Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 10, 2013
Does the NRA stand up for the 2nd Amendment rights of it's members or does it just represent gun manufacturers and their "right" to make and sell these firearms to you? Or, is it essentially the same? Are you an NRA member and believe the NRA always has your best interest in mind? Can the NRA be compared to big business lobbying groups such as those lobbying for the tobacco companies? Fighting for the right to continue to sell you things that ultimately kill you or kill someone else. Is it necessary to own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Even if it isn't necessary does that mean you still have a right to own them? I mean lots of things aren't necessary but its more about freedom and what people enjoy (i.e. target shooting). I am a huge supporter of individual rights and freedoms. Owning a firearm is a fundamental right in my opinion. I'm just curious as to what extent. What do you think?
fubar

Peterstown, WV

#2 Jan 10, 2013
Idk about the NRA i just know that the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms. So if i choose to own a M16 with a drum magazine it is my RIGHT to own it,Therefore nobody not even congress or the president should be able to take that away from me.Why do people blame guns when it isnt the guns but Mental illness that caused these recent shootings.

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3 Jan 10, 2013
fubar wrote:
Idk about the NRA i just know that the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms. So if i choose to own a M16 with a drum magazine it is my RIGHT to own it,Therefore nobody not even congress or the president should be able to take that away from me.Why do people blame guns when it isnt the guns but Mental illness that caused these recent shootings.
Yes some people are blaming "guns" but this doesn't make much sense as they are objects. I believe in "guns don't people, people kill people". I think most serious supporters of gun control dont blame guns but instead blame the fact that weapons with massive killing power are so easily accessible. I'm curious, is the right we have by the 2nd amendment extend to anything and everything? I believe in my right to bear arms as well, but how far is that right extended? Machine guns or fully automatic weapons have already been banned because they were deemed to dangerous to the public.
fubar

Peterstown, WV

#4 Jan 11, 2013
yes the phrase guns dont kill people,people kill ppl is dumb bc guns do kill people, but you also dont need a gun to kill 20+ people, there are home remedys you can use to make pipe bombs, does that mean we need to out law home remedys so nobody make bombs, no and i do believe the virginia sniper killed dozens with out HIGH capacity ammo clips a riffle of that caliber holds 8 at the max i hate to say it but there isnt a law you can put in place that is going to stop a mad man, drugs are illegal period but they are so easy to obtain what makes you think wepons wont be that way.
Think of it like this if we out law assault riffles and somebody gets caught with it we the tax payers have to pay to house them inn prison's wich are allready over crowding and causing the economy millions a year time that 1 person buy thousands get the picture? yes i agree something needs to be done put taking away riffles or magazines isnt the answer. Maybe better equpping police with guns besides a pistol and shot gun for starters, and 2 better security in schools i dont know a school u can just walk in and roam the halls with out having a visitors pass but some how nobody managed to see the newton killer till it was too late i for one was all for the armed guards at school..

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5 Jan 11, 2013
I respect your opinion, the reason I started this thread was to get other people's opinions on this. I agree with more security at school that's a given but everything else I completely disagree with. I've heard the "bomb" argument a lot and what I don't understand about it is that it's kind of a separate issue. Yes someone might make a bomb and use it to kill people, that's been done. Does that mean though, just because someone might kill with a bomb, we don't try to make it so someone kills with a firearm less? The gun control debate is viewed by opponents of it like the supporters of think it's suppose to stop all murders or something. They are quick to point out that it won't and therefore it would be a complete failure. It's only one part of a much bigger idea to lower gun violence in this country. It's not suppose to be a complete or perfect solution.
Gun owner

Bluefield, VA

#6 Jan 11, 2013
I think if children were taught a healthy respect for the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership, we wouldn't have such radical reactions on both sides of the spectrum. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should not have to endure having their rights eroded because mentally unhinged individuals and thugs DO NOT respect those that they prey upon and DO NOT respect the power of the weaponry they unleash.

A discussion about guns does not have to be a scary topic with people screaming at each other, such as we are seeing in the media lately. Additionally, at some point we need to finally add to the discussion mental illness, substance abuse, and mood-altering medications.
fubar

Peterstown, WV

#7 Jan 11, 2013
The_Dude_1983 wrote:
I respect your opinion, the reason I started this thread was to get other people's opinions on this. I agree with more security at school that's a given but everything else I completely disagree with. I've heard the "bomb" argument a lot and what I don't understand about it is that it's kind of a separate issue. Yes someone might make a bomb and use it to kill people, that's been done. Does that mean though, just because someone might kill with a bomb, we don't try to make it so someone kills with a firearm less? The gun control debate is viewed by opponents of it like the supporters of think it's suppose to stop all murders or something. They are quick to point out that it won't and therefore it would be a complete failure. It's only one part of a much bigger idea to lower gun violence in this country. It's not suppose to be a complete or perfect solution.
The point im trying to make is that making a law banning assault riffles and large magazines will not help, people will allways find away to do what they want to do no matter what laws are in place these people that are comitting the crimes arnt LAW abbiding citizens so what makes anyone think LAWS will protect us,

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8 Jan 11, 2013
Gun owner wrote:
I think if children were taught a healthy respect for the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership, we wouldn't have such radical reactions on both sides of the spectrum. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should not have to endure having their rights eroded because mentally unhinged individuals and thugs DO NOT respect those that they prey upon and DO NOT respect the power of the weaponry they unleash.
A discussion about guns does not have to be a scary topic with people screaming at each other, such as we are seeing in the media lately. Additionally, at some point we need to finally add to the discussion mental illness, substance abuse, and mood-altering medications.
I agree, the way we approach guns and gun safety in this country needs to be adressed and starting with the parents. I dont think anyone would disagree that the decline of family values is a major factor in all of this too. Adam Lanzas parents were divorced, just sayin. Did that contribute to the his instability? probably. This is a complex issue and doesnt just start and end with gun control

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 11, 2013
fubar wrote:
<quoted text> The point im trying to make is that making a law banning assault riffles and large magazines will not help, people will allways find away to do what they want to do no matter what laws are in place these people that are comitting the crimes arnt LAW abbiding citizens so what makes anyone think LAWS will protect us,
Well i respect your opinion but i disagree...yes it wont stop people from using these weapons for murder completely but it will reduce them...and maybe it stops just 1 more mass shooting from happening
alan

Maringouin, LA

#10 Jan 25, 2013
The_Dude_1983 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well i respect your opinion but i disagree...yes it wont stop people from using these weapons for murder completely but it will reduce them...and maybe it stops just 1 more mass shooting from happening
those that dont respect the law will get guns from other sources!even the military couldnt prevent islamist hasan from mass killing at fort hood and he was cleared to have weapons!holder allowed over 4000 guns to get into mexico and even he couldnt keep track of weapons they knew about and were supposed to be tracking?now the feds want gun dealers and the public to do what they have failed at with all their resources!calif.senator feinstine has some bird braim ideas but the news media neglects to tell that her bill exempts her and her political cronnies from this bill?they can have the weapons but not the citizens?its like we the public have to use obama health plan but those in congress dont have to?they get the cadillac policy!wake up people!!!
well

Huntington, IN

#11 Jan 25, 2013
I agree. if these shooters dont care that there is a law against it, they will fail to adhere to one that is supposed to have them disarmed. i believe it was that same day that 20 children in china were stabbed at school by a lunatic. while yes his number of victims would exponentiate with an assault rifle, 1 life was too many, and im sure what he did was against the law there too. my point is really this - they are already doing the right thing with background checks before sales and registering the serials BUT each gun should have 1 round shot and registered into database (for those that know how to use a file). then from there it is the responsibility of the registered owner to keep it secured, register thru a gun shop any sale or contact law enforcement in event of theft (lets face it, folks dont lose their guns lol) that way they are free of liability if its ever used in a crime. responsible gun owners already do most of this. govt just cant figure out how to keep them out of the irresponsible hands!
well

Huntington, IN

#12 Jan 25, 2013
They still cant figure out the simple stuff like the debt crisis or how to get drugs off the streets. more control will not solve anything on this topic, more responsibility will. would you loan your gun to someone who you know to be just a few bricks shy of a load and a huge temper malfunction if you knew that if that gun was used in a crime, YOU would have a bunk next to jimbob in prison - UH NO!.as for the broken home = unstable, there we will have to disagree because i am from one and am pretty stable most days lol. my point there is that we cannot pick apart the reason for these lunatics malfunction based on the little info we get from media, in which we may never know the full extent of psychological issues he had. they say that there was a history, but we will never get that full story. plus you have to analayze what all has happened to someone. please do not take that as defending him, i think he should have started with himself if that bent on it, but thats just my thoughts on all this.
alan

Maringouin, LA

#13 Jan 25, 2013
for well in ohio---you say one round in a gun?how many times have police had to use multiple rounds to stop a thug?what happens when several people break into a home and you have only one shot?your one round idea is pure bull shit!i guess you need to be faced with this scenerio to understand?most people defending themselves and their property arent expert marksman so one round really sucks!!!!
well

Huntington, IN

#14 Jan 25, 2013
Alan i am afraid you misunderstood what i said but i will elaborate more... i said that 1 round from each gun manufactured needed to fired and the barrel fingerprint be entered into a database with serial number. same concept as when you get fingerprinted if you commit a crime. that way they will have a better capability of tracking down what gun and who may have it. now, since i would only use my gun for hunting or protection, i am not opposed to knowing it could be traced easily. im sorry i gave you a false idea of what i was trying to say. im one who probably need more than 6 shots cause they aint leaving my home with their life! im against taking guns away but for making sure guns are in responsible hands..

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.

Princeton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I Hope The USA Turns Into A New World Order Cou... 14 min F The USA 1
Princeton football 24 min Dan 5
School on lock down 26 min parent too 5
Government Shutdown 1 hr Eugene 1
Bartender 1 hr Drunkagian 4
We are going to make downtown Princetion Pigenf... 4 hr Greatdane 22
April Dixon 7 hr Red man 1
Turpin Family 21 hr Hellen Crump 17

Princeton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Princeton Mortgages