Topic: Political Attitude Overall

Wow. How can you think that? Do you honestly think it would be better for people, like the ones who would go to work, or school and shoot their peers, to be able to get their hands on a SAW? or what about just an M16 legaly. Do you realy think that because we cant have guns that can rip a man or womans head of legaly that were going to turn into Nazis? How can you say that?

Their 'trademark' if you insist on calling it that was not confiscation of weapons, it was, and still is oppression of the people under them. The founding fathers may have said that americans had the right to bear arms, but I think seeing a gun that could rip a mans head off, or a gun that could fire 750-850 rounds per minute put into our society today would cause them to revise their choice of words. A society where sometimes a sudden urge to kill people will arise and a boy or girl will bring a gun to school and start shooting. Can you honestly think that thats what people who are famed for declaring independence from the tyranny of a monarch would want?

Show me one of those mental cases who could have afforded such a weapon, and I'll show you two dozen gang members and organized crime members who have them here in the country anyway illegally.  They ARE available, and they ARE here.....but only if you're in the mafia 

um....when did I say that?  I WILL say now that allowing the government to take your only tangible means of defense, you are following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany and most other totalitarian regimes.

NOT that we are in immidiate danger of falling under such a regime any time soon.  But times change, and people change.  If and When such a movement ever tries to come to power, tight gun regulation won't be much of a problem for them, as most of the ground work has been well laid for them already

The chief enabler of the 'trademark' IS the disarmament of the citizen population.

Well Ralin, I still agree with AA here. Just because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, and that means ANY gun, it doesnt mean we have to be able to get automatic weapons. Even if we are allowed to get them, we would be buying them for absolutely no reason. They are useless in the hands of a civilian. The only thing someone could do with them is look at it, bring it to a firing range, or if the are crazy, kill people with it. What good comes out of owning automatic weapons? Nobody needs them, except the military.

Surely you don't plan on using a bolt-action rifle if about twenty people came into your house attempting to kill you? that's where semi and auto come in handy. otherwise resort to using the rifle as a club.

I never said that only hunting rifles should be available. I'm fine with people having shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and semi-automatic weapons. Nobody really needs automatic weapons.

And why the hell would 20 people come to your house trying to kill you? Anyone can just keep making up these scenarios, but it doesn't mean that you have to be protected against everything.

And what if 100 people wanted to kill you? You'd need a minigun. A 1,000? A house surrounded by anti-personel mines and a grenade launcher. 100,000? A freakin nuke. Just because there is a chance, an extremely low chance, of any of those happening, it doesn't mean everyone should go out and buy these things.

I'm gonna have to ride shotgun with Ralin here, I agree with ALMOST *not all* of what he's said. First off, Heavy Automatic Firearms (such as the SAW) are expensive, and I mean EXPENSIVE, same goes with large bore weapons such as the Barrett .50BMG Rifles/other or .50AE Desert Eagle/equivalent handguns.

Summary - High Caliber Weapons -

1. They are large and almost unwielding -

2. Small ammunition capacity

3. Expensive

4. Have to have special permits to own in most areas

EXAMPLE -

Barrett Model 99 .50BMG bolt action, weighs 23 lbs, no magazine (means one shot then you have to manually reload) costs over $4,000 U.S dollars with taxes. The ammunition it requires is the 12.7x99mm NATO cartridge, (For you poeple who don't know what I'm talking about, it's known as the .50cal bullet that everyone is sooooo afraid of) commercially available, it costs between $1.75 and $2.25 EACH.

Apparently all of you have/know how to purchase a firearm (har har), I'm just going to go over it again for ya just in case. ALL 50 STATES before you buy a gun of ANY kind, the gun shop, store, Wal-Mart or wherever, run a Federal background check on you. If you have any criminal record whatsoever, you will be turned down and will not be allowed to purchase the firearm. ALSO the weapon must be registered at some point or the other.

Seems like a pain in the ass huh?

If we ever come to the day that we need automatic rifles to defend ourselves, then we're screwed anyways. I mean, if civilians are called on to defend themselves on a large scale, automatic weapons won't make much of a difference.

And like you said, they're hard to get, and few would actually have them. So a need for defense is out the window.

Not neccecerally  Ak-47's are cheap as p***. You may not have a criminal record... Yet.

For me it's all coming back to an automatic weapon being no more dangerous than a butcher knife.  When people are intent on killing, such as in school shootings, they will use whatever they can get their hands on.  There is no point in putting more restrictions because as long as humans exist killing will.  Nothing will ever change that.  So take away guns or autos.  Criminals will either manage to get the guns illegally (which would be the most likely) or they will revert to using knives and swords.

