The Great Gun Debate

[BigJim13]

Shotguns with no butt section, banned also.

 

[nututhugame]

I would propose a ban on automatic, semi automatic weapons and handguns. The list would include any rifle or shotgun that would fire repeatedly simply by pulling the trigger. So, a 30-06 that has a 10 shot clip that is semi automatic is now illegal. A bolt/lever action hunting rifle would not be banned. Any weapon with more than a 5 shot capacity, banned. If you can't kill a deer with 5 shots, you don't belong in the woods.

And once you have that on paper, how do you actually get all of those guns on the list out of homes and off the streets? You would effectively be saying that all of the sudden millions of people are criminals because of the guns they own. That'd go over like a fart in church.

 

[BigJim13]

And once you have that on paper, how do you actually get all of those guns on the list out of homes and off the streets? You would effectively be saying that all of the sudden millions of people are criminals because of the guns they own. That'd go over like a fart in church.

Good question. The logistics could be worked out later, doesn't matter though its not going to happen. In a few weeks this will blow over and be forgotten until the next shooting and we will have this discussion again. That may be the worst part, nothing good will come of this, I fear.

 

[eclark53520]

You're talking nonsense now. How do you propose to do any of what you said? It's impossible. Just give up the guns, it's simple.

Being a decent human being and respect is now nonsense. No wonder we're in this mess.

 

[nututhugame]

Good question. The logistics could be worked out later, doesn't matter though its not going to happen. In a few weeks this will blow over and be forgotten until the next shooting and we will have this discussion again. That may be the worst part, nothing good will come of this, I fear.

I have a feeling this one wont blow over quickly. I think it wont be long before Obama tries to "do something about it". Problem is, this isn't a problem the government can fix.

 

[BigJim13]

I have a feeling this one wont blow over quickly. I think it wont be long before Obama tries to "do something about it". Problem is, this isn't a problem the government can fix.

I agree, but who does fix it then?

 

[Wi-Golfer]

I would propose a ban on automatic, semi automatic weapons and handguns. The list would include any rifle or shotgun that would fire repeatedly simply by pulling the trigger. So, a 30-06 that has a 10 shot clip that is semi automatic is now illegal. A bolt/lever action hunting rifle would not be banned. Any weapon with more than a 5 shot capacity, banned. If you can't kill a deer with 5 shots, you don't belong in the woods.

Seriously that's your answer? So my 12 gauge pump shotgun is good to go then? Holds 5 rds and I guarantee if needed I can unload that thing pretty damn quickly and reloading is fast as well.

And why a 5 shot max? It would be ok if I could only kill 5 but 6 would put me over the limit?

As far as your automatic weapons ban, that's already in place and has been for a long long time.

If it weren't for private citizens in this country owning guns we would still be under British rule, the priavte ownership of guns is fundamental to our nations very roots.

 

[BigJim13]

Seriously that's your answer? So my 12 gauge pump shotgun is good to go then? Holds 5 rds and I guarantee if needed I can unload that thing pretty damn quickly and reloading is fast as well.

And why a 5 shot max? It would be ok if I could only kill 5 but 6 would put me over the limit?

As far as your automatic weapons ban, that's already in place and has been for a long long time.

If it weren't for private citizens in this country owning guns we would still be under British rule, the priavte ownership of guns is fundamental to our nations very roots.

I knew pump shotguns would come up, wasn't sure how to handle them so wanted to give it some thought.

I get what your saying about citizens and the British, things have changed a lot in the last 250 years and as much as gun owners would like to think it, nobody is overthrowing our government anytime soon.

Also, keep in mind that those citizens owned guns to live. They were more of a tool then than they are now. No gun=no food. Now, that is not the case. They didn't own weapons in case the government got out of hand.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

I knew pump shotguns would come up, wasn't sure how to handle them so wanted to give it some thought.

I get what your saying about citizens and the British, things have changed a lot in the last 250 years and as much as gun owners would like to think it, nobody is overthrowing our government anytime soon.

Also, keep in mind that those citizens owned guns to live. They were more of a tool then than they are now. No gun=no food. Now, that is not the case. They didn't own weapons in case the government got out of hand.

I wouldn't rule out overthrow of the government, you never know what will happen. Has happened in quite a few other countries. What would actually stop a massive uprising? Military use? Good luck with that one, as any President of this country ever decides to use the military against it's own citizens will be in for a rude awakening.

 

[eclark53520]

I knew pump shotguns would come up, wasn't sure how to handle them so wanted to give it some thought.

I get what your saying about citizens and the British, things have changed a lot in the last 250 years and as much as gun owners would like to think it, nobody is overthrowing our government anytime soon.

Also, keep in mind that those citizens owned guns to live. They were more of a tool then than they are now. No gun=no food. Now, that is not the case. They didn't own weapons in case the government got out of hand.

Really? So they didn't fight the British to gain our independence? I suppose they just threw rocks?

 

[nututhugame]

I wouldn't rule out overthrow of the government, you never know what will happen. Has happened in quite a few other countries. What would actually stop a massive uprising? Military use? Good luck with that one, as any President of this country ever decides to use the military against it's own citizens will be in for a rude awakening.

Being a voluntary military, if it really got to the point of a real uprising, I doubt seriously that the military would even act against it's own people even if ordered by any president. The members of the military are the people too, and this is not a totalitarian dictatorship. The members of our military don't have to worry about being slaughtered for refusing to kill it's own citizens.

 

[BigJim13]

Really? So they didn't fight the British to gain our independence? I suppose they just threw rocks?

Read what I wrote again.

"I get what your saying about the British" was what I wrote in response to what Wi said about us against the British.

I find the argument of gun ownership so we can overthrow the government a bit ridiculous though, but whatever.

 

[eclark53520]

It was owned legally by his mother, and yes he stole it, but it was legally owned in his household which made it easier for him to get.

Don't tell me to educate myself either, I think you have apologized once for being condescending, lets not go there again.

If his mother was unable to own a Glock and a Sig Suaer, one with a 15 shot clip and the other with a 17 shot clip (who needs that?) than those kids would be alive today.

I know you don't want to admit that, but that's the reality of this situation.

There was nothing condescending about that comment. Nothing. You admitted you're ignorant of the current laws, I suggested that you educate yourself.

How are we supposed to have an educated debate when people refuse to educate themselves?

Also, those pistols take magazines, not clips.

 

[eclark53520]

Read what I wrote again.

"I get what your saying about the British" was what I wrote in response to what Wi said about us against the British.

I find the argument of gun ownership so we can overthrow the government a bit ridiculous though, but whatever.

Read it several times...it still says they didn't own weapons in case the government got out of hand....which is exactly why they owned weapons...

Sure they fed themselves with them. They wouldn't have added the second amendment if they didn't believe weapons were something the citizens of this country needed.

The thought of overthrowing the government is ridiculous until you realize you need to.

 

[eclark53520]

That's the point! The regulation you speak of is clearly an inadequate measure. Guns shouldn't be in the hands of the public, they're to emotional, irrational and unstable generally speaking to be responsible for something that is designed to take life. That's also why bringing car crash deaths in as a comparison is fundamentally flawed, because a cars primary role is transportation, not to kill.

Yes, lets make something that's already illegal, more illegal. That's not a rational thought process.

They broke the law. Lets make a law that makes it illegal to break the law....That will stop them!