Obama Administration and Gun Rights

I own numerous "assault" weapons. Just like ALL of my other firearms, they are used to shoot paper. I am an active collector and recreational shooter.

Folks must also keep in mind that The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or other recreational shooting. Read it and tell me if this has anyhting to do with a "hobby"...

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And before anyone suggests it, NO- the National Guard is not the "militia"...

And that same idiot could inflict the same amount of damage with a handgun and a few extra magazines. Look at the Virginia Tech shooting...that crazy bastard used two handguns to kill all of those people - a 9mm and a .22 lr.

Assault weapons are not commonly used in crimes.

No *snicker snicker wink wink* here. Mine are for recreation, and should the need arise - defense.

Contact your representatives and let them know your opinion. The Bill is sitting in committee as I type this...IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

And "the man" is not the only one who will be responsible for this, so it does not matter if he is in office yet or not- other folks who do the actual "work" (as opposed to Obama's flick of a pen) ARE in office.

The ball is rolling...

 

Don you are so right! I have been a licensed Gun dealer a Gun smith and all in all a hunter shooter all my life. Hell I killed my first deer at 8 years old. Why? My uncles and grandfather let me beg them to tag along . I Wanted To as a young lad I wanted it. Guess what my kids Want it also. Is it fair to say no baby you cant go shooting any more the shells cost more than I make in a week now? People just dont get it IT IS IN MOTION ALLREADY!!! its like when some asshole tells you about your dogs and how mean they are when they have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.. WAKE UP PEOPLE JOIN NRA TODAY.... and VIC I am one to stand up for my guns and dogs I have sat in court rooms and meetings to protect my rights not just sat back and said it dont matter to me.. J

 

Here is an interesting website that deals with assault weapons :

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

 

Teflon Don, you hit the nail on the head. People ask why anyone would want to own an assault rifle (or any firearm). We as a nation were lucky enough that the founders had incredible foresight. They knew that a government (any gov't for that matter) could end up killing it's own citizens. That's why they gave us the right to own guns.

And if anyone wants to challenge that, then before you do I suggest you study a little history. You'll find many examples of such an atrocity taking place. One great example: Hitler and the Holocaust. Need I say more.

Someone mentioned how a lunatic can get their hands on an assault rifle and kill a whole bunch of innocent people. How about automobiles? Thousands of innocent people are injured and killed by reckless and drunk drivers who don't give a damn about the general public's safety. Should we ban all cars?

 

Indeed!

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

So do some of you actually believe that this rifle:


is somehow more "dangerous" than this one?

 

quote=The Teflon Don;306836]I own numerous "assault" weapons. Just like ALL of my other firearms, they are used to shoot paper. I am an active collector and recreational shooter.

Wow, a pretty weak argument to support your point of view..."I want an assault weapon to shoot paper"...yup you will illicit a huge following of the frightened public to support you...

Folks must also keep in mind that The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or other recreational shooting. Read it and tell me if this has anyhting to do with a "hobby"...

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And before anyone suggests it, NO- the National Guard is not the "militia"...



And that same idiot could inflict the same amount of damage with a handgun and a few extra magazines. Look at the Virginia Tech shooting...that crazy bastard used two handguns to kill all of those people - a 9mm and a .22 lr.

Nope, considering reaction time a single and efficient assault weapon will rule, not a doubt in my mind...granted we consider reaction time.

Assault weapons are not commonly used in crimes.

Well I am sure the North Hollywood Police department would beg to differ..hell those lone two heavily armed robbers brought them to their knees, and actually changed police policies. It certainly demonstrated the potential, quite impressively would you not agree?

No *snicker snicker wink wink* here. Mine are for recreation, and should the need arise - defense.

