Gun banning and fast and furious...

[JohnEdward]

No, you have every right to favor a ban, just as I have every right not to favor a ban. It doesn't make you ignorant. Not knowing what it is you want to ban, THAT makes you ignorant.



You can apply your same argument to the right to practice religion, speak freely, and read books; there are certainly people who cannot be trusted not to do something awful in the name of religion, to foment hatred and strife, and to read the ideas of those people who practice both. But the same Constitution which protects their right to worship Satan if they want, or to speak their minds in public debate, or to read hate literature or listen to 'hate radio' also allows people who are otherwise law-abiding to buy guns. The fact that they can't be trusted is not a legal reason to take their guns away. I put you in the same category as book burners; oppressors of liberty.

I am not making an argument. I want to keep guns out of the hands of idiots and those who will abuse them as much as possible. It is really sophomoric to say because am an oppressor of liberty (Anti-American) I want to keep a class of gun that is extremely dangerous out of the hands of punks, criminals, idiots and anyone who abuses their right and the weapon. Based on your comments it gives me great concern and questions your level of responsibility and competency to have a weapon. I hope you are not a gun owner, if you are, I care to stay miles away. And hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot or another body part. The 2nd amendment didn't include or apply to everyone, like oh, I don't know...hmmm...slaves, Native Americans, or the town idiot.

 

[granfire]

Your proving his point you know nothing about these weapons. Have you ever fired a full auto rifle? If you have then you know it takes a great deal of skill to hit anything at full auto. Most people after first round goes off send the next 10 in the air due to the recoil. Its much harder to shoot in full auto then in semi auto which is why the military stopped making the M16 in full auto because it was a waist of rounds

Well, there is an off switch, too.
I have personally not had the pleasure to shoot a big rifle. But arguing that in full auto mode nobody hit's crap is a silly argument when you know good and well that the same gun can shoot well down range with great power (which makes it popular with serious shooters).

naturally, the full auto mode is most useful for shortrange carnage. Start off low enough, I suppose you do some damage by the time you shoot guns in the air.

And don't be condescending. because one has not shot a gun does not mean one does not understand the issues a specific gun poses.

 

[JohnEdward]

The gung ho nuts already have the weapons and are the ones shooting people already. The sane, law abiding, responsible people are the ones who do not have the weapons, why...because they obey the law in the first place. Law abiding citizens are not the problem in any way, shape or form. Just last week or the week before, police officers were arrested selling weapons to criminals. Once again, the law abiding citizens are not the problem. I have no fear of my neighbors having assault rifles, pistols, deer rifles or even fully automatic weapons. I do fear street gangs, drug cartels and lone nut jobs, but here is the thing, they already have those weapons because they acquire them ILLEGALLY.

Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to high powered automatic weapons like candy? I don't.

HERE IS THE THING, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals. Hell I don't.

What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me.

B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun? There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact. And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.

 

[ballen0351]

I wasn't saying you can't shoot accurately with an automatic weapon. I was responding to his comment that its takes no skill and is easier to use a full auto and that's false. Its much easier to shoot one round at a time. I can shoot full auto pretty well but I also practice. But according to you guys because I own an AK and 2 AR15s im a wack job freak nut. I can tell you if someone wanted to cause mass death and injuries these guns would not be the best choice. The truth is the reason why so many crimianl and thugs use thses weapons is because of the status that the anti gun people gave these guns. So now it makes you that much more of a bad *** if you have one. The other reason is because there are 100s of millions of AKs in the workd. Banning them in the us will not stop the cartels from getting them. The chinese make 100s of thousands of them a year and they are sold all over the world

Well, there is an off switch, too.I have personally not had the pleasure to shoot a big rifle. But arguing that in full auto mode nobody hit's crap is a silly argument when you know good and well that the same gun can shoot well down range with great power (which makes it popular with serious shooters).naturally, the full auto mode is most useful for shortrange carnage. Start off low enough, I suppose you do some damage by the time you shoot guns in the air.And don't be condescending. because one has not shot a gun does not mean one does not understand the issues a specific gun poses.

 

[ballen0351]

Well here's the thing I am a cop and I've recovered a few AKs over the years and guess what NONE were legally ownedSo making them illegal wont do anything sone the people your afraid of getting them already have them and its already illegal for them to own them. Washington dc banned handguns so by your argument it should have been the safest city on earth. Sadly check the stats its def not safe. So gun laws don't stop gun crimes.

Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to high powered automatic weapons like candy? I don't. HERE IS THE THING, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals. Hell I don't. What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me. B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun? There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact. And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.