What does that mean?  Are you insinuating that people who get high caliber guns may become criminals?  Or am I narrowing it down too much?  Or is it just those that are getting high caliber guns will use them to do crimes?

What I'm saying is that if a man, breaks in to your house would you rather have him with a nine millimeter pistol, or a SAW?

And for home defence, all you need is a pistol, realy who would need an assault rifle to defend their home, especially in the suburbs. I dont think your going to have any inner city gangs come into your house and mob you. And why is it that many of the people who seem to be pissed off about gun control live in the country. If somone comes out to kill you in the country and a pistol isnt enough, then your screwed anyways. Pistol, shotgun, or bolt action rifle. Ive fired two of those, and I think that if I was being attacked and I had either one of those two I wouldnt need an automatic or large caliber weapon.

RD you implied it by saying that if the goverment took our weapons then it was more likely that we would slowly become something of the sort. The only use for large calliber weapons in my oppinion is hunting or in the millitary, theres not much sense for it to use as a weapon, but they are still more dangerous then other guns. Shoot a guy in the arm with a low caliber rifle, if it missed an artery then hes probably just going to the hospital for some minor surgery. Shoot a guy in the arm with something like a Barret....I dont think he'll use that arm for a while.

I understand having automatic weapons to use at ranges because I have 'shot' an M4 (or an M16) and a SAW, even though it was at a simulation range, and it was fun, but the people who own then need to be screened big time, and the police should be able to check up on the weapons storage to make sure its locked up properly and kept out of the hands of those who aren't fit to use it. Oh and another thing, say the owner of the weapon is robed by someone with a pistol, now the guy with the pistol has a automatic weapon at his disposal and he might just decide to go kill a few people, just because you have a gun doesnt mean that no one will rob you.

Even if he does break in with a SAW there is the exactly same chance you will die that night as there is you won't.  There are many factors but in the end nothing glaringly one sided or the other overrules either.

*COUGHPAYCLOSERATTENTIONCOUGH*

Yeah, but I'm just saying that theres  not much necessity to have a SAW in  the 1st place, to defend your house all you really need is a nine millimeter. Like Werda says. If the need for automatic weapons arises then were screwed. And it really only takes one bullet to kill someone, unless were being assaulted by legions of the undead there's no need for anything more then a pistol for home defense, or a baseball bat....And a bolt-action rifle or shotgun for hunting.

I live in Japan , and there are no guns allowed of any kind here. You can, with a great deal of difficulty, get a permit for a hunting/ sport rifle but the police regulate the flow of those weapons so that citizens usually do not have constant access the their own rifles. They keep them in a lock up and you have to check the rifle out over the weekend etc. Just as in other countries with the same policy this does not stop violent crime from happening. Yes, the violent crime rates are lower here but people back in the states only get the news of crime in Japan when it is something really big. There is a lot of petty, dangerous, crime here all the time. Teens go around stabbing strangers in crowds. One guy drove a van through a big crowd of people and then jumped out and started stabbing the few people still standing. I live in a very controlling society. It is so bad here that people just snap all the time from the pressure to conform.   Again, it's not in the international news a lot but it is here in the local news.

SO what I am getting at is that this topic is an issue of degree and balance.  The degree to which we are willing as a society to allow for personal freedoms, such as the right to own automatic weapons and the balance that we have to strike between that and public safety. But as others have mentioned above, it's not the honest citizen who is going to the gun shop and buying guns who is then going out and killing people with them, it's people who are criminals. And, I have to agree that it should not matter if you NEED an automatic weapon or not, if we, want to live in a free country it has to be totally free, you can't have it both ways.

When I was growing up in California I felt safer at night in the city than I do here in Japan in certain places. Because here, ONLY, the criminals have guns. And, if we start banning guns in the states that's what will happen, only the criminals will have access to them.

I'm not saying to ban every gun. I'm saying that no one realy need anything more then a pistol, unless that hunt. And I personaly would rather have a guy come at me with a knife then with a gun....My point here is that automatic weapons are unnessicary for civilians. All you would do is shoot stuff at a range with it anyways. If you think we as civilians will need automatic weapons for home defense....then I think your an idiot. Theres just not a need for them.

Neither did they say or intend that in any of the laws they've passed up to now.  But they are gradual stepping stones to that point.

Well what I'm saying is who is to say what is and what isn't needed?  Just because YOU don't need anything more then a pistol, or just because guys like TW and IG-88 feel safe hoping there's a cop on the corner, maybe other people have Different needs. 