So you and I are in violent agreement - you own an assault weapon to assault people should you choose to. I really don't oppose your position for the reasons you state - but I still ask what are the safeguards, and based on your reaction it sounds like those are not so important to you, OK...well there are more frightened, ill informed people that the politicians can manipulated to stand against you, if you do not want to take the time and energy to diligently substantiate your position with risk mitigation so those who are not as proficient as you can see your point of view, thus assisting these politicians...again your choice, and good luck.

Contact your representatives and let them know your opinion. The Bill is sitting in committee as I type this...IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

And "the man" is not the only one who will be responsible for this, so it does not matter if he is in office yet or not- other folks who do the actual "work" (as opposed to Obama's flick of a pen) ARE in office.

The ball is rolling...[/quote]


I forsee the masses furiously scribbling away to support your stated position….NOT. Why don’t you take a step back and figure out what you really need to do to help yourself, instead of what you are doing. IMO you and that politician that is trying to remove the assault weapon from your hands, are sounding very similar…but your choice, and again good luck!

 

Good point an ak looks harsher but in realty an Sk is the same thing same cal and perfoms as well. My dawgs What he meens is it should not be outlawed for a good person to own one. It is very FUN to go out and shoot these firearms and if you tried it you might just want one yourself. I took my whole church out one time shooting and you know what guns were the big hit My ruger mini 14 and my Colt ar 15 were shot so much I had to tell the ladies thats right the girls loved em to let my guns cool off. It is the same mintalty as saying pitbulls should be outlawed see what we meen. Look at the UN when they did a gun ban look at the crime rate now and is DC any better now with all the bans NO!! but look at that little town in georiga that had a very bad crime rate and they passed a law that every citzen over 21 must Carry a gun the crime rat went to ZIP over night. I could do more harm with a gal of gas and a match than 15 guns. I think we should out law gas its bad. J

 

Triple J

I appreciate you spelling it out for me, but to be honest I know what he meant - if you think my reply was harsh that is nothing compared to what he is up against by the real opponents of his thinking. He sounds like a radical (not saying he is) and that will be used to convert those who are on the fence to move away from his position. I am saying use your knowledge and subject matter expertise to convince those who are not "in the know" that this is not as threatening as the opponents would say. In order to do this safeguards and risk mitigation need to be thrown on the table.....Triple J if I told you tomorrow for the betterment and survival of the APBT there would be NO MORE PET BULLS, tell me you would not smile from ear to ear...that would mean all you have said on this forum over the past was heard, processed and sense was made of it....you have to do the same here. You have to sound sensable....JMO

 

First and foremost- that was not an argument....it was a statement of fact. And yes- I expect more support from the masses considering my firearms put holes in paper as opposed to people.

So the fact that none of my guns have ever been used in a violent manner (either against a person or an animal) is somehow a weak argument?

Because I don't have what you would consider a "more productive" use for them?

This is simply not true- I can run 36 rounds (3 magazines) through my pistol in roughly the same amount of time it would take me to unload 30 from my AK or my AR...we are talking a few seconds difference.

Key word in my statement: "COMMONLY"

Yes, assault weapons are occasionally used in crimes...nowhere near as common as other firearms.

Wanna know the real kicker? The AK 47s used in the North Hollywood shootout were fully automatic (something that is HEAVILY regulated by The Federal Government) as opposed to my semi-auto AK (much more common, and perfectly legal in most states).

In order to obtain a legal, full-auto- rifle you must jump through a ridiculous number of hoops....something a law abiding citizen such as myself would do if I ever wanted a full-auto firearm.

You think those guys jumped through hoops? You think they respected those "reasonable restrictions"?

The guns they used were illegal already...just goes to show you how effective those current restrictions are.

Heads up: By nature, criminals don't obey the law. Put as many laws regulating firearms on the books as you want...they don't care...it doesn't effect them.

Negative...I own my firearms for recreation and defense...no assaults here.

There are numerous safeguards in place...there is an obscene number of laws pertaining to firearms on the books already and most have absolutely no effect on the common criminal.

Background checks nation-wide, waiting periods in many places...and last time I checked MURDER WAS STILL ILLEGAL...