 

[billc]

For personal protection. I am not much of a recreational shooter. I wouldn't own an AK or an AR because maintaining them would be something I don't feel like doing. I wouldn't have a problem with my neighbors owning them though. I had a shotgun but sold it because I didn't really shoot it enough. There is just a difference in the I'm able to be responsible, but the other guy isn't that permeates so much of the political climate. Ban light bulbs, toilets, fast food, force people to wear helmets, ban certain weapons. It is the inner control freak rearing it's head.

 

[billc]

You know, the assault weapon ban ended quite a while ago, soooo...where are all the maniacs with Ak 47's and other assault rifles killing police officers and tearing up neighborhoods. It ended in 2004 and apparently the only ones who are killing police, according to the "Fast and Furious" scandal are drug cartels given weapons by our government. perhaps we should ban the federal government from owning assault weapons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm

 

[JohnEdward]

I wasn't saying you can't shoot accurately with an automatic weapon. I was responding to his comment that its takes no skill and is easier to use a full auto and that's false. Its much easier to shoot one round at a time. I can shoot full auto pretty well but I also practice. But according to you guys because I own an AK and 2 AR15s im a wack job freak nut. I can tell you if someone wanted to cause mass death and injuries these guns would not be the best choice. The truth is the reason why so many crimianl and thugs use thses weapons is because of the status that the anti gun people gave these guns. So now it makes you that much more of a bad *** if you have one. The other reason is because there are 100s of millions of AKs in the workd. Banning them in the us will not stop the cartels from getting them. The chinese make 100s of thousands of them a year and they are sold all over the world

If you read me correctly and it is clear you didn't, so let me explain. If you own a AK pattern weapon you don't need marksmanship training to kill one to a room full of people. If you are military you know that is take great marksman skill use a sniper rifle. Because if that wasn't true, we wouldn't have a ground military. It would take more than the allotted time in boot camp to teach Billy from Tacoma to learn to shoot. Snipers are chosen, they are picked. Those soldiers given an assault weapon are not. Also, put a AK patterned rifle in the hands of a 12-15 year old and say pull the trigger and see how marksmanship training he needs to clear a room. Don't believe me, ask any terrorist group or their world nation at war who arm boys with assault rifles. More closer to home ask a gang members how easy it is to point and pull the trigger or any nut job that shoot up a public place. If he doesn't know take him to the range and let him shoot. It doesn't take a very much marksmanship, and can be learned in seconds. Now on the other hand, a sniper rifle isn't so easy, and requires extenisve training and skill that is why you probably don't see them flooding the street or weapon of choice among the bad guys.

 

[billc]

Also from the article:

AK-pattern rifles and pistols, and AR-pattern rifles are some of the most common semi-auto firearms in America. Interest in these weapons skyrocketed due to the drama anti-gun organizations drummed up when they coined the phrase “assault weapon,” attaching it to these and similar firearms in order to craft the 1994 AW ban. The side effect was to make these firearms far more desirable. Today, entire shooting sports have been developed around the AR in particular.

If these are already the most common types of semi-auto firearms, NOW, where is all the mass death that people posting here are saying is going to happen. It hasn't happened in ten years, and according to the article, whole shooting sports revolve around these weapons. Where is this covered by the theory that easier access will lead to more killing, massive killing sprees and out gunned police officers. Is ten years enough time to get a good sample of criminal behavior or will it all of a sudden kick in after 11 years? Just asking.

Actually 2011 minus 2004 would be 7 years, so maybe 8 years is the magic timetable for mass killing sprees.

 

[JohnEdward]

For personal protection. I am not much of a recreational shooter. I wouldn't own an AK or an AR because maintaining them would be something I don't feel like doing. I wouldn't have a problem with my neighbors owning them though. I had a shotgun but sold it because I didn't really shoot it enough. There is just a difference in the I'm able to be responsible, but the other guy isn't that permeates so much of the political climate. Ban light bulbs, toilets, fast food, force people to wear helmets, ban certain weapons. It is the inner control freak rearing it's head.

Then what is your point. You don't have a dog in this fight. Hell, you ever consider banning stupidity? There is allot of it going around.

 

[billc]

Marksmanship is nice but we were trained for suppressive fire to limit the ability of the enemy to maneuver and to allow us to move freely around the battlefield. Once again, single fire was what they were training us to do, not fully automatic. It burns up way too much ammo and, as has been stated, it isn't accurate.

2004---where are the killing sprees with AK's and Ar-15's?

 

[billc]

If you ban one, for some reason it leads to banning more and more, also, it is a right, not a privleldge to own firearms. I also don't have to practice a right to try to preserve it for everyone.