Fett_II brought up the scenario of 20 guys breaking into your house.  I totally understand who completely RARE such a thing would be, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned it in jest.  HOWEVER, people on the southern border *not really in my area, but in south Texas and south-east Arizona* people every night have to live in fear of Mexican gangs called 'coyotes' coming into the U.S. side, sometimes in large numbers and committing brutally heinous home invasions, and of course the drug mafia and armed smugglers crossing their lands.  In some crime ridden cities, people who obey the law and don't keep a firearm due to regulation are totally at the mercy of gangs and criminals, and their only defense is an over burdened and stretched police force.  You would take away their right to own a weapon that would at least give them a chance to fight off such an attack.   

Well, what you'd personally would rather face is not up to you.  It's up to the criminal.  Just because a law is passed that prohibits guns doesn't mean the guy coming at you won't get one some other way.  If YOU have only a knife because of firearm regulation deems your area 'protected' by local law enforcement or whatever reason they come up with to strip your rights, and the criminal breaks into your house with a SAW, with a semi-automatic assault rifle, or with a little .22 pistol, you're in a really rough situation.

The VERY simple fact of the matter that so many people don't seem to understand is that laws, against guns or whatever, only affect law abiding people.....the criminals will illegally obtain a gun or some other kind of weapon.  In a strict atmosphere *like schools, cities, and close urban environments usually* offers a criminal a very tempting opportunity, as he can feel fairly certain that there's nobody that can give him a fight. 

As I stated before, every school shooting was in a 'Gun Free Zone.'  The laws that are up didn't help, what evidence makes you think tighter ones will?

But putting my question aside for a moment, I want to remind everybody that this is a thread asking for opinions on the subject, not a brawl.  It's a touchy subject to many, myself included.  There are simply my opinions on the subject, and I'm trying to offer counter points on other people's assertions.  Not flaming anybody or their opinions, and I respect that most every one else here has done the same. 

I think it's a good debate we have, and just want to keep it clean so it won't get locked

---RD

I still dont think that you would need a machine gun to keep you safe, theres realy not much need for that kind of a weapon.

And that's your right to feel that way and choose not to own one.  But is it your right to say nobody else can have one?

No it isnt, thats up to congress/senate/the President, but if we make them very hard to get it might make them less common in the hands of the people who shouldnt have them I mean

That's very true.  It is their job to regulate such things based on the needs and desires of the populace/their constituents.

It's just my fear that people like I described, who have to deal with real danger alone on the border, or in really bad neighborhoods, and even the few in decent places to live who just want that safety net if the worst should happen, are getting forgotten and ignored because an ever increasing percent of the population fears guns for one, and second have bought the government's line that they will protect us *and do most every thing else for us*, when it's usually not the case for the initial victims.

I just have a serious issue with the spoon-fed, government will care for you *while they let things like corruption at the highest levels go unnoticed, financial instability, and in general screw everything up*  mentality that seems to be growing, and a taking away of the self reliance part of American life that originally made us great.

Nobody needs an automatic weapon. They are useless to civilians. A pistol, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle is good enough protection for a civilian. While I believe everyone should have a weapon, the chance that you will have to use it is miniscule.

To everyone who says "What if someone came to your house to kill you and you had no weapon", do you bring a gun or a knife to the beach in case you get attacked by a shark? You probably don't. People shouldn't live in the constant fear that someone will murder you.

Just have a weapon in case something does happen. Better to be safe then sorry.

I think this quote from one of the AvP movies sums that up quite well.

"I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then need it and not have one."

Well guns dont usualy work when the gunpowder is wet....soooo :P

I actually think that's a much older quote then from the movie *don't remember it being used there, will have to rewatch* but I feel it's very true.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say machine guns are 'useless to civilians.'  It's a gun.  It has the same power to take and protect life as any other gun.  So it could be just as useFULL in protecting a person's life. 

Now, I understand that your average citizen isn't very likely to need the firepower provided by a machine gun.  It's a valid point.  My only problem with taking the option away is that it sets a precedent of the government, and majority rule in general, gaining the power to tell the rest of the country what they 'need.'  It's been guns for a while.  It's SUVs and other types of cars in some places.  What next?

It's all part of the slippery slope dilemma that you face when government steps into these situations.

You said "automatic firearms are expensive". Dont talk like that to me man i'm not interested in childishness.

And of course, this is why the Bill of Rights was created. although the gov't seems to be kinda trying to take it back now...

Revised.

I was thinking about Light Machine guns, it was a typing error and lack of paying attention on my behalf, that's what was on my mind, sorry.

But the AK thing, that's mainly in third world countries, you can't get an automatic AK or anything in that power range legally without permits, and even if you do they will most likely be over $1,000 from what I've seen.

Thats ok :). My freind knows a website where they are available for next to nothing.

Actually, you can get an AK for around $250 in the US.

i watched the Military Channel's Top 10 Guns, and the AK-47 was #1. it's cheap, interchangeable, and can be found pretty much anywhere.