Many states already have laws pertaining to "assault weapons"...people still get murdered on a regular basis.

Bottom line, folks: Laws (words on a piece of paper) do not stop criminals from obtaining firearms or committing crimes.

What good is a safeguard that doesn't work? What good is a safeguard that only tramples on law abiding citizen's rights while at the same time said safeguard is ignored by criminals?

I forsee the masses furiously scribbling away to support your stated position….NOT. Why don’t you take a step back and figure out what you really need to do to help yourself, instead of what you are doing. IMO you and that politician that is trying to remove the assault weapon from your hands, are sounding very similar…but your choice, and again good luck![/quote]

I know what I need to do to protect myself and I am constantly doing so.

I inform others of what they can do as well.

And how in the world do I sound anything like an anti-gun politician? One appreciates the liberties we have here and wants to see American traditions continue...the other's goal is to spread fear and trample rights?

Forgive me...but I don't follow your line of thinking.

 

A radical? Really? If you say so...

 

This is something I find horribly concerning. Politicians don't even know what the hell they are banning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

 

Actually I did not say so, I said you sound like one. Listen I have been in military armament for many years, don't tell me what a couple of "seconds" means in a war like situation...it means more dead people, I've done the analysis based on imperical data.

You want to whine about all the criminals doing bad stuff with bad things...I say so what, how does this in any way support your position on assault weapons, sounds like a lot of white noise to me and a distraction strategy. Here is what you just said, well criminals can have them so I get to as well....great and convincing logic.

And people are not afraid of you putting holes in paper they are afraid you will put holes in people in rapid succession....stop whining and convince them you won't, and please don't use crominal activity to substantiate your argument...it's bad.

On the specific issue of assault weapons, you are going to need help...keep sounding like a "very angry person" that the politician is saying should not have access to assault weapons (beacuse of the being very angry)...and see who gets more support.

Ya wanna win against your opponents..be calm, state facts, substantiate with data, you are more likely to get more letters......not I want assault weapons to shoot paper and defend, which begs the question against who or what?

 

in england they actually have banned all firearms, so now people are going around stabbing people. and they are talking about banning knives. its not the weapon that goes out and commits the crime. we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. harsher punishments are the only option. you have to deter that felon that isnt supposed to have a gun anyway. idk what the punishment for a felon getting caught w/ a gun is but its deffenately not bad enough to make him not want to go back to jail again. we should make it life in jail if we have to.

that crazy 20 year old that would do harm to ur family w/ an assault weapon would do it w/ anything if he wanted to bad enough. and i think the analogy is pretty good... "We are talking about the ability to create much more damage in a much shorter period of time.":o thats what our dogs do.

 

Symbolically yes, I was actually comparing the body count each could stack up in say 2 minutes....

If you are trying to rally support to avoid the banning of assault weopons and you want the general public to get on board, stop migrating to criminal activity....and literally ANYONE can stack up more dead bodys with an assault weapon much faster than with a non-assault weapon of any kind. Max damage in min time, they are DESIGNED for this...

 

Yes...36 rounds out of a semi-auto pistol in a few more seconds than 30 rounds out of a semi-auto rifle DOES mean more dead people...more people dead from the pistol.

Nope- no whining...again, just stating fact. It may not "support" my position in a direct way, but it definitely blows holes in the "gun control" crowds argument...by default...it supports my cause.

If the goal is to keep criminals from getting guns, and it does not work, WTF is the point?

All of this talk of whining :rolleyes: It's apparent you know nothing about me...

And criminal activity is the base of this argument...aren't criminals the ones these laws are intended to protect us from?

And it is not my responsibility to convince people what I will or won't do while I stay within the limits of the law...it is, however, the governments responsibility to enforce current laws and to avoid trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens...

Can you please explain why you keep suggesting that I am whining or that I am "angry"?

I am perfectly calm...here we go with this again And I would love to back this up with data, but unfortunately at the present moment I do not have the time to dig up all of the statistics...

