Gun Control - Your Opinion
Posted in the Sparta Forum
#1 Jan 16, 2013
What is your opinion on the topic of gun control and restrictions? Do you believe that restricting or banning certain models of firearms, and/or their components such as high capacity magazines will prevent the mentally unstable and criminally minded from committing acts of violence?.... Do you believe that restricting or regulating ammunition sales in any manner can have positive effects?.... Are you willing to give up your inalienable rights and freedoms for your illusion of safety? Do you believe restrictions/bans punish law abiding citizens while do nothing to punish criminals or prevent crimes?...What are your thoughts?
#2 Jan 16, 2013
No, restrictions of ammo,firearms and magazines only drive up the price and create panic buying. The mentally unstable are the fruits of a legally medicated and morally corrupt society, like it or not. The safety of any individual is totally that persons responsibility, unless they are a minor then the safety is the responsibility of the parent or community. If we as a nation would punish criminals according to law then we would not have as many problems as we do.
#3 Jan 16, 2013
I wish someone would tell me, convince me, that it is necessary for "Joe Citizen" to own an assault rifle and/or a high capacity clip. These weapons should only be held by law enforcement and the military, Under what circumstances would an average person need an assault rifle ? I have a carry permit own 2 revolvers for my protection, and I have no qualms with hunting guns and hand guns. But, I cannot condone the ownership of an assault weapon. If someone invents a gun that shoots nuclear bullets, should we all run out and buy one ? The biggest problem is that we in this country have lost any bit of common sence that we ever had. We sell our souls to the devil disguised as the NRA and then we are appalled at the tragedies of Aurora and Sandy Hook. We need to step up and be responsible for our actions and their consequences. We don't need assault weapons
#4 Jan 16, 2013
We don't need extra cars, or high calorie drinks do we. Do we need tobacco, how about alcohol? The weapons aren't about need, they are about liberties...
#5 Jan 16, 2013
. You might be sellin your sole to the devil but mine not for sale one sentence you talk about god next sentence you sayin we are sellin are souls to the devil that's judgemental if I ever heard it no matter what the sin is it all the same in gods eye that's what the good book says,Christians need to be examples and not runnin around contemin people and bashin them sayin there sellin there soul to the devil read the book it's about love and helpin people so think wwjd or say before you air it cause the same god that loves you loves other.....
#6 Jan 16, 2013
Really, "assault rifle" is a term used principally in the US and outside of the military to define just about any type of rifle that is semi- or fully-automatic. You should understand that the term is generally used by the media and anti-gun advocates. In reality, assault rifle is a misnomer as