assault rifle, is it still something ...

assault rifle, is it still something everyone should be allowed to own?

Posted in the Morehead Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#1 Dec 17, 2012
I'm all for a person's right to bear arms. I believe we should have guns if we want but is everyone equal in that right? Should everyone be allowed to have weapons like an AR 15? Is the AR 15 the kind of weapon the forefathers had in mind when they formalized our right to bear arms?
Rreality check

Richmond, KY

#2 Dec 17, 2012
Agree, one needs weapons that fire 30 to 100 rounds or more. Yes we need to have a pistol so we have some protection against hoodlums that would otherwise kick our doors down. (Most of them know now that on the other side of the door is most likely a person who owns a gun to protect their families . But again no common citizen should be able to purchase assault weapons. Period. Needs to stop sales immediately. Enough of these mass killings. Anyone not beleiving this please explain your reason for needing such weapons.
experience

United States

#3 Dec 17, 2012
Rreality check wrote:
Agree, one needs weapons that fire 30 to 100 rounds or more. Yes we need to have a pistol so we have some protection against hoodlums that would otherwise kick our doors down.(Most of them know now that on the other side of the door is most likely a person who owns a gun to protect their families . But again no common citizen should be able to purchase assault weapons. Period. Needs to stop sales immediately. Enough of these mass killings. Anyone not beleiving this please explain your reason for needing such weapons.
You are right about the high capacity assault rifles. I would like to further the control to include armour piercing bullets. I speak from experience. I leared to shoot using a German Luger when I was 8 and was taught to shoot well and respect guns. My parents each carried a hand gun when we would travel in remote areas of the western US. We have handguns, rifles and shotguns in our home now. However, I was married to a man who had an obsession with guns and ammo. He was also severely depressed and on medication. We had many many guns, including assault rifles that had been illegally modified to my ex's specifications. He also hoarded ammo, his favorite was the armour piercing, of which he had at least 20,000 rounds stored up when I filed for divorce. There is no reason for the typical private citizen to have a need for armour piercing ammo or the high capacity clips for assault rifles. I do not want anyone to say that I can't have guns, but there has to be some common sense with the types allowed.
experience

United States

#4 Dec 17, 2012
"learned to shoot" (not leared)
my thoughts

Hillsboro, KY

#5 Dec 17, 2012
No, no one that isn't currently in the military or law enforcement should be allowed to own one, period. Everybody's excuse is its fun to shoot them..what a sad and pitiful excuse...so sorry to ruin your fun of destroying targets or trees or whatever just so your fellow man can be safer.
thoughtful

Newburgh, IN

#6 Dec 18, 2012
Actually AKA Will assault rifles and other offensive arms were EXACTLY what our forefathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. Let's remember the intent of the amendment was to enable the population to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT. That is part of the problem and debate with gun control in this country - the second amendment really was envisioned as providing us with the ability to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. The need and ability to protect one's self from fellow man or provide food for our families was assumed to be such an undeniable right that there would be no need of an amendment to safeguard it. And those rights are still undeniable, only do we need assault rifle to ensure them?

What or forefathers could have never envisioned was a situation where we use these tools of freedom to kill each other at an alarming rate, and a painful, soul-searing event like we just saw in Conn. I am most certainly pro-gun having grown up in the south and hunted most of my life, but I do think it is time the NRA stops knee-jerking and the liberal left stops knee-jerking and we have a honest, meaningful conversation in this country about gun rights and gun violence. I would gladly agree to never own a gun ever again in my life if I thought it would prevent senseless violence, but anyone who thinks taking guns away from the entire population would make that happen is nothing but a fool. The unfortunate reality in this country is that the gun genie is out of the bottle and there is not way we are ever going to take all the guns from everyone. In the end, all gun control would achieve is taking guns from the law-abiding citizens. Like it or not, the most effective way to mitigate gun violence is to make sure the "good" citizens are armed as well. We are always going to have heinous crimes. Those are a result of the decline of our society, not the availability of guns. Our real problems lie with our society, not the tools we produce and may or may not use for good or bad. God help us all.
aka will wrote:
I'm all for a person's right to bear arms. I believe we should have guns if we want but is everyone equal in that right? Should everyone be allowed to have weapons like an AR 15? Is the AR 15 the kind of weapon the forefathers had in mind when they formalized our right to bear arms?
my thoughts