 

[JohnEdward]

You know, the assault weapon ban ended quite a while ago, soooo...where are all the maniacs with Ak 47's and other assault rifles killing police officers and tearing up neighborhoods. It ended in 2004 and apparently the only ones who are killing police, according to the "Fast and Furious" scandal are drug cartels given weapons by our government. perhaps we should ban the federal government from owning assault weapons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm

You're not forming a circle jerk here are you in terms of an argument ploy? I have no interest in that. I am discussing those in support and not in support of the ban. The moron who wrote the propaganda of an article. It is clear he isn't writing if the ban should be or shouldn't be lifted per your above comment pointing out. You didn't intend to discuss the topic of your op via the article to be about ban being being place or not now. You intended a discussion around the idea of a ban, the ban being an example, i.e. results future restrictions that may or may not be placed etc. As well as turning public opinion in favor of unrestricted accesses and ownership of AK patterned weapons.

 

[ballen0351]

If you read me correctly and it is clear you didn't, so let me explain. If you own a AK pattern weapon you don't need marksmanship training to kill one to a room full of people. If you are military you know that is take great marksman skill use a sniper rifle. Because if that wasn't true, we wouldn't have a ground military. It would take more than the allotted time in boot camp to teach Billy from Tacoma to learn to shoot. Snipers are chosen, they are picked. Those soldiers given an assault weapon are not. Also, put a AK patterned rifle in the hands of a 12-15 year old and say pull the trigger and see how marksmanship training he needs to clear a room. Don't believe me, ask any terrorist group or their world nation at war who arm boys with assault rifles. More closer to home ask a gang members how easy it is to point and pull the trigger or any nut job that shoot up a public place. If he doesn't know take him to the range and let him shoot. It doesn't take a very much marksmanship, and can be learned in seconds. Now on the other hand, a sniper rifle isn't so easy, and requires extenisve training and skill that is why you probably don't see them flooding the street or weapon of choice among the bad guys.

There is no diff between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle and my 9 year old daughter can drop a deer with no problems. Also the USMC spends a month of boot camp working on marksmanship for Billy from Tacoma. Im not saying you cant kill anyone with an AK Im saying they are no more deadly then any other gun you can by from Bass Pro Shops, and in my opinion as a 4 year USMC vet and 10+ as a police officer, having shot everything from a 22 pistol up to a Mark 19 grenade launcher if someone wanted to cause max damage and hurt the most people you cant do any better then a 12 gauge and a glock pistol.

Your still avoiding the fact that these weapons are already on the street ILLEGALLY so banning them from the person that wants one for home defense wont save any cops, since the bad guys not going to turn his in because the Govt decides to ban them.
More people are killed by handguns the the evil AK-47 should we ban them too?

 

[ballen0351]

The problem with your argument is "assault weapons" are not they guns that most criminals are using. In fact accorging to the ATF heres the top 10:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html#ixzz1cE7UubBU

So seems to me you should be against small cal. handguns like .38 and .380 and leave the big guns alone. Yet you believe all the Hype of the anti-gun crowd and refuse to see the facts

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to high powered automatic weapons like candy? I don't.

You don't know what you're talking about. An 'automatic weapon' is a fully-automatic weapon, capable of firing more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. Such weapons can only be purchased under extremely limited circumstances in the USA. They cannot be purchased in a gun store by a buyer off the street. Period.

Here's how a citizen can get a fully-automatic weapon:

http://www.internationalpolicesupply.net/ownmg.htm

The license to even purchase one costs $200, the local chief of police has to sign off on it, you have to have your mugshot and fingerprints taken, and the weapons themselves cost in the thousands of dollars.

A semi-automatic weapon, which is the sort that we're talking about, are legal for citizens to purchase. They *LOOK* like fully-automatic weapons, but they can only fire one bullet with each pull of the trigger. This is NO DIFFERENT than a hunting rifle. Same caliber, same rifle barrel length, etc. The major difference is that a so-called 'assault rifle' has a detachable magazine capable of holding more bullets than the typical hunting rifle. That's it, from a functional basis.

If you are ignorant about weapons, you're more dangerous than the typical moron with a gun; because you want something banned and you don't even know what it is you want banned. Freaky dangerous.

HERE IS THE THING, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals. Hell I don't.

Semi-automatic weapons are legal. Have been for a long time. Blood is not running in the streets. Your fear-mongering is ridiculous.

What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me.

Nope. First, that's not what I want, and second, I'm a Marine Corps veteran and former law enforcement. I think I know which end the bullets come out of.

B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun? There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact. And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.

So be concerned. Too bad for you. The 2nd Amendment is as powerful as the 1st Amendment. Both matter a lot, and neither one is going away. So get over yourself.

