Absolutely…

It is the fault of our society at large for not holding “individuals” responsible for their actions. I don’t care if someone came from a poor neighborhood, I don’t care if someone was beat as a child, I don’t care if someone’s mother or father was an alcoholic, and I don’t care if someone is a minority.

The point is NONE of those gives anybody any reason for not being accountable for their actions. Once you begin to hold “individuals” accountable for their actions you WILL greatly curb ALL crimes and abuses…

 

Say what you will- but certain arms do not belong in the hands of Average Joe or Jane. No civilian needs ot should be allowed to have:

.50 cal sniper rifles.
AK-47
M-16
AR-15
MAC-10
MAC-11

And any of a host of other semi-automatic firearms. The militia fantasy is a myth; that'll never happen or be required (Unless aliens invade the planet, and take out the worlds military forces). Every time someone rebels against the government an even thinks about forming a militia, the FBI goes over and pimp-slaps them back into reality, a coffin or jail.

Most American's (99.99%) only needa a ppistol (To protect their home) and a shotgun (In case they are a poor shot). However, as long as their are people in thei country that love to hunt, high-powered rifles will always be for sale.

To have a firearm to defend your self, your family an your property against a tresspasser is one thing. To possess a weapon that can kill a man through 24 inches of concrete- is quite another.

I guess the only good thing about the guns is the fact that the majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides, not homicides. These people are offing themselves- so even if they didn't have a gun- they'd find another way...

I'm sure there's a logical and feasible way to handle this. Amendements should be upheld~ but, at times it makes sense to 're-visit" certain items to see if they are still needed. There isn't much we do today that's the way we did it 229 year ago.

I like guns; don't get me wrong. I just don't think certain guns belong on the street. The second amendment is viable, and necessary; but it is not a crutch for any malcontent to lay on, thus allowing him purchase of a handgun..

 

The fact is that crime, violence, sociopaths, bullies and tyrants will always be with us. We believe in equality, not domination by the most brutal. An armed senior citizen has a chance against a career criminal, a lady has a chance against a rapist, and a guy in a wheel chair lives his life with more confidence. That is the freedom guaranteed by our Second Amendment.

The last time I saw anyone in L.A. act like a real American was during the 1993 L.A. riots. That was when Korean storeowners armed themselves with repeating rifles to protect their homes, families and businesses. It worked, but then the L.A. cops came along and tried to disarm and arrest them. (The Koreans, not the rioting mob that was beating, burning, looting and murdering!) I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the stability of our country is a direct result of an armed populace.

I don't have a big problem with so-called assault weapons being owned by law abiding citizens at all. I would, in fact, feel very comfortable knowing that several responsible households in my neighborhood had them.

 

I am going to use cia-agents post and give some answers. I think he brings up many good points to debate and many that are brought up time and time again.

Who is going to decide who gets to own guns, any gun, and who don’t? Personally I do agree that the retarded and criminals should never be allowed to own guns. However, that is what I think is right but since the Constitution makes no mention of ones mental capacity or career background it is still un-Constitutional to not even allow them to keep and bear arms.

Nothing wrong with the law abiding “average Joe or Jane” owing any guns they wish…


It’s no more a myth today as it was over 200 years ago. You don’t necessarily need a “militia” in case of invasion from a foreign nation. I lived in Long Beach when the animals of L.A. decided to riot in the early 90’s. I watched live on news some of the morons that beat the truck driver and were throwing brinks into car windows and trying to stop them.

The police wussed out and left many law abiding citizens at the mercury of a bunch of coward wussies. As Odin's Wrath mentioned many Korean store owners armed themselves and took control so the animals could not destroy their businesses. It’s too bad a few more didn’t shoot the punks beating on an innocent truck driver.

That above is your opinion and it’s not necessarily bad either. As I stated in another post there is a very easy method to change things and bring them more in line of a very small minority of Americans. It really is a small minority of Americans that feel the way you do about gun ownership and making major changes to the Second Amendment.

It’s a simple process an amending an Amendment. Same as adding one or repelling one. First 2/3’s of both Houses have to approve of the measure. Then after it has been approved 3/4’s of the States (38) have to approve it as well and then it becomes law.

Very simple, and if the majority of Americans felt this way it would have been attempted many years ago…

What is very funny and comical is you hear many politicians say the same thing. “We need to revisit the Constitution”, “The Constitution is a living breathing document that needs changes from time to time” blah, blah, blah…

It is as if these politicians have forgotten the method of changing the Constitution. I think they feel if they keep talking about it that with a small majority in one of both Houses they can actually change it.

Not just on gun ownership but even freedom of speech and any number of other topics and subjects. If the American public was better educated, especially those who have attended and graduated from colleges and universities, then perhaps the population wouldn’t let our elected officials get away with stupid comments and “actually” explain to the public how the Constitution can be changed at any time for any reason with enough support…

 

I realize most of if not all of what I typed is wishful thinking; but, I can't really respond now because my son is demanding my attention! Infants don't take no for an answer!!

I guess us law abiding citizens have to wait for someone popular or prestigious to be gunned down with an AK-47 before steps will be taken to eliminate assault weapons.

It wasn't enough when those kindergardeners were gunned down in LA 14-15 years ago with an AK-47, it wasn't enough when those cops were shot up in Texas a few months ago with somehow fully automatic AK-47's and it probably won't be enough that these folks were killed in Tyler, TX with yet another AK-47.