Morehead, KY

#7 Dec 18, 2012
thoughtful wrote:
Actually AKA Will assault rifles and other offensive arms were EXACTLY what our forefathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. Let's remember the intent of the amendment was to enable the population to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT. That is part of the problem and debate with gun control in this country - the second amendment really was envisioned as providing us with the ability to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. The need and ability to protect one's self from fellow man or provide food for our families was assumed to be such an undeniable right that there would be no need of an amendment to safeguard it. And those rights are still undeniable, only do we need assault rifle to ensure them?
What or forefathers could have never envisioned was a situation where we use these tools of freedom to kill each other at an alarming rate, and a painful, soul-searing event like we just saw in Conn. I am most certainly pro-gun having grown up in the south and hunted most of my life, but I do think it is time the NRA stops knee-jerking and the liberal left stops knee-jerking and we have a honest, meaningful conversation in this country about gun rights and gun violence. I would gladly agree to never own a gun ever again in my life if I thought it would prevent senseless violence, but anyone who thinks taking guns away from the entire population would make that happen is nothing but a fool. The unfortunate reality in this country is that the gun genie is out of the bottle and there is not way we are ever going to take all the guns from everyone. In the end, all gun control would achieve is taking guns from the law-abiding citizens. Like it or not, the most effective way to mitigate gun violence is to make sure the "good" citizens are armed as well. We are always going to have heinous crimes. Those are a result of the decline of our society, not the availability of guns. Our real problems lie with our society, not the tools we produce and may or may not use for good or bad. God help us all.
<quoted text>
It's amazing how quickly people forget Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Blame the guns!!! When are people going to start taking responsibility for their actions? As long as the media "Remembers" the perpetrators instead of the victims, this type of violence will continue. Everybody remembers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but how many people can name one single victim at Columbine?
wonderer

Morehead, KY

#8 Dec 18, 2012
Why do people jump the gun,(no pun inteneded) and blame assault weapons? Would you want to ban a car that goes faster than the speed limit because a driver ignores it and speeds and hits and peron or other vehicle and kills one or more people?
NRA

Owingsville, KY

#9 Dec 18, 2012
Is the AR 15 the kind of weapon the forefathers had in mind when they formalized our right to bear arms?
Yes the AR-15 is the Brown Bess of today.
Wisdom

Hamilton, OH

#10 Dec 18, 2012
Every weapon is an "assault" weapon. The real issue of gun ownership is the responsibility to have them secured away from other individuals, especially if there are mental health or other issues within a household.

The other overlooked issue is that of mental health. Keep in mind it was the liberal left who pushed for mental health rights, thus making it harding to retain individuals at risk. This "freed" a number of those with mental health issues, and thus( a core demographic of the homeless), and put the public at a slight increased statistical risk of harm from these individuals.

Lastly, are you at more risk from the "lone" gunman or a government who has already expressed its' desire to reduce our ability to protect and defend ourselves. This is proven by the Obamas' administration Fast and Furious gun running program which was designed to blame drug cartel violence on US weapons and then the subsequent restrictions.

How many gun attacks have there ever been inside a police station ? The reason?

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#11 Dec 18, 2012
thoughtful wrote:
Actually AKA Will assault rifles and other offensive arms were EXACTLY what our forefathers had in mind with the 2nd amendment. Let's remember the intent of the amendment was to enable the population to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT. That is part of the problem and debate with gun control in this country - the second amendment really was envisioned as providing us with the ability to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. The need and ability to protect one's self from fellow man or provide food for our families was assumed to be such an undeniable right that there would be no need of an amendment to safeguard it. And those rights are still undeniable, only do we need assault rifle to ensure them?
What or forefathers could have never envisioned was a situation where we use these tools of freedom to kill each other at an alarming rate, and a painful, soul-searing event like we just saw in Conn. I am most certainly pro-gun having grown up in the south and hunted most of my life, but I do think it is time the NRA stops knee-jerking and the liberal left stops knee-jerking and we have a honest, meaningful conversation in this country about gun rights and gun violence. I would gladly agree to never own a gun ever again in my life if I thought it would prevent senseless violence, but anyone who thinks taking guns away from the entire population would make that happen is nothing but a fool. The unfortunate reality in this country is that the gun genie is out of the bottle and there is not way we are ever going to take all the guns from everyone. In the end, all gun control would achieve is taking guns from the law-abiding citizens. Like it or not, the most effective way to mitigate gun violence is to make sure the "good" citizens are armed as well. We are always going to have heinous crimes. Those are a result of the decline of our society, not the availability of guns. Our real problems lie with our society, not the tools we produce and may or may not use for good or bad. God help us all.
<quoted text>
I agree for the most part but I just cannot reconcile myself to the forefathers envisioning the advances in weaponry to our current ability. The AR 15 is as much a leap from the musket as the car that travels at speeds greater than sound. I am not in favor of much of anything that limits our freedom but I wonder at our society when I see studies that detail the level of violence we have in this nation compared to other nations. If we cannot change the mindset is it better to give up some freedoms so our children can be more safe? I simply do not know the answer.
THE ANSWER