And I will defend against those who seek to do me harm. Simple as that...those NOT wishing to do me harm have absolutely nothing to worry about...

Definition of "defense"

2 a: capability of resisting attack b: defensive play or ability <a player known for good defense>

 

quote=The Teflon Don;306888]Yes...36 rounds out of a semi-auto pistol in a few more seconds than 30 rounds out of a semi-auto rifle DOES mean more dead people...more people dead from the pistol.

OK, lets quit quibbling....autos are more efficient (CONSIDER TIME) then semi's which are more efficient then non autos....OK?????? The extreme being Spooky or Puff the Magic Dragon...get my point?????????


Nope- no whining...again, just stating fact. It may not "support" my position in a direct way, but it definitely blows holes in the "gun control" crowds argument...by default...it supports my cause.

No it doesn't support your specific position on assault weapons, it is IMO a distraction and it will be viewed that way...stay specific and advocate the positive things you can pursue and the safeguards to those who might feel discomfort about being around them...like our dogs, educate

If the goal is to keep criminals from getting guns, and it does not work, WTF is the point?

I am not going to discuss what criminals do or don't do, that is not germane to you gaining support for not banning assault weapons....gun control vs criminal activity is massive and subjective and can be anything you want it to be, thus useless as a persuasive technique, great for creating hysteria..ask your opposing politicians.


All of this talk of whining It's apparent you know nothing about me...

Nor have you offered the smallest gesture that you are not as "angry" as you sound, thus being someone I feel I can communicate with on a professional level......

And criminal activity is the base of this argument...aren't criminals the ones these laws are intended to protect us from?

In this specific issue, it is John Q feeling comfortable living next to Mr Responsible Gun owner with an assault weapon that John Q need not fear - and then will support Mr Responsible gun owner...so why would you compare the need to own one with the actions of a criminal???? Counter productive.

And it is not my responsibility to convince people what I will or won't do while I stay within the limits of the law...it is, however, the governments responsibility to enforce current laws and to avoid trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens...

Until others (with the same right to speak out as you) advocate the law be changed...and here we are


Can you please explain why you keep suggesting that I am whining or that I am "angry"?

Do I really need to explain this...can't you just re-read your own stuff and be objective.....

I am perfectly calm...here we go with this again And I would love to back this up with data, but unfortunately at the present moment I do not have the time to dig up all of the statistics...

You got nothing to prove to me, but then I did not ask anyone to write letters supporting my position, if you want the most support you can get ya gotta convince those that would not support you to support you. So I suppose this is not as important as you are making it sound....OK

And I will defend against those who seek to do me harm. Simple as that...those NOT wishing to do me harm have absolutely nothing to worry about...

Oh Pandora’s box, what is your definition of "harm"...or simply when can we expect the bullets to fly, you see how threatening that is, "harm" can be interpreted in so many ways....what is your definition

Definition of "defense"

2 a: capability of resisting attack b: defensive play or ability <a player known for good defense>[/quote]

Since I have worked in the DEFENSE Industry for... well lets say a long time, no refresher on the definition was required...but thanks anyway.

 

I'm done with defending my position, mydawgs...a position that requires no defense.

If you can't understand just how little difference there is between a semi-auto AK and a semi-auto deer rifle, I don't know what to tell you. Considering your tremendous amount of experience in the defense industry, I would honestly think this should be quite simple...

Is it all about magazine capacity for you? Must be, considering the heavy regulations (read: next to impossible for the average Joe to obtain) on full auto firearms and the fact that the assault weapons ban does not even pertain to full auto firearms.

I have not been at all confrontational with you, yet you still attempt to portray me as a mad-man.

Take care, mydawgs Have a good day.

 

Oh yeah- I would love to hear your opinion on these, mydawgs...

 

Right back at ya TD! And I doubt hearing my opinion on anything would alter what you thought...so why ask me?