Obama calls for measures against gun violence. - Page 3

Obama calls for measures against gun violence.

This is a discussion on Obama calls for measures against gun violence. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Burns You have a vehicle that is capable of going over the speed limit, but if you do, you'll get in trouble. ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67
Like Tree83Likes

Thread: Obama calls for measures against gun violence.

  1. #31
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Burns View Post
    You have a vehicle that is capable of going over the speed limit, but if you do, you'll get in trouble. They are not restricting all vehicles that are capable of going over the speed limit, but instead, punishing the people who decide to abuse it.
    Good Analogy
    beararms likes this.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    An AK-47 is no more lethal than a 30-06 hunting rifle. 30-06 is limited to 5 round magazines but an experience shooter can change these out quickly. The AR-15 in Colorado jammed, so the failure of bigger magazine did not stop the killing. Instead a .40 Glock handgun and an .870 shotgun used by hunters were used instead. It seems those 'common' guns killed as efficiently as those 'scary' ones.

    Banning the AK-47 will do NOTHING to prevent crimes like this.
    beararms and DefConGun like this.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,033
    I know we've all seen this one before but....

    Here's a "good measue against gun violence..." Armed Homeowner Shoots Robbers During Daytime Invasion (AZ) - YouTube

    In this guy's little world, the S DID HTF. So until it's guaranteed that you can't ever go up against multiple armed BGs, then they can't tell me that limiting my weapons is ever a good measure. Keep the focus on the violence and the criminal and we'll be on the right track.
    beararms likes this.
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,401
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    So, I like the bit at the end about 'criminals, fugitives, and mentally unbalanced people'...
    How the "unbalanced" are going to come to the attention of law enforcement prior to acquisition of common tools used by everyone else is beyond me, short of invasive, unconstitutional scans of the internet/phone feeds for all. Such criminal/fugitive/unbalanced checks won't stop the bulk of violent criminals from acquiring what they want, let alone the loose-cannons like the theatre murderer. Therein lies the futility of such hubris.
    beararms likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #35
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    One of the big reasons we didn't lose the Revolutionary War? - We had similar/identical weaponry on both sides. You can't win a war using nothing but bolt action rifles and .32 revolvers. (Well, China probably could... )

    If we ever need to be able to 'defend ourselves from the government' in a physical way, we will need 'assault type' (semi-auto) rifles. ..at least until we can get their 'assault' rifles that are full auto. (But, I probably wouldn't want one of those- I'd waste too much ammo) I can understand not wanting civilians to have full auto weapons, but that doesn't mean that ALL of them should be banned.

    On the same note, I don't think stupid people should procreate. Hasn't stopped them. If anything, they're getting worse. I also think that 90% of the people I see driving 'trucks' and SUVs shouldn't even have driver's licenses. Doesn't make any difference. When the government starts limiting things like that- since more people do more damage with an SUV they can't drive than almost ANYONE with a gun- then I will be MUCH more accepting of 'gun control' regulations. As it stands...




    I think any statement that goes "I can understand not wanting civilians to have............ weapons" is part of the problem. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! I wish I could include the four letter words that accompanied that statement when it was in my head.
    beararms likes this.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    “A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals...”

    In other news, Kalashnikov proudly announced their surprise upset in the US Army's Individual Carbine competition.

  7. #37
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by keboostman View Post
    I agree that nothing will happen before the election, but I also agree with the President that AK-47s and the like serve no useful purpose in civilian hands. Yes, I know that some people like shooting them, but just because we like doing something does not mean it should be legal. I like driving 100mph in my car, but I do comprehend why it is not legal to do so--at least in VA. One has to balance the risks with the gain. To me it's like yelling "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater; not covered by freedom of speech. AK-47s, AR-15s and 100 round magazines should not be covered by the Second Amendment IMHO.
    So then only some of our freedoms are important to you. I guess the oath I took when I joined the navy should only apply to the parts of the constitution that you personally have use for. I own an AR 15 and you coming on this forum (a major gun thread searchable by anyone including antis) undermining my freedom by providing ammunition to the people who would have my freedoms on a pyre is a personal affront to me. If the tone of this reply is furious to the point of fuming, you're reading it correctly so there's no misunderstanding of my feelings of your statement.

  8. #38
    Ex Member Array oldrwizr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Durham, N.C.
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    So then only some of our freedoms are important to you. I guess the oath I took when I joined the navy should only apply to the parts of the constitution that you personally have use for. I own an AR 15 and you coming on this forum (a major gun thread searchable by anyone including antis) undermining my freedom by providing ammunition to the people who would have my freedoms on a pyre is a personal affront to me. If the tone of this reply is furious to the point of fuming, you're reading it correctly so there's no misunderstanding of my feelings of your statement.
    You don't need people with reasonable views on this forum to provide ammo for the anti's. You extremists do a great job of that all by yourselves.

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by oldrwizr View Post
    You don't need people with reasonable views on this forum to provide ammo for the anti's. You extremists do a great job of that all by yourselves.
    this was the third idiotic post in 2 days from someone on a gun forum trying to undermine what the vast majority of us believe in. You like 9mm over 45 we can discuss and I may or may not agree. You want to carry unchambered? Your choice and we can discuss, hey at least your carrying. You want to undermine my rights to which I devoted 8 years of my life to I am very tempted to take the points for not so politely informing you that you have the wrong forum.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    To reduce gun violence we should remove those who do it from society, permanently.

