First Prev
of 5
Next Last
come in

Columbus, OH

#1 Dec 27, 2012
Does anyone really need a machine gun
downtown

Pittsburgh, PA

#2 Dec 28, 2012
come in wrote:
Does anyone really need a machine gun
Well you can't own or buy a machine gun. Unless you do it illegally or you spend a lot of money to do so.
Biff Tannen

Heath, OH

#3 Dec 28, 2012
There are tens of millions of assault rifles in America. Because the definition of an assault rifle has been rather fuzzy, the number can be said to be anywhere from 10 million to 30 million. Of those, the AR-15 type is fairly common with numbers between 5 and 10 million.

The FBI murder statistics do not differentiate between types of rifles. There are about 100 million rifles in the United States. In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.

So why is the left so intent on banning rifles that are the most suitable for militia use (clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution), when they are used so rarely in murder? Banning baseball bats would make more sense, yet would be nearly as senseless.

It is this disassociation from facts and reality that lead many ordinary people to believe that when their government works to disarm them, it is up to no good.
come on

Columbus, OH

#4 Dec 28, 2012
No reason anyone needs a assault rifle. None. And thousands of rounds of ammo is ridiculous. The government knows if you have a fishing license but God forbid if they know you have a assault rifle. Anybody that's a law abiding gun owner wouldn't care
Biff Tannen

Heath, OH

#5 Dec 28, 2012
The development of the rifle known today as the AR-15 started in 1956. The strategy to ban it was unveiled in 1988.

At that time, Josh Sugarmann, former communications director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, pointed out in a strategy paper that the media had grown tired of the handgun issue, but “assault weapons” would be novel to them.

Further, he added in the memo,“The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons”(“Assault Weapons and Accessories in America,” Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New Right Watch, Sept. 1988).

Sugarmann was exactly right. The gun prohibition groups successfully created and then exploited public confusion. In 1989, California was the first state to ban so-called “assault rifles” or “assault weapons.” The gun-banners did not use the term “assault rifle” in the proper technical sense—that is, an intermediate power combat rifle that has a selector switch so that the gun can fire either automatically or semi-automatically. Instead, the prohibitionists tricked legislatures into banning guns that could only fire as semi-autos, but which looked like selective-fire military rifles.

Fast Forward.......

Over the next several years, bans on the AR-15 and many other semi-auto rifles were enacted in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. The signature “achievement” of Bill Clinton’s first term as president was a national ban in 1994, prohibiting the manufacture of these firearms with their usual features such as adjustable stocks and flash suppressors.

The Clinton ban had a “sunset clause,” so it expired in 2004. As firearm manufacturers resumed production of these guns in their original form, the gun prohibition groups predicted mass carnage. Of course, the predictions never came true. The AR-15 and similar guns had rarely been used in crime before the ban, and criminal misuse remained rare after 2004.

The AR-15 has become very popular with law-abiding citizens. By 2007, even The New York Times wrote that the AR-15 and similar guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”(Andrew Park,“A Hot-Selling Weapon, an Inviting Target,” June 3, 2007). In response to consumer demand, nearly a half million AR-15-type rifles were manufactured in the United States in 2009. These days, you can even buy one at Wal-Mart, which is a pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products.

Yet, the prohibitionists have convinced tens of millions of people that the AR-15 is some sort of ultra-powerful firearm that is meant to be spray-fired from the hip, for rapidly slaughtering people.

In truth, the AR-15 is at the low end of power among rifles. And when you pull the trigger, it only fires one round.
Biff Tannen

Heath, OH

#6 Dec 28, 2012
come on wrote:
No reason anyone needs a assault rifle. None. And thousands of rounds of ammo is ridiculous. The government knows if you have a fishing license but God forbid if they know you have a assault rifle. Anybody that's a law abiding gun owner wouldn't care
A government database of weapons owners would negate the whole purpose of the Second Amendment. The Amendment would be rendered impotent and meaningless. Ditto for some kind of limit on the number of rounds of ammunition a citizen can possess.
Trollin

Gallipolis, OH

#7 Dec 28, 2012
Still doesnt trump the fact that countries that have banned guns have less gun crime.
?