Louisville, KY

#12 Dec 18, 2012
aka will wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree for the most part but I just cannot reconcile myself to the forefathers envisioning the advances in weaponry to our current ability. The AR 15 is as much a leap from the musket as the car that travels at speeds greater than sound. I am not in favor of much of anything that limits our freedom but I wonder at our society when I see studies that detail the level of violence we have in this nation compared to other nations. If we cannot change the mindset is it better to give up some freedoms so our children can be more safe? I simply do not know the answer.
You are stupid and short sighted. A bb gun will break the sound barrier. Millions of people and a couple hundred years built America, you would let one ignorant evil and selfish little punk destroy it, F you!

My simple solution is to up the grade for teachers/admins who are willing to become trained with a firearm and carry one while they are in charge of teaching/protecting OUR KIDS.
Thoughtful

Newburgh, IN

#13 Dec 18, 2012
My, you do appear to have some anger issues don't you. I saw nothing stupid, short-sighted or rude in what AKA Will had to say. To the contrary, I think his words were well-thought and balanced. Yours on the other hand are rude and your solution is just stupid. YOU are the kind of nut we are trying to figure out how to keep guns from so the rest of us who are a little more level-headed can still own them.
THE ANSWER wrote:
<quoted text>You are stupid and short sighted. A bb gun will break the sound barrier. Millions of people and a couple hundred years built America, you would let one ignorant evil and selfish little punk destroy it, F you!
My simple solution is to up the grade for teachers/admins who are willing to become trained with a firearm and carry one while they are in charge of teaching/protecting OUR KIDS.
Ann

Wallingford, KY

#14 Dec 18, 2012
It's a shame that some folks can't be a little more civil when discussing things with people whose opinions are different from their own. There's no need for insults - that's not going to help us find any kind of solution to the mess we're facing. Resorting to name-calling is childish, and considering the magnitude of the possible changes we're looking at, the last thing we need is for adults to behave like children.

It's about more than guns. It's also about mental health issues. Our country has a hard time being civil when discussing even the most mundane topics. I'm afraid of how we'll handle discussions revolving around these subjects.
Reality check

