What you gun nuts look like to us nor...
Anon

Herndon, PA

#21 Jan 22, 2013
How are our constitutional rights being violated? I am a gun owner and I can buy another gun or all the ammo I want. I can keep my guns and, if I apply for a concealed carry permit (I already have the training), I can carry a gun on my person except in a very few places. I can target shoot as much as I want and, I can hunt if I wish. I can keep a loaded gun beside my bed for protection if I wish. In short, I have the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution.

I agree that the right to own guns should be reasonably regulated. Some regulation has been in place for years and we don't complain. We cannot own a fully automatic weapon, a bazooka, or a rocket launcher. We cannot own a shotgun with a barrel less than 18". We cannot purchase a gun from a dealer without a background check and certainly not if we are a felon.

So many people are screaming about their constitutional rights being violated but no one is proposing taking away your right to own a gun, if you are a rational, law-abiding citizen.
Redneck

Kingsland, GA

#22 Jan 23, 2013
Anon, can you tell me what the phrase "shall not be infringed upon" means?

Seem like it has something to do with the right to keep or bear arms!
Anon

Herndon, PA

#23 Jan 23, 2013
Redneck wrote:
Anon, can you tell me what the phrase "shall not be infringed upon" means?
Seem like it has something to do with the right to keep or bear arms!
I believe that you and I have the right to own and lawfully use guns.

Do you feel that the constitution grants every US citizen the right to own any weapon he or she wishes without any restriction?
paul b

Herndon, PA

#24 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that you and I have the right to own and lawfully use guns.
Do you feel that the constitution grants every US citizen the right to own any weapon he or she wishes without any restriction?
Yes, if that peron has not given up that right by breaking the law.
I feel that I have the right to own any type of gun that I'm allowed to purchase bullets for. Because any gangs or theifs are gonna get the most poerful guns they can buy bullets for.
Redneck

Kingsland, GA

#25 Jan 23, 2013
Anon: "Do you feel that the constitution grants every US citizen the right to own any weapon he or she wishes without any restriction?"

The short answer is no. That being said there must be a compelling reason to take ones constitutional right to own a weapon away. I believe that a person can lose his right to own a gun when they committ a serious crime with a weapon. There are other reasons such as having serious mental issues, but to arbitrarily bar or require a person to register a weapon is unconstitutional in my opinion!
Redneck

Kingsland, GA

#26 Jan 23, 2013
Here is some good info on "assault" weapons.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#27 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that you and I have the right to own and lawfully use guns.
Do you feel that the constitution grants every US citizen the right to own any weapon he or she wishes without any restriction?
As long as they do not use the weapon to commit other crimes, yes, I do believe it allows the private citizen to own any weapon of their choosing without ANY interaction with the government.
Anon

Saint Marys, GA

#28 Jan 23, 2013
Guns are not the problem. It is those that are in government pushing for gun control that have put us in this mess. The real problem is being avoided and delayed because there no solution to the out of control debt.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#29 Jan 23, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as they do not use the weapon to commit other crimes, yes, I do believe it allows the private citizen to own any weapon of their choosing without ANY interaction with the government.
Do you believe that a private citizen should have the right to own a "machine gun", a bazooka or an anti-tank weapon? How about a shoulder launched ground to air rocket launcher? I am not trying to be a wise-ass. I, personally do not think these weapons should be in the hands of private individuals and I am trying to determine your opinion.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#30 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
Guns are not the problem. It is those that are in government pushing for gun control that have put us in this mess. The real problem is being avoided and delayed because there no solution to the out of control debt.
Debt has nothing to do with it.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#31 Jan 23, 2013
Redneck wrote:
Anon: "Do you feel that the constitution grants every US citizen the right to own any weapon he or she wishes without any restriction?"
The short answer is no. That being said there must be a compelling reason to take ones constitutional right to own a weapon away. I believe that a person can lose his right to own a gun when they committ a serious crime with a weapon. There are other reasons such as having serious mental issues, but to arbitrarily bar or require a person to register a weapon is unconstitutional in my opinion!
I can't disagree with that. My point is, as a reasonably sane, law-abiding gun owner, I do not feel that my rights are being violated or threatened.

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#32 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that a private citizen should have the right to own a "machine gun", a bazooka or an anti-tank weapon? How about a shoulder launched ground to air rocket launcher? I am not trying to be a wise-ass. I, personally do not think these weapons should be in the hands of private individuals and I am trying to determine your opinion.
Not sure about surface to air missiles but I don't see why not. The same for RPGs.