I hate to villify assault weapons; I like 'em too- and I realize guns don't kill people, people kill people- but, having an AK-47 or an AR-15 with a few full 20-30 round full metal jackets makes mass slaughter just a tad easier...

That needs to be addressed.

 

So i should give up all my semiauto guns. The .50 cal i have is a bolt action and where does this item belong on your list??.

 

^^

I want one of those.

 

I have a 12 gauge for hunting.

 

I don't know what scares me more... the fact that you possess such a cannon or the fact that you are playing with it while drinking beer.

That tells me right off the top that you are irresponsible. Even if the weapon is unloaded, there is no place for alcohol and firearms together.

 

Maybe he drank a few brews AFTER he was firing the rifle?

No harm in that.

 

Buck- the fact that your .50 cal is bolt-action is better than having a magazine, or belt-fed .50 cal.

The Geneva Convention outlaws the useage of a .50 caliber gun even in combat- to shoot a human being with. Now, if he just happens to be in the truck or APC you were shooting at, well- __it happens, you know....

With that in mind it's hard to believe that such weapons are for sale to the general public, but they are.. Desert Eagle makes a .50 cal handgun- or should I say- hand cannon.

When Joe Blow has more firepower at home than the police officers on the street; then something is wrong with this picture. Anybody remember Waco, TX and the sight of those ATF agents getting gunned-downed by those religious zealots? They had assault rifles too.

At least if you went on a rampage with your 50, you could only shoot once; then it'd take you at least 10 seconds before you fired your next shot- thus allowing others the chance to take you (Or someone with a similiar weapon) out before others were killed...

Aside from long range, there is no need for anyone to have a rifle like that. That's over-kill even for the largest buck. You could drop a Wooly Mommoth with that thing- with one shot- from a mile away. All you really need to do is walk through the woods and hold that rifle up, and the deer would die from a heart-attack- rather than the shot....

 

um, that's what the gun is for. a bolt action .50 is the ultimate in long range accuracy. No serious long range shooter is without one.

 

It ain't about NEED.

Sounds like you worry too much about what other people have. Chances are you'll die in a MVA than getting shot.
Chances are you'll get shot by a .22 than an "assault weapon".
Do you even know what a true assault weapon is?
I have semiautomatic clones of AK's, FAL's and AR's. You know how many people I have killed with them?
None. Nada. Zip.
I don't like the smell of hoplophobia.

 

Burt, as a 12-year, seasoned veteran, indeed- I do know what an assault weapon is. I haven't killed anybody either- at least not directly.

I don't "worry" about what other people have. If I wanted one, I could "have" one too; plus I know how to use them- quite effectively thank you....

I grew up in Louisiana/Mississippi around a bus-load of good ol' boys that had rifles and shotguns mounted in the back windows of their Chevy's and I didn't miss a minute of sleep.

Truth be told, there are more powerful rifles on the market than the AK. More powerful in terms of bullet size- the thing that makes teh AK so deadly is the number of rounds that can be fired before reloading, and the damage the bullet does due to it's muzzle velocity.

But, if you read the statement- buck asked me where did his weapon fall with regard to my statement- and that was my response. Everyone's got an opinion; you have yours- I have mine; and mine is- no one needs an AK-47, no one needs a 50 caliber rifle.

As you pointed out, a 22 will kill a person or game just as dead as an AK or a 50-cal. A 30-30 and a 30.06 will as well.

-------------
What if you were a cop or had a family member get picked off of the roof by someone with one of those weapons~ would you still believe that anyone with the ready-cash should have such a weapon? What if your family's car got riddled by an AK-47 or two because you rode through the wrong neighborhood? Would you have had a better chance if they only had a 38 or a 22; yes- you would.

I guess I'm one of those people that doesn't have to get bitten by a rattlesnake to know what it can do to me.

 

so what makes an AR-15 different than any other semi-automatic rifle? what makes a tec-9 any different than any other semi-automatic handgun?

there are two types of 'assault weapons'. The true definition, the one the military uses, is that an assault weapon is one capable of selective fire; i.e. the abilitly to choose between semi-auto and full auto by flipping a switch.

The anti-gun definition is a weapon that has a certain number of cosmetic features.

I agree that the general populace does not need assault weapons, but when talk is about banning assault weapons, they're really not talking about assault weapons. You ban an AR-15, that is basically the same thing as banning all semi-auto rifles. how do you distinguish them? you don't, because mechanically they are the same. Nobody says they want to ban all guns, because it will never happen. But if they take little steps like this, it seems logical. Most people look at an AR-15 and say--you don't need that thing, so why not ban it? Well after it's banned, they say look at all these semi-auto guns. They're the same thing, just look different. Lets ban them too.

Using words like 'assault rifle' out of proper context is dumbing folks down to the point where they believe what the anti-s are spouting.

P.S. full metal jacket bullets will cause a lot less mass slaughter. Full metal jacket bullets do not expand on contact, therefore they are designed to wound, not kill. That's why the military uses them. A wounded soldier hurts the other side a lot more than a dead one does. Also, I believe Geneva prevents bullets that expand on contact. If you really want to kill people, use hollow points or better yet soft nosed partitions.