Richmond, KY

#15 Dec 18, 2012
Ok-it is this simple ,for all the simple minded, who keep spurting like cry babies, "Do not take our guns". We are not talking about a pistol,a plain old hunting rifle ,but assault weapons that shoot up 100 plus times. See the difference? NO? OK, let me explain, If a person has a pistol that shoots no more than 6 times without reloading,there is an opportunity to stop him(she ) from reloading. But if the same person has a gun that is attached to a 100 round capacity mag. it is impossible to try and stop him. How do I know? Back in 1963 in Ohio ,a man broke into our home and he shot my uncle,my grandmother and my Dad twice (once in the upper arm once in the leg. Dad keep holding on to the man until he fired the last 2 bullets ,which landed in the wall. The man could not reload because my Dad even though he was bleeding ,knocked the gun out of his hand. This man grabbed the empty gun and ran out of the house. If this man had a 100 or more round shooting contraption Dad could never have over-powered him.(My dad was a very brave man ,and I honor his memory for saving our family that night and for protecting our nation during WWII, where he received a metal. But back to this gun control issue, someone mentioned a car could kill;RIGHT,that is why we have speed limits(You do not see a car geared for 300 MPH!-So likewise we need a pistol for our home protection, but not a 300 mag gun. Real simple , people wanting a gun shooting more than a 6 shot pistol, needs to grow up and face the real world. True ALL GUNS can kill,but the fact is someone with a 100-300 round mag attached to a gun can kill MASS amount of people.(By the way it is not so much the mentally ill as the EVIL People who kill.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#16 Dec 18, 2012
THE ANSWER wrote:
<quoted text>You are stupid and short sighted. A bb gun will break the sound barrier. Millions of people and a couple hundred years built America, you would let one ignorant evil and selfish little punk destroy it, F you!
My simple solution is to up the grade for teachers/admins who are willing to become trained with a firearm and carry one while they are in charge of teaching/protecting OUR KIDS.
true, there are some "bb guns" out there that have alot of power but the difference is,and I'm sure you probably already realize this, the "bb" has alot less mass than the projectile of a rifle. Also, an important distinction I'm sure you already considered in your well thought response to my post, most "bb guns" that shoot with high velocity also are single shot. I see no reason to limit the "bb gun". Can it kill someone? ABSOLUTELY, but can it be used to commit mass murder? My answer is an emphatic NO! Look, I'll say it again so you get it, I don't think the answer is an across the board ban but our founding fathers expected people to govern themselves alot and for that control of self granted each of us a great liberty. That liberty is being abused by some and to such catastrophic levels that others are losing their own life and liberty. I don't know anyone that thinks the founding fathers intended to grant liberty to some so that they could take the lives of others.
my two cents

Morehead, KY

#18 Dec 19, 2012
aka will wrote:
I'm all for a person's right to bear arms. I believe we should have guns if we want but is everyone equal in that right? Should everyone be allowed to have weapons like an AR 15? Is the AR 15 the kind of weapon the forefathers had in mind when they formalized our right to bear arms?
I don't think our forefathers could have envisioned the future and saw the damage an AR 15 or any other assault weapon that the U.S. Government has used on it's people like it did at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas.
Listen

Tucker, GA

#19 Dec 19, 2012
Here's food for thought: if there's no limitations in the Constitution as to what weapons "arms" consist of, and the it is a static document, not a living one. Wouldn't it be technically legal, by the constitution, for one to possess explosives, pipe bombs, even a nuclear device?

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#20 Dec 19, 2012
Listen wrote:
Here's food for thought: if there's no limitations in the Constitution as to what weapons "arms" consist of, and the it is a static document, not a living one. Wouldn't it be technically legal, by the constitution, for one to possess explosives, pipe bombs, even a nuclear device?
I was thinking the same thing! I know a very good friend of mine that is a rabid NRA conservative guy and he is posting all these messages on his fb about giving up his guns after he has given "them" all the bullets first, I'm sure everyone has seen some of the propaganda by now. I was wondering, shouldn't it be legal for me to own a stinger missile? As someone said earlier,'the founding fathers intended we defend ourselves against government', I think I need a stinger to protect me and mine from our troops. I know some of you won't get my statement as sarcasm so I will be clear. I DON'T THINK IT'S OK FOR ANYONE(OTHER THAN MILITARY)TO HAVE A STINGER MISSILE.
Wisdom

Hamilton, OH

#21 Dec 19, 2012
What is the role of the war simulation video games play in all of this? It is being revealed that he was into Call of Duty, and the basement has military based posters throughout. Now, if you have a social misfit as a child, or any individual with anger/aggression issues- should you really have weapons around, besides the one to defend yourself? And should you feed the fire with an emotionally distancing series of video games based on killing enemies?

The mother may have had all the weapons secured, and was killed either for the key, or to get the key...but the triggers thus far are her moves for conservatorship to have him committed, and theses video games. If the guns were properly stored, the larger issue is mental health and rapid identification and resolution to protect society against those who lash out.

Instead, Obama will use this as his opportunity ("not to be wasted") to push his agenda of gun control. Fast and Furious failed, but now he has the emotional forum to protect society by reducing our freedoms, by just a tad bit more. Until what point?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
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.

Morehead Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 min Athenesword 151,654
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 8 min Gross 25
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 19 min who cares 15,698
Republican Party coming apart in gigantic LOSS 1 hr Strel 49
shooting on brown ridge 3 hr Art 16
D.G. Store 7 hr get real 6
Conerning the subject of Michelle or Brian (Aug '13) 10 hr Wurse nightmare 6

Morehead Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morehead Mortgages