This is, of course, predicated on my prior caveat concerning them not being used for criminal purposes.
UR CRAZY

Herndon, PA

#33 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that a private citizen should have the right to own a "machine gun", a bazooka or an anti-tank weapon? How about a shoulder launched ground to air rocket launcher? I am not trying to be a wise-ass. I, personally do not think these weapons should be in the hands of private individuals and I am trying to determine your opinion.
Do you think that because idiots killed with guns we should take guns away from everyone. What if these idiots took a car and ran it into a playground 3 or 4 times. Would you say make playgrounds safer or take cars off the street
Anon

Herndon, PA

#34 Jan 23, 2013
Redneck wrote:
Here is some good info on "assault" weapons.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Thanks, interesting site but I'm afraid the contention that the AR-15 is not a military "assault" rifle is wishful thinking. In fact, the AR-15 was developed for the US military in (I think) 1975. It was first used in Viet Nam and it, and its variants, have become one of the most common military hand held guns. It is a good dependable weapon. The following is a quote from the AR-15 web site, http://www.ar15.com/

The "ideal rifle" as described above is an AR-15 with a short (14.5 or 16) lightweight or M4-contoured barrel with 1/7 or 1/9 twist (latter preferred), flash hider, M4 collapsible stock, A1 carry handle receiver (with A2 aperture). Options can include illuminated optical sight and a weapon-mounted light. A scope can re-balance a front-heavy rifle (caused by tactical light). This configuration gives the greatest flexibility under a variety of conditions, and performs its duties as well as or better than any alternative.

The need for self defense under unpredictable geography, weather, and conditions is common to every military force. It is also common to police forces and anyone interested in "survival." A large portion of the world’s armies has adopted the AR-15 in its various forms, and currently police departments throughout the world are making the switch. The U.S. military, perhaps the best equipped Army in the world has recently begun deploying it’s new generation rifle to it’s forces: an AR-15 with a collapsible stock, short barrel, and optical sights where appropriate. Millions of dollars on research and development have been spent to find the "ideal rifle" and the AR-15 has once again risen to the top.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#35 Jan 23, 2013
UR CRAZY wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that because idiots killed with guns we should take guns away from everyone. What if these idiots took a car and ran it into a playground 3 or 4 times. Would you say make playgrounds safer or take cars off the street
No.

We are discussing gun control, not automobile control.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#36 Jan 23, 2013
LonePalm wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure about surface to air missiles but I don't see why not. The same for RPGs.
This is, of course, predicated on my prior caveat concerning them not being used for criminal purposes.
And that is why we cannot have this discussion with you. You evidently do not live in the real world, but I would be interested, just for the sake of hearing, how you intend to be sure that machine guns, bazookas, and surface to air missiles are not ever used for any criminal purposes if they should become available to the public.

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#37 Jan 23, 2013
Good move, Fontana School P.D.!

Screw the cowering Lib weenies! Lock and load!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/01/22/fon...

“It's comong.”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#38 Jan 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, interesting site but I'm afraid the contention that the AR-15 is not a military "assault" rifle is wishful thinking. In fact, the AR-15 was developed for the US military in (I think) 1975. It was first used in Viet Nam and it, and its variants, have become one of the most common military hand held guns. It is a good dependable weapon. The following is a quote from the AR-15 web site, http://www.ar15.com/
The "ideal rifle" as described above is an AR-15 with a short (14.5 or 16) lightweight or M4-contoured barrel with 1/7 or 1/9 twist (latter preferred), flash hider, M4 collapsible stock, A1 carry handle receiver (with A2 aperture). Options can include illuminated optical sight and a weapon-mounted light. A scope can re-balance a front-heavy rifle (caused by tactical light). This configuration gives the greatest flexibility under a variety of conditions, and performs its duties as well as or better than any alternative.
The need for self defense under unpredictable geography, weather, and conditions is common to every military force. It is also common to police forces and anyone interested in "survival." A large portion of the world’s armies has adopted the AR-15 in its various forms, and currently police departments throughout the world are making the switch. The U.S. military, perhaps the best equipped Army in the world has recently begun deploying it’s new generation rifle to it’s forces: an AR-15 with a collapsible stock, short barrel, and optical sights where appropriate. Millions of dollars on research and development have been spent to find the "ideal rifle" and the AR-15 has once again risen to the top.
I might disagree with you a bit. Maybe I misunderstand. The rifle you were talking about got it's start in the late 50s. Armalite and Air Research built a similar weapon. In the very early 60s I saw one used against a car showing it's power. In the mid 60s it became military issue as the M16. M16 were selective fire.

“It's comong.”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#39 Jan 23, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
Good move, Fontana School P.D.!
Screw the cowering Lib weenies! Lock and load!
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/01/22/fon...
I see it as a fiasco on the part of the police. Let's kind of visualize the scenario where the police come to a school that has been taken over by some not. I really don't think they thought this out.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#40 Jan 23, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
Good move, Fontana School P.D.!
Screw the cowering Lib weenies! Lock and load!
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/01/22/fon...
This has to be the epitome of useless, knee-jerk, feel-good gestures. So the plan is, if there is an incident, the police will respond, enter the school, locate and open the locked safe, acquire the AR-15s, and then take action to end the violence. It might, just possibly, work better if Fontanna had police officers who carried weapons and could respond without doing some foolish ritualistic dance. We are dealing with a rash of stupidity in our attempts to answer the call for "gun control."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Kingsland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who signs off on TAD ? 28 min DaFly 28
Where's the Jaynius? 33 min DaFly 19
Discussion of Debasement of Currency and Social... 49 min screwed up 6
Giant Balloon Release to Celebrate Labor Day 4 hr Jay Is My Homeboy 73
The Incestuous City of St. Marys / Kiwanis rela... 5 hr Jorge 551
The tipping point on Planned Parenthood 10 hr LonePalm 2
Another Republican scammer 19 hr Dawg 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kingsland Mortgages