Pickerington, OH

#8 Dec 28, 2012
It doesn't help to ban guns because criminals don't care about the law. Why do you think there are drugs still flowing on the street!
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#9 Dec 28, 2012
Trollin wrote:
Still doesnt trump the fact that countries that have banned guns have less gun crime.
Yeah it's working great for Mexico.

The people can't own guns. The police and army work for the highest bidders which are the cartels. Why do you think the country is in such turmoil and the cartels stay in power? The people have no means of defense. No means of an uprising. Take away our rights and watch our border states turn into Mexico in a matter of months.

I believe the emperor of Japan said it best when he said you could never invade the United States because there would be a rifle hiding behind every blade of grass. There is much truth to that. The government knows that as well. Which is why they want to get rid of assault rifles. When the government wants to control the people, having them armed with pistols and shotguns vs automatic rifles will be easier than meeting them on even ground. One need only look at the more anti gun states to see how great gun control works at decreasing crime.
Trollin

Gallipolis, OH

#10 Dec 28, 2012
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah it's working great for Mexico.
The people can't own guns. The police and army work for the highest bidders which are the cartels. Why do you think the country is in such turmoil and the cartels stay in power? The people have no means of defense. No means of an uprising. Take away our rights and watch our border states turn into Mexico in a matter of months.
I believe the emperor of Japan said it best when he said you could never invade the United States because there would be a rifle hiding behind every blade of grass. There is much truth to that. The government knows that as well. Which is why they want to get rid of assault rifles. When the government wants to control the people, having them armed with pistols and shotguns vs automatic rifles will be easier than meeting them on even ground. One need only look at the more anti gun states to see how great gun control works at decreasing crime.
You do of course realize that most of these guns and weapons come from America. You can't have one state make something illegal and expect it to not come in from the surrounding states.
I mean if everyone having weapons in a country guarantees security then Somalia and Afghanistan Should be the most secure places on the planet.
I'm taking global ban. Massive confiscations and providing reimbursements of the current market value of the guns to those who turn the guns in willingly. Melt them all down.
The only good use for a gun is to shoot another person with a gun. But without a gun to begin with then you don't have that. Of course they could use something else but the kill count will be significantly less. Take the stabbing in china for instance. The person couldn't get a gun so they used a knife. Sure they stabbed 22 people but nobody died. That outcome is worth not having to worry about getting shot by some lunatic from an overpass.
come on

Columbus, OH

#11 Dec 29, 2012
I doubt in 1776 anyone could fathom semi automatic weapons. My God nobody is taking your guns
Hopeless

United States

#12 Dec 29, 2012
Trollin wrote:
Still doesnt trump the fact that countries that have banned guns have less gun crime.
True and there citizens have nearly any say so in there day to day life's. They also have no way to protect them selves if any thing ever happens. Also we need to remember that one resin we have not ben invade on American soil is because there is a gun behind every blade of grass. It's not just the military but the citizens that they have to watch out for.
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#13 Dec 29, 2012
Trollin wrote:
<quoted text>
You do of course realize that most of these guns and weapons come from America. You can't have one state make something illegal and expect it to not come in from the surrounding states.
I mean if everyone having weapons in a country guarantees security then Somalia and Afghanistan Should be the most secure places on the planet.
I'm taking global ban. Massive confiscations and providing reimbursements of the current market value of the guns to those who turn the guns in willingly. Melt them all down.
The only good use for a gun is to shoot another person with a gun. But without a gun to begin with then you don't have that. Of course they could use something else but the kill count will be significantly less. Take the stabbing in china for instance. The person couldn't get a gun so they used a knife. Sure they stabbed 22 people but nobody died. That outcome is worth not having to worry about getting shot by some lunatic from an overpass.
Yeah because the criminals will turn their guns in too right?
You're either truly trolling or you're just a naive idiot. Either way if you don't like guns don't own one. And don't call the police. They carry those damn things too.

