept any and all consequences that could arise from that. I carry as well, legally, and am well trained, due mostly to the Army. And I understand the self defense laws. Which say that, armed or unarmed, if an asailant threatens you (by robbery or aggression) You can pull your weapon on him. It then goes to the individuals own mind to decide whether or not to pull the trigger. Unless I feel a significant threat to my life or others I will not touch the trigger.
The Military gave me the quick reasoning skills to make split second choices like that. And with ample training anyone can.
Sometimes I feel it's TOO easy to aquire firearms in this country. Although I will fight to the death the right to do so.

I could'nt agree with you more, we seem to be kindred spirits, being Army Vets, Patriots, and Citizens.......

HooRah!

Tomdarch,
I agree mostly with you, but just like you said, who will set the limits, and make this fair? I feel limiting the types of guns could be o.k., however then, why don't we ban grain alchohol and not beer, lets ban big suv's for small safer cars, and of course, add in anything that scares people, who don't understand the thing they're scared of. I guess its freedoms that better men than me fought for, slowly
being taken away, piece by piece, that bothers me, and it's not even for the greater good. I just saw an article about them banning your right to boo the opposing team. I personally don't boo people, but come on, they just banned smoking in Cincinnati, I don't smoke, but this is bullshit. At what point do the majority win over the minority??? I keep seeing this PC bullshit ruining our everyday freedoms, one by one. All you do when making these laws is turn honest citizens into criminals.

gunslnga wrote:they just banned smoking in Cincinnati, I don't smoke, but this is bullshit. At what point do the majority win over the minority???

I think a big part of how we answer the question gets into how the individual's actions effect the people around him. We are banning smoking in public directly because the second hand smoke effects the people who work in bars and restaurants, and indirectly becuase the sickness and death caused by the indvidual's smoking costs the rest of us money.

If you want to drive a car on a public road, you need to demonstrate that you (sorta) know the laws governing driving with a license, and the car needs to have functioning brakes, headlights and such. Some states have safety inspections and many have polution inspections, and we keep track of which cars have been demonstrated to be safe with vehicle registration.

I'm basically saying that because idiots with fucked up cars are dangerous to everyone else, we have a system for managing the safety of cars and drivers and a system for registering cars. And, yes, under some circumstances, the police can enter a home and sieze someone's car. I don't think that lead accellerators (aka guns) are magically different. There are people who shouldn't drive and there are people who shouldn't have guns. There are cars that are "too dangerous" by some standards to be out on the streets and there are types of guns that are "too dangerous" by some standard, and shouldn't be in general circulation.

tomdarch wrote:

gunslnga wrote:they just banned smoking in Cincinnati, I don't smoke, but this is bullshit. At what point do the majority win over the minority???

I think a big part of how we answer the question gets into how the individual's actions effect the people around him. We are banning smoking in public directly because the second hand smoke effects the people who work in bars and restaurants, and indirectly becuase the sickness and death caused by the indvidual's smoking costs the rest of us money.

If you want to drive a car on a public road, you need to demonstrate that you (sorta) know the laws governing driving with a license, and the car needs to have functioning brakes, headlights and such. Some states have safety inspections and many have polution inspections, and we keep track of which cars have been demonstrated to be safe with vehicle registration.

I'm basically saying that because idiots with fucked up cars are dangerous to everyone else, we have a system for managing the safety of cars and drivers and a system for registering cars. And, yes, under some circumstances, the police can enter a home and sieze someone's car. I don't think that lead accellerators (aka guns) are magically different. There are people who shouldn't drive and there are people who shouldn't have guns. There are cars that are "too dangerous" by some standards to be out on the streets and there are types of guns that are "too dangerous" by some standard, and shouldn't be in general circulation.

In both cases, the vehicle and the gun are not dangerous, the person who uses them wrongly is dangerous. I am a martial artist, have been training most of my life, can I kill empty handed, yes, undoubtably, but are they going to take my hands??? I have not struck anyone in anger in years and I hope not to, but it's there if I need it, this is how I feel about my firearms. I have been trained on most small arms in the Nato and Warsaw pact arsenal from 1938 untill present. I am comfortable with these weapons and alot of them I can assemble and disasemble blind folded. If I choose, and can legally/safely own one, and I'm proficient with it, why would'nt I pick an AK-47, OR AR-15??? Some people like Petzl, some Black Diamond, both are good, it's still just personal preference. How about making harsher laws and then enforcing them to the full extent.
Get caught using a gun in a crime, life......

gunslnga wrote:I only have one problem with that logic

Well, you misread what I was trying to say. If someone has a gun pointed at me and I've got one pointed at them, they lose.

As for the bill of '94, it passed 216-214. That includes 38 republican and one independent votes for. The sitting republican president is on the record saying he would sign a reauthorization if it were to pass congress.

So what's your problem with registration? Is it?

gulliver wrote:

gunslnga wrote:I only have one problem with that logic

Well, you misread what I was trying to say. If someone has a gun pointed at me and I've got one pointed at them, they lose.

As for the bill of '94, it passed 216-214. That includes 38 republican and one independent votes for. The sitting republican president is on the record saying he would sign a reauthorization if it were to pass congress.

So what's your problem with registration? Is it?

You know the whole thing your side does'nt like about the wiretapping and all that, well thats how I feel about registration. If I buy a gun and pass the FBI background, then that should be it, but why should it be public knlowledge, or even the local municipalities. I am a Citizen, not a criminal, registration is what Hitler did to the Jews at first, then he knew where they were when he wanted to kill them, see a connection yet?? I pay taxes, I follow the laws, I'm a team player, why should I be suspect, on the basis that, the government or whomever, needs to know what I got, for what purpose??? I think the government has way too much control already, how much more invasion into our private lives do we have to endure. Everyday I read a new law or hear about a new ban, this is no longer the Country I fought for, how much farther we gonna go??? need to go???

Why can't libs be so tough on criminals?

No balls I guess.

Putting more laws on the books that do nothing but fuck over honest citizens is an absolute joke. Why push for more and more legislation, when the laws that are in place are not enforced. Yes, I hail from the boonies and yes I'm middle class but as long as I can own guns, I will. Period. I vote, I pay taxes, and I follow the law, so I belive that I have as much as a right, if not more than most people in this post, to complain. In regards to whomever said there is not need to own an ak-47, not everyone can own one. The civilian copies that are available are not true AK's. To own a machine gun, you have to basically go through an act of congress and a huge pile of paperwork to get one. This prices alone severely limits the people that can legally own them and if my facts are correct, no crime has ever been committed with a legally owned machine gun since the start of the NFA in 1934. If you dont own guns, thats cool with me, but like religion, keep you opinion to yourself. But, if you choose not to own, you have zero right to complain about the matter.