 

[JohnEdward]

If you ban one, for some reason it leads to banning more and more, also, it is a right, not a privleldge to own firearms. I also don't have to practice a right to try to preserve it for everyone.

Right the ban on drunk drivers and those under 16 from driving has lead to bans on owning a vehicle driving a vehicle, even making vehicles. The ban on prostitution has lead to a ban on sex and procreation. Do I need to go on?

No, there is a responsibility to own a firearm, that goes with the right. When people don't understand that and say "it is right, not a privilege" they should be banned from owning a firearm. It is obvious they shun the responsibility and respect for the weapon and that is the issue. I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right.

That is the issue isn't, that guys like you ignore, that a right has a responsibility and if abused, or incapable of handling that right, it can be lost or deigned.

 

[ballen0351]

. I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right.

.

Hmmm never saw that part in the Constitution. Kinda glad too Id hate to leave my rights up the govt discretion. Since once they have the power to take away my 2nd amendment the rest no longer matter.

So how would one prove they have the right to own a gun? And who do you trust to make that choice?

 

[JohnEdward]

You don't know what you're talking about. An 'automatic weapon' is a fully-automatic weapon, capable of firing more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. Such weapons can only be purchased under extremely limited circumstances in the USA. They cannot be purchased in a gun store by a buyer off the street. Period.

Here's how a citizen can get a fully-automatic weapon:

http://www.internationalpolicesupply.net/ownmg.htm

The license to even purchase one costs $200, the local chief of police has to sign off on it, you have to have your mugshot and fingerprints taken, and the weapons themselves cost in the thousands of dollars.

A semi-automatic weapon, which is the sort that we're talking about, are legal for citizens to purchase. They *LOOK* like fully-automatic weapons, but they can only fire one bullet with each pull of the trigger. This is NO DIFFERENT than a hunting rifle. Same caliber, same rifle barrel length, etc. The major difference is that a so-called 'assault rifle' has a detachable magazine capable of holding more bullets than the typical hunting rifle. That's it, from a functional basis.

If you are ignorant about weapons, you're more dangerous than the typical moron with a gun; because you want something banned and you don't even know what it is you want banned. Freaky dangerous.



Semi-automatic weapons are legal. Have been for a long time. Blood is not running in the streets. Your fear-mongering is ridiculous.



Nope. First, that's not what I want, and second, I'm a Marine Corps veteran and former law enforcement. I think I know which end the bullets come out of.



So be concerned. Too bad for you. The 2nd Amendment is as powerful as the 1st Amendment. Both matter a lot, and neither one is going away. So get over yourself.

Don't read into what isn't there. I am not advocating the removal or rejecting the 2nd Amendment. By saying what you said makes me wonder if you really have any ground to stand on and making a desperate attempt at a last stand. Hey if you advocate criminals or mentally unstable, or anti-social or American groups having a gun, I can't support that. I can't support or find any rational behind owning a automatic high powered weapon just because you can, just because it fills some kind of fantasy. An automatic weapon like AK patterned weapons are not something people depend on like a car to get to work, if there was that need I would see the rational of some people owning one. Again this isn't about the 2nd Amendment this is about irresponsible people having unrestricted access to such weapons. Oh and by the way, do you own a tank, and do you drive one? If you do you couldn't drive it. And why would you want one? It is covered by the 2nd Amendment. But, I don't see you or others advocating that, or arguing it? Who really needs to get over themselves, who really needs to get a perspective...Bill.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't read into what isn't there. I am not advocating the removal or rejecting the 2nd Amendment. By saying what you said makes me wonder if you really have any ground to stand on and making a desperate attempt at a last stand. Hey if you advocate criminals or mentally unstable, or anti-social or American groups having a gun, I can't support that. I can't support or find any rational behind owning a automatic high powered weapon just because you can, just because it fills some kind of fantasy. An automatic weapon like AK patterned weapons are not something people depend on like a car to get to work, if there was that need I would see the rational of some people owning one. Again this isn't about the 2nd Amendment this is about irresponsible people having unrestricted access to such weapons. Oh and by the way, do you own a tank, and do you drive one? If you do you couldn't drive it. And why would you want one? It is covered by the 2nd Amendment. But, I don't see you or others advocating that, or arguing it? Who really needs to get over themselves, who really needs to get a perspective...Bill.

You don't know what the guns are that you want to ban, but you want to ban them. You think fully-automatic weapons are available over the counter, you think that those of us who do not want semi-automatic so-called 'assault weapons' banned want no regulation at all, and you don't even know what the current gun laws in the US happen to be.

You're uniformed, ignorant, and apparently planning to stay that way intentionally. You are in no way qualified to say who should or should not be 'allowed' to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. That's a fail. Come back when you get your learn on.