[MacGorilla]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast....ap/index.html

Unfortunate headline, though.

[GRAFF]

so much for the "sanctity" of marriage.

[Shaddim]

and you have a problem with someone's legal rights.

[Millennium]

Um... dude.

So, this is what everyone else thinks of the American attitude toward guns...

[Shaddim]

It's not my personal stance (though I am an NRA member), but I don't see it as a problem. It's not like they're putting on sheets and chasing people.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's not my personal stance (though I am an NRA member), but I don't see it as a problem. It's not like they're putting on sheets and chasing people.

You do know the NRA was founded the same year as the KKK was outlawed.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
You do know the NRA was founded the same year as the KKK was outlawed.

the KKK has never been outlawed (that's an urban legend). They have the right to peacably assemble, protest, and march. No, I don't like them, but not I (or anyone else) has the right to take that right away from them.

[netgear]

And, wow! Each organization also has three letters in the shortened form!

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by netgear:
And, wow! Each organization also has three letters in the shortened form!

Do you have a spare tinfoil hat I can borrow?

[DeathToWindows]

I have no problem with guns if they are used by trained citizens - but I see no need for ultra-high-power weapons. If you want a shotgun/handgun/rifle to defend yourself or to hunt for food with, that's fine. If you're sport hunting - not for food - you're an idiot.

[netgear]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
I have no problem with guns if they are used by trained citizens - but I see no need for ultra-high-power weapons. If you want a shotgun/handgun/rifle to defend yourself or to hunt for food with, that's fine. If you're sport hunting - not for food - you're an idiot.

It's not your decision to decide what's right for me. It's mine and mine alone to decide what's appropriate for the task at hand.

Define "ultra-high-powered" weapons. You know that even a "high powered weapon" sometimes won't take down someone buggered up on drugs, right?

How is sporting with a 50 cailber rifle versus a handgun any different than racing across Lake Bonneville in a high speed land craft versus racing an ordinary car? What difference does it make to you?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by netgear:
And, wow! Each organization also has three letters in the shortened form!

Sorta like BBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and NPR.

[Tomster]

I am all for gun ownership. Want to buy a rifle? Go ahead. Hand gun? Just pass the mandatory waiting period and clear the background check and enjoy! The problem with these conventions is that it brings out the extremists. The second amendment was written in the days of the Brown Bess musket. The framers of the Constitution could not envision a 50 caliber weapon. A 50 caliber weapon is NOT a rifle - it is a freaking piece of field artillery and there is no reason a civilian should have or need one. A 50 round ammo drum? If you cannot hit your target in the first DOZEN rounds, it is time to put the gun down. I think the public would be more receptive to the NRA's position if it did not cater to the extreme fringe.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Tomster:
I am all for gun ownership.

No you're not otherwise you wouldn't condition it as below.

The second amendment was written in the days of the Brown Bess musket.

The Constitution was written before computers, cars, contraceptives, and space flight too.

The framers of the Constitution could not envision a 50 caliber weapon.

So we all should still own muskets?

A 50 caliber weapon is NOT a rifle - it is a freaking piece of field artillery and there is no reason a civilian should have or need one.

Why not? Not your right to tell me what I can or cannot own. What does it matter what I own so long as I don't go around using it on other people?

A 50 round ammo drum? If you cannot hit your target in the first DOZEN rounds, it is time to put the gun down.

So let's take them away from the military too. Let's put one missile on each ship while we're at it. Heck, just get rid of guns period and make people carry sticks.

[Tomster]

Spoken like a member of the aforementioned fringe.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Tomster:
Spoken like a member of the aforementioned fringe.

Spoken like someone who is more than willing to forgo Second Amendment rights. Truly sad.

You know, it's not like anyone's forcing you to go out, buy, and shoot a 50 caliber rifle...but of course you really don't understand the concept of freedom.

[Tomster]

I go to gun shows and I like them. (buy way to much stuff there too.) I live in California and don't think there should be an assault rifle ban. I believe in concealed carry permits for civilians. That's where I'm coming from. It is obvious your views are more extreme in this regard. It is America and we are entitled to our own opinions. Calling into question a fellow American's love of freedom is not too cool, so let's not go there.

[netgear]

I'm just trying to find out your reasons why you think there should be limitations based on caliber or capacity. What's the difference between 10 rounds versus 75? 45 caliber versus 50?

Don't you think responsible persons should be entitled to shoot whatever they are qualified to shoot? It's not like I expect 7-11 to have a gun dispensing machine for anyone just to go out and get a 50 caliber field rifle.

[Tomster]

I believe in responsible gun ownership. Does it bug me that in California a handgun can only have 10 rounds? Yes. (kind of takes away all of the advantage of having a 9mm) But I accept it because it is the law of my state. Said law was written after some nutcase massacred an office a few blocks from where I worked. He had 30 round clips... I made the argument that if we had more liberal carry laws, then maybe, someone could have defended himself. As it is, I know the carry laws will not change, so I accept the laws in the interest of public safety. Honestly, what do you think is a reasonable amount?

In terms of caliber, my friends and I used to drool over the 50 calibers. Five round capacity and completely legal in the state. Seriously expensive weapons. The ammo is none too cheap too. And the closest range you can fire that weapon was an hour and a half away. Still, they were cool and we all wouldn't mind having one. I started to think, what was the use of that weapon? Home defense? No. Hunting? Not unless t-rex just made a comeback. What was the weapon good for? Just target shooting. I know you will disagree with me on this, but my reason is that the potential for havoc outweighed the usefulness of the gun.

That's my opinion on this. I'd like to know what your thoughts are.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Tomster:
I believe in responsible gun ownership. Does it bug me that in California a handgun can only have 10 rounds? Yes. (kind of takes away all of the advantage of having a 9mm) But I accept it because it is the law of my state.

Rather than just accept it why not try to change it? Do those who oppose gun ownership really think the criminals are going to obey those laws in the process of breaking others? It's a pipe dream, but, sadly the public gets suckered into it because the public at large is generally ignorant to the agenda of the left.

Said law was written after some nutcase massacred an office a few blocks from where I worked. He had 30 round clips... I made the argument that if we had more liberal carry laws, then maybe, someone could have defended himself. As it is, I know the carry laws will not change, so I accept the laws in the interest of public safety. Honestly, what do you think is a reasonable amount?

The amount a criminal carries makes no difference. One round, twen rounds. A criminal is going to kill regardless of how much the law allows legally responsible people to carry. Allowing public safety to be compromised because someone goes off on a tangent isn't acceptable to me. I tend to carry 100 rounds at all times and when I go sport shooting I may have a much as 1000 rounds.

In terms of caliber, my friends and I used to drool over the 50 calibers. Five round capacity and completely legal in the state. Seriously expensive weapons. The ammo is none too cheap too. And the closest range you can fire that weapon was an hour and a half away. Still, they were cool and we all wouldn't mind having one. I started to think, what was the use of that weapon? Home defense? No. Hunting? Not unless t-rex just made a comeback. What was the weapon good for? Just target shooting. I know you will disagree with me on this, but my reason is that the potential for havoc outweighed the usefulness of the gun.

That's fine. Rifles are not good for home defense in the city, however, they do have their use in the rural areas (just like a shotgun is useless for close range combat inside a home unless you know that what is behind the target is clear).

I'd like to know what your thoughts are.

My thoughts are that any attempt to regulate what responsible citizens do, own, or posess only stacks the cards more in favor of criminals who by nature aren't going to obey those same laws in the first place.

[Millennium]

I don't own a gun. There are plans among my relatives which will eventually lead to me inheriting two of them, but when this happens I intend to take them to a gunsmith and have the firing pins removed. Simply put, I don't need guns; I have other means of protecting myself and the people I love. However, those means required a large investment of time, money, and energy. They are not open to most people. This is why I support legal, responsible handgun ownership; I do not need it, but there are others who do.

The idea of "no guns = no gun crimes" is pretty on its face, and by the strictest logic, it works out. Unfortunately for its proponents, humans frequently act illogically, and this is where the argument fails. It ignores the fundamental fact that laws only apply to people who choose to obey them; when you ban weapons of any sort, you are really only prohibiting people who obey the ban from having them.

Because of this, a well-designed law (and this applies to all kinds of laws, not just gun control) must take into account the fact that it will fail sometimes, and ensure that it does not put people into any worse danger when it fails then they would be in if the law didn't exist at all. Every weapons-control issue I've ever seen (with the possible exception of explosives) has only put people in more danger when faced with someone who has broken the law than they might otherwise be. This is why I cannot support such measures.

[MacGorilla]

I'm not antigun. Like Millenium, I am for reposnible gun ownership. People who want to have gun should be required to get something like a drivers license, with gun safety training as a requirement. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Guns for sport are fine; like shooting skills contests. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with hunters and people who think they need an assault weapon to protect themselves. This is the USA, not Iraq.

[dcmacdaddy]

So, here is a hypothetical question for those of you who believe the
2nd Amendment give you the right to own ANY kind of firearm you want.

What if Congress passed a law banning ownership of a certain class of
weapon, say 50 caliber guns, and part of the legislation required all
those citizens in posession of said weapons to surrender them or face
stiff penalties; AND, the Supreme Court declared the law to be constitutional,

would you surrender your gun?

[MacGorilla]

That's a lot of ifs in there.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Tomster:
The second amendment was written in the days of the Brown Bess musket. The framers of the Constitution could not envision a 50 caliber weapon.

The First Amendment was written at the time of wooden hand printing presses. TV, the radio, and the Internet are NOT wooden hand printing presses. The Framers could not envisage electronic broadcasting media, therefore (by your logic) the First Amendment no longer applies.

Personally, I think reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment are OK, just as they are with the First Amendment. I just can't stupid, badly-thought out justifications for them. It also irritates me that gun control advocates ignore the fact that the Second Amendment is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment. Millions of Americans live in jurisdictions such as Washington DC where the Second Amendment has been legislated out of existence. That isn't a reasonable restriction, it's an extremist unconstitutional law. It's as much of a constitutional violation as legislating away freedom of speech.

Oh, and by the way, the guns of the Revolutionary period were at least 50 caliber. Musket balls are big suckers. If you had a time machine and you handed James Madison a modern rifle, he'd have a much easier time understanding that than a concept like the internet or any other type of broadcast media.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
That's a lot of ifs in there.

Only two if's actually:
IF Congress passes a law and IF the Supreme Court upholds it.

So, what's your answer? Would you or would you not abide by the law?

[netgear]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, here is a hypothetical question for those of you who believe the
2nd Amendment give you the right to own ANY kind of firearm you want.

What if Congress passed a law banning ownership of a certain class of
weapon, say 50 caliber guns, and part of the legislation required all
those citizens in posession of said weapons to surrender them or face
stiff penalties; AND, the Supreme Court declared the law to be constitutional,

would you surrender your gun?

No.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Only two if's actually:
IF Congress passes a law and IF the Supreme Court upholds it.

So, what's your answer? Would you or would you not abide by the law?

I don't believe in owning a gun so I guess it wouldn't apply to me.

[osiris]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I'm not antigun. Like Millenium, I am for reposnible gun ownership. People who want to have gun should be required to get something like a drivers license, with gun safety training as a requirement. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Guns for sport are fine; like shooting skills contests. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with hunters and people who think they need an assault weapon to protect themselves. This is the USA, not Iraq.

In the US, legal assault weapons look meaner than an ordinary rifle, but that's about the only difference. You can buy larger magazines/clips for a 'regular' rifle and it'll have the same firepower as an assault weapon. A good example is a Ruger Mini-14 which uses a .223. This weapon was banned because it had a folding parachute stock and was able to hold more than 10 rounds (not sure what the limit is now). Yet, I can buy a generic .223 wood stock rifle, buy the magazine from a 3rd party, and have the same thing (sans the folding stock and 'mean looking scary' factor)

Both are semi-automatic BTW, it's awefully hard to find full autos anymore (those were illegal years ago)

In essence, it's a joke to ban them. And If I do want a weapon for my protection, I want the biggest, scariest looking weapon I can get. A bullet is a bullet, but looks can scare too.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, here is a hypothetical question for those of you who believe the
2nd Amendment give you the right to own ANY kind of firearm you want.

What if Congress passed a law banning ownership of a certain class of
weapon, say 50 caliber guns, and part of the legislation required all
those citizens in posession of said weapons to surrender them or face
stiff penalties; AND, the Supreme Court declared the law to be constitutional,

would you surrender your gun?

Originally posted by netgear:
No.

Why not?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by netgear:
No.

Me either.

Why not? Because I would desperately need it... you see, obviously for that to happen Tennessee would no longer be a sovereign state and would be under severe oppression by the federal government. We Tennesseeans would need all the firepower we could get.

[Tokencon]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
I have no problem with guns if they are used by trained citizens - but I see no need for ultra-high-power weapons. If you want a shotgun/handgun/rifle to defend yourself or to hunt for food with, that's fine. If you're sport hunting - not for food - you're an idiot.

What, exactly, is an "ultra-high-powered weapon"? A .30-06 is pretty damn powerful (it uses a round used by military forces before WWII) and can easily punch a hole through, say, the side of an armored car circa 1914-1930. Ditto a .308, a round used by NATO and by big game hunters....and one hell of a thing to be in front of when cycled through a full-auto (machinegun). Of course, very, very few Americans are permitted to actually own full-auto weapons (legally) and the cost so much, it's unlikely some punk kid will pick one up to carry around in has saggy-bottomed drawers.

One of the problems with this particular debate is that the terms and definitions have all come from the left for decades now; we allow girly-boys and frightened women on the left to tell us what a "gun" is and what "guns" we should "need." I remind all that it is not the Bill of Needs.

Tokenconservative

[Tokencon]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, here is a hypothetical question for those of you who believe the
2nd Amendment give you the right to own ANY kind of firearm you want.

What if Congress passed a law banning ownership of a certain class of
weapon, say 50 caliber guns, and part of the legislation required all
those citizens in posession of said weapons to surrender them or face
stiff penalties; AND, the Supreme Court declared the law to be constitutional,

would you surrender your gun?

Again...this tells me that the poster is entirely unfamiliar with firearms (other than those seen on McHale's Navy). A .50? What sort of modern firearm commonly and legally available to Joe Sixpack uses that sort of round? None I know of save a few black powder rifles (the Hawken leaps readily to mind) and a few VERY expensive specialized target rifles.

Therefore, the question itself is eqivocal, begs the question and is just plain silly. This is not going to happen. What could happen is that "the gummint" (read: liberals in the gov't) will manage to (frist--came's nose) ban certain CLASSES of weapons (hmmm...this sound familiar) such as handguns. Which is exactly what antirights groups are already pushing for as a prelude to banning ALL guns so that the population of the US will be (finally) completely pacified because we will be completely disarmed.

Problem: most gun owners will not simply march, lockstep, down to the local Comintern offices and hand over their guns (by-the-by the Nazis did NOT take guns away...that was the Allied forces when they finally got into German towns and cities and had 12 yr-old kids taking pot shots at them with deer rifles--another Libby lie). I like many other gun owners will simply bury them in the back yard. I have already myself "disappeared" certain members of my extensive collection since they are viewed by pants-wetters as too scary...I will pass them onto my kids someday.

Tokenconservative

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Tokencon:
Again...this tells me that the poster is entirely unfamiliar with firearms (other than those seen on McHale's Navy). A .50? What sort of modern firearm commonly and legally available to Joe Sixpack uses that sort of round? None I know of save a few black powder rifles (the Hawken leaps readily to mind) and a few VERY expensive specialized target rifles.

http://members.cox.net/dlong41/guns/50ae.htm

The .50 caliber Desert Eagle Handgun.

Smith and Wesson also manufactures a .50 caliber model. It won handgun of the year from Shooting Industry Magazine.

http://www.hunting-fishing-gear.com/...isplay/43.html

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why not? Because I would desperately need it... you see, obviously for that to happen Tennessee would no longer be a sovereign state and would be under severe oppression by the federal government. We Tennesseeans would need all the firepower we could get.

So, how exactly would Tennessee lose it's sovereignty as a state by Congress passing a law that the Supreme Court deems constitutional?
Does Tennessee respect all the laws passed by the United States Congress or only those laws it agrees with?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Tokencon:
Problem: most gun owners will not simply march, lockstep, down to the local Comintern offices and hand over their guns (by-the-by the Nazis did NOT take guns away...that was the Allied forces when they finally got into German towns and cities and had 12 yr-old kids taking pot shots at them with deer rifles--another Libby lie). I like many other gun owners will simply bury them in the back yard. I have already myself "disappeared" certain members of my extensive collection since they are viewed by pants-wetters as too scary...I will pass them onto my kids someday.

Tokenconservative

So, your hypothetical response to my hypothetical question is that you would NOT adhere to the law, is that correct?
And if this is so, what would be your justification for not adhering to the law?