Mexico has some the strictest gun laws. Look at what they did to the marine from the US who tried to legally bring an antique firearm into their country. Yeah those strict gun laws are really working. The crooked cops there look the other way for their friends, but if a citizen had a gun they'd confiscate it and either execute or imprison the poor person for the rest of their life.
merle

United States

#14 Dec 29, 2012
A man who would trade his liberty for some illusion of security deserves neither. The goofy liberals gave us gun free zones like schools and look what happened. And now that some mental defect has killed some kids do they admit how idiotic they are? Nope, they want to ban the gun he used.
come on

Columbus, OH

#16 Dec 29, 2012
I say if you have a semi auto weapon you have to have a permit for each one. Trained on it as well. Take the permit money and put into training and mental health.
come on

Columbus, OH

#18 Dec 29, 2012
Gun totn morons think everyone is tryn to take your guns And arm the teachers Stupid. So a kid could get the weapon and over power teacher or kids or a teacher get pissed and pull there weapon out. Morons
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#19 Dec 29, 2012
Kelly Finney wrote:
<quoted text> They would have been a threat to the central government. Why? Because power breeds abuse of power.
So the same government won't abuse their power? Are you that naive?

Do you think we should also do away with the 4th and 5th amendment since they are antiques as well?
VADoc

Warrenville, SC

#20 Dec 29, 2012
come on wrote:
I say if you have a semi auto weapon you have to have a permit for each one. Trained on it as well. Take the permit money and put into training and mental health.
Then you would need a permit for any gun besides a muzzle loader or break down shotgun.

Yet you would scream like a banshee if they re-enacted Jim Crow laws to keep minorities or the poor from owning weapons.

That's what the politicians want. They want to have armed guards and the average citizen to have no way to defend themselves. They want a return to feudal society. I love how democrats and liberals paint the rich as evil, but refuse to see the hypocrisy that most of the liberals you blindly follow have armed guards, pay little to no taxes, donate little to charity, are the 1%, and wouldn't piss on you to put you out if you were on fire, yet you side with them.

What will you do if society breaks down like when hurricane Katrina hit? You will be begging for protection from your neighbors who have guns to protect themselves or have supplies stored. You will plan to mooch off others to survive. Good luck.
come on

Columbus, OH

#21 Dec 29, 2012
If you go to a fun show you can get what you want. It's ridiculous Nobody needs a high powered semi automatic weapon. You cant hunt with it. I think people want them because they need a big weapon to make up for the small brain
Trollin

Gallipolis, OH

#23 Dec 29, 2012
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah because the criminals will turn their guns in too right?
You're either truly trolling or you're just a naive idiot. Either way if you don't like guns don't own one. And don't call the police. They carry those damn things too.
Mexico has some the strictest gun laws. Look at what they did to the marine from the US who tried to legally bring an antique firearm into their country. Yeah those strict gun laws are really working. The crooked cops there look the other way for their friends, but if a citizen had a gun they'd confiscate it and either execute or imprison the poor person for the rest of their life.
You missed the point of "willingly". Searches and confiscations would happen also.
Also your example shows a lack of enforcement. Not an ineffective law.
Again your also implying that cops with guns really make a situation safe by simply shooting more guns. I've seen people get pretty messed up from a few flash bangs. Mostly non lethal, disorients the shooter, and you get him alive. Seems like much better option then "we shot him guys!"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gallipolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
river rat 6 hr Not too shabby 2
Blue Devil basketball (Aug '15) 9 hr We have passion 208
No more Bob Evans Farm 22 hr tiby 12
PORTSMOUTH 64 ghs 60 footbaLL.... Sat Huh 5
*game* keep a word drop a word (Mar '13) Sat Tim 390
Need female DTF now Sat Mouffoy 2
Hey austin Sat Mmm 1

Gallipolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gallipolis Mortgages