That is certainly led into many of the big problems this country faces right now. Even the more educated individuals I've come across in my travels, still are ignorant as regards to how much BLIND FAITH they are putting into the governments. They just accept that the government does something, passes a law, takes an action whatever it may be for the "good of the people". It is an ugly reality that we actually find ourselves in where these "elected" politicians are there not like the party line goes, to "serve the people" or to be "the voice of the little man" but rather to make laws that give them, and the people that actually pay the politicians more money, power and control. It is not about "average" citizens at all. Its about MONEY and POWER. And those are two things that are married hand and hand. Those with money have power and will do everything to keep it that way.

Guns are big business. As long as guns are not fully perceived as a full threat to power they will have some place in society.

Anything can be used as a weapon if the mind wishes to see everything as a weapon.

Exactly how does a gun, of any type protect a house hold if rules and regulations are ever present and it is locked up in a box, case etc? Yes it keeps children from using them, but does it make it effective to defend you and your loved ones during a home invasion?  You're casually watching TV with your wife/husband and two children. Two thieves kick in the door holding intending to make off with your property and harming your family. If you have a gun, but it is locked in a box under your bed, upstairs from where you are how does that effectively as a threat to those intending crime? What makes logical sense to me was the days where the family rifle was placed in arms reach above the fireplace, which is where everyone congregated anyway. It was there if someone was to storm in and take you by surprise. And it served as a warning, "this is what awaits if you dare enter with ill intent."

Great point.

There are lots of stupid laws like that that 'allow' you to posses a weapon, but you can only transport it disassembled, or locked with a legally approved disabling device.

I remember hearing of a politician who was describing how 'easy' it really is to remove one of the disabling devices *I think it was one of those padlock lookin' things with a cable instead of a ring that you run through the barrel and chamber; that or one of those trigger guard things* and he proceeded to demonstrate.  If he'd practiced before the conference, it didn't show.  The dude fought with it for I don't know how long, and finally another guy went up to the podium to help.  I'm not sure they ever got it off... and this was in a calm, normal atmosphere, no pressure of having an armed criminal coming after you with a gun, knife, or whatever.  I wish I could remember what law these dudes were pushing, and who the speaker was...it might be on youtube.  Will supply info/link if I can find either

The biggest argument for such laws are kids getting their hands on them, and secondly theft.  In a world after so many terrible shootings, I understand the fear that drives such arguments.  However, the right to defend yourself is hamstrung to such a degree, that any benefits are nullified in my mind.  There's really no easy answer for that one.  You'll be confronted with people who could throw a tragic story at your feet, asking if you even care that a 10/15/whatever year old should die just so you can have an unlocked gun in your house.  There's really nothing you can reply to that sort of analogy other then to offer another back: should my family be at risk of home invasion or mugging on the streets to protect a school from a shooter who will probably find a gun no matter what law is in place...  Who's life is more important?  The your kids and their teachers at a school or your kids and yourself and wife/husband right there at home? 

Again, there's no easy way to answer such questions, and there's many points of view on it.  That's one of the reasons this is such a hot topic

When I got stationed at my current base, I was really surprised that the Base Exchange (BX/ PX) here had a guns section to purchase firearms.  On base, no less.  I've heard they have them at the ones in Alaska, because a lot of people have some higher caliber revolvers and such, because of some of the wildlife they might encounter.  One of my buddies at my old base was stationed there, and he had told me most everyone has a .357 in their car because of the bears.  I was like, well, that's nice. 

Anyway, I really like older guns and they had a "Golden Boy" Winchester rifle for sale.  I was looking at it in the rack and noticed they had a couple AK-47's for sale in the case, too.  I was blown away (bad pun).  They weren't fully automatic, of course, but I was just really surprised they'd sell those on base.  Of course, it is the south, so we kind of like our guns down here, but all the same, on a military installation was a definite surprise for me.  I came here to Lousiana from being stationed in Wyoming, and they never had that at the BX up there.  Of all places, I would think they would up in Wyoming, because they're kind of gun happy up that way, too.

this may not have a whole lot to do with this thread but there was a county somewhere that had a high incidence of rape. Women in that county were trained to use guns and issued guns and the rate of rape went down to zero. Seems like there is a place for weapons when used for the right reasons.

What is it they say?  "An armed society is a polite society."

I don't recall having heard that one, but it is very true

Can they start Issuing guns? I'll be first in line. Then my parents can't get mad at me for it either!

They COULD, but the chances of that are between nill and none.  Even in the case of a National Emergency, the government's/armed forces SOP is to confiscate all weapons from non Government officials.  Just look at what happend in New Orleans.  Crime was rampant, most cops where nowhere to be found, but the first action of most that stayed was to take away weapons from legal gun owners...  Many are still demanding the return of their guns....don't hold your breath on that one