    Michael
    The Old Anglo likes this.

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by oldrwizr View Post
    You don't need people with reasonable views on this forum to provide ammo for the anti's. You extremists do a great job of that all by yourselves.
    By "extremists" I assume you mean Patriots, and those who believe in the Constitution as it was written.
    Those of us who would prefer to keep our rights rather than surrender them.
    beararms and W9HDG like this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  12. #42
    Distinguished Member Array RevolvingMag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC- Across Town From Where All the Homicides Happen
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    I think any statement that goes "I can understand not wanting civilians to have............ weapons" is part of the problem. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! I wish I could include the four letter words that accompanied that statement when it was in my head.
    Calm down, Doodle. Read what BigStick said- that is how I meant it. Not that it shouldn't be legal, but what does the average citizen need it for? The same with a Howitzer; what could anyone possibly need a Howitzer for that isn't military?

    I would LOVE it if full auto weapons were legal, and available- heck, I would have three or four. But I wouldn't have any use for it other than a show piece when I go to the rifle range. And, if everyone with a gun had one that was capable of full auto I think ammo prices would skyrocket. Is that something you would like? Instead of ~$12 for a bag of 50 reloaded .38spl wadcutters, it's ~$40-$50 because brass and lead have gotten so expensive from everybody going full auto all the time? I for one have enough trouble affording the $12 bag of ammo.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    No, I don't think that civilians need, or should have nuclear weapons, or ballistic missile submarines, etc... Some things are less clear though. The 2A only specifically authorizes "arms" which in the language of the period refered to handheld, personal weapons (which include knives and swords, but that is a whole other thread to discuss all of the restrictions on those). It does not include ordinance or artillary. I'm not saying I think those things should be banned, just that they are not explicitly protected by the 2A.

    Honestly, I am not 100% sure where I think the line should be drawn, and I understand both sides of the argument about allowing larger, more advanced weapons(automatics, explosives, rockets, tanks) with restrictions and a permitting process. But I do feel that the line has been pushed too far in the wrong direction, and will fight it getting pushed any further over our rights and responsibilities as citizens.

    To provide for National Defense, the government needs advanced technology. We just need to be able to keep the means to keep them in check.
    "Rock and load, lock and roll... what's it matter? FIRE!!"

    "Gun control means hitting your target every time."

    Please take everything I say with at least one grain of salt- I am a very sarcastic person with a very dry sense of humor.

  13. #43
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolvingMag View Post
    Calm down, Doodle. Read what BigStick said- that is how I meant it. Not that it shouldn't be legal, but what does the average citizen need it for? The same with a Howitzer; what could anyone possibly need a Howitzer for that isn't military?

    I would LOVE it if full auto weapons were legal, and available- heck, I would have three or four. But I wouldn't have any use for it other than a show piece when I go to the rifle range. And, if everyone with a gun had one that was capable of full auto I think ammo prices would skyrocket. Is that something you would like? Instead of ~$12 for a bag of 50 reloaded .38spl wadcutters, it's ~$40-$50 because brass and lead have gotten so expensive from everybody going full auto all the time? I for one have enough trouble affording the $12 bag of ammo.
    blood pressures coming down and your statement didn't bother me so much. The one after sent me into an absolute rage.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,401
    Quote Originally Posted by keboostman View Post
    I like driving 100mph in my car, but I do comprehend why it is not legal to do so--at least in VA. One has to balance the risks with the gain. To me it's like yelling "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater; not covered by freedom of speech. AK-47s, AR-15s and 100 round magazines should not be covered by the Second Amendment IMHO.
    You still have the freedom to have that 500hp car, and you still have the freedom to speak the words "Fire!" in the proverbial theatre. What a person doesn't have the right to do, and where the infraction occurs, is to put other lives at risk in the employment of those rights. Limitations on the direct harm caused to others (via assault/disturbance/related statutes) is in no way a conflict with these other codified rights.

    But going after those who commit harm with the tool isn't what anti-gunners are speaking of when they're dictating terms in contravention of the 2A by proposing criminalizing the tool, disallowing certain sizes/types/features of tool. Apples and oranges, it seems to me.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; July 27th, 2012 at 03:25 AM. Reason: spelen, gramur
    beararms likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #45
    Distinguished Member
    Array accessbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,406
    I own an AK because at times like natural disasters, or possible breakdown of society, I want something that can defend my family better than the alternatives. So, yes, normal citizens DO have a valid reason to carry. It is just that most people do not want to even think of those types of scenarios.
    mprp, beararms, W9HDG and 1 others like this.
    EDC - M&P Shield .40 OR Ruger SR1911 CMD AND
    Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
    Member - SAF, OFF,
    NRA Life Member

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

against gun laws

,
ak 47 will they become illegal
,
are ak47s going to become illegal
,

ccw laws

,

gun laws and gun deaths

,
images of why guns should not be banned
,
obama calls for measures against gun violence
,

suzanna hupp

,
the washington times obama calls for measures against gun violence
,
topics on being for or against guns
,

when did ak-47s become illegal

,

why is it bad to ban assault rifles

,
will handguns become illegal
,
will my ak47 become illigal
,

will the ak47 become illegal

Click on a term to search for related topics.