dramaqueen and mattsbettas. I do think you two are on to something about the assault weapons and I think some people can see your side. Unless you are in the military, SWAT, or police force you don't need assault weapons. That isn't necessary for self or home defence. What my problem is with banning them is they aren't taking them out of bad hands so it isn't really as effective as they think.
My husband as big of a gun fanatic as he is agrees with banning assault weapons. He told me something funny about it, "What are decent citizens going to do with them anyways? Go hunting?" I could picture a man in hunting camo trying to deer hunt with an assault rifle. Wow my imagination.
The policeman in the school thing? I totally getting were you are coming from Matts. I was a different kind of child though. I was raised with policemen and firefighters in my own family so I knew from a young age they are there to protect me and make me feel safe. I could see a child freaking out and not able to concentrate with it though. Kids learn to associate police with "there's something wrong" rather than "I'm safe". But on the other hand recently a man in another county attacked kids at school with a knife so it seems it all comes back to practically anything can be made into a weapon. That doesn't dismiss your good point though in my eyes by any means. Also Matts, I want to respectfully ask you what you mean by are childrens lives worth pride. I think I am missunderstanding this point and I want to make sure I am understanding your statement correctly.
I remember being a little kid in school and a child getting expelled for bringing a lighter to school and you have other children that bring guns to school. To me the responsiblity still lies with adults who do not use the tool correctly. Not one responsible gun owner will have a loaded or any weapon available were children can reach them or access them. But this is another point entirely.
Last edited by Shirleythebetta; 01-13-2013 at 01:43 PM.
I agree about the assault weapons-DQ-and background checks are needed, however, when a bad guys wants a gun-she/he gets a gun-A background check isn't going to stop them, nor will it stop a person with mental health problems and as posted earlier, in some cases a gun isn't the choice weapon anyway.
But what is the answer.....its a sad world when you can't feel safe or you feel you need an armed guard everyplace you go or to allow your kids to go outside and play, walk to school, the park...etc.....Its a different world today than it was when I was child..........
an armed and armored population is the only cure for a corrupt government (more of a reiteration, every government is corrupt by its nature) i'm DEFINITELY against anything that takes away someone's ability to fight back when the hammer is dropped. connecticut is just way too convenient for the power-hungry: they've seen for over a decade how the people have gotten restless, and now that lone idiot is just the scapegoat they need to effectively declaw and neuter the proletariat. i have a right to carry a gun, and no amendment, law or permit gave me that right. i have a right to my freedom, and it was given to me by my birth, not by a constitution. every law can be overturned, every ruler can be dethroned, and every nation can and MUST fall before people can truly be free. your patriotism is misplaced, you owe no allegiance to a nation, but to yourself, your family, your friends and your humanity. accept no tyrants, and you can taste the freedom that has so long been denied you.
Well to get technical an assault weapon is weapon capable of firing fully automatic. The general public without a type 2 or us it 3 weapons permit. These guns cost thousands of dollars. An AR15 is a rifle that is made to look like a military weapon, but it is made for civilians it is not military weaponry. If you want to ban by looks, are we going to ban something just because it looks different. Weren't people told not to judge books by their cover? Anyways there are millions of semi automatic weapons in wood stocks that function the same way as an AR15 or an AK, and they can shoot a bigger bullet and can shoot just as fast, yet because these have a wooden stock or font look tactical it is fine. Once something is "tactical" it gets banned?
In a city a weapon for home defense would be a pistol or a shot gun, not an AR15, but remember there are ranchers that need a weapon as they can deal with armed trespassers, like in Texas (illegals that may harm them and have multiple people) they need something that has some ranch and it can shoot at a decent rate. These guns can only shoot as fast as a you can pull your finger, usually 60 rounds per minute max.
I strongly recommend anyone that wants to learn a bit more about why a rancher would need a gun like an AR15 I strongly recommend going on YouTube and watch Ratedrr video on gun control, it should be one of his recent ones.
Remember like prohibition some things sound great, but it just gives criminals the upper hand.
Like kfryman has stated there is a difference between an "Assault weapon" and the look alikes they sell. There is actually a law on the books already banning the sale of machine guns and weapons that contain the ability to fire full auto. However if you own one already or it was given to you or willed to you you can.
And while banning high capacity magazines sounds great, it will do nothing for one reason. I can carry on my person 20 magazines easily and switch them fast. As a matter of fact I can buy combat vests that have pockets specifically for this.
And shirleythebetta, you have it right! That's exactly how many bullets it takes to kill anything. All weapons are dangerous in skilled hands. Take a look at the carcano rifle, a bolt action that fires 6 6.5x52 mm bullets, by no means an assault rifle yet Lee Harvey Oswald (an ex marine) used it to kill president Kennedy from quite a distance and got off 3 shots in quick succession. So just because something fires a lot of bullets doesn't mean a thing. There is also a law on the books already banning the carrying of a loaded weapon, even with a CCL, that contains more than 20 bullets in the magazine/chamber.
Not to mention the fact no one seems to be interested in shotguns, considering Keltec sells one that has a 16 shot capacity.
My last argument concerns the "need" of assault weapons. So do we need them? My answer is no, at least not yet. It is the tradition of the states to have a standing militia, which is of course composed of it's citizens.
Edit: Also this probably the most calm and level headed debate on this subject I've seen of late. So good job to you all for keeping your cool! :D
Also this probably the most calm and level headed debate on this subject I've seen of late. So good job to you all for keeping your cool! :D
It is, before posting I made sure it was okay to post as some political threads are like WWIII. That is why I wanted to list rules and stuff just in case. It is really hard though because it is such a charged topic.
At the Virginia Tech Shooting, what ever his name (He doesn't deserve attention so there is no point in me looking his name up because of what he did, which he wanted lol) had a bunch of loaded magazines, none were 30 rounds I think they were 10 and 15 round mags I could be wrong. The problem is, these people spend a lot of time thinking these kinds of things through, enough time to obtain all the things they need, and also train so they become familiar and can reload in a decent time frame. It is sad, but until you do something that watches these people and put alerts on them, there is nothing we can really do. Criminals really do get what they want if they need it that bad.
For the CT shooting, didn't they say that they found the AR15 in the car? There is conflicting info, but there is a video where they pulled it out of the car. I would think he wouldn't be bale to go put it back in the car before he killed himself.
Okay I just discovered something http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/20...k-media-myths/ I watched the video. Okay so they said he used two pistols, and an AR15 do do the dirty deed (Sandy Hook Shooting). Then Today said there was no Ar15 and it was in the trunk and he used 4 pistols. But if you watch the video linked all the way through, or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc you will see something. The police officer removed a weapon from the trunk, but he checked if it had any rounds in it by the side, an AR you would do it from the rear, also a shotgun shell can be seen coming out, NOT a .223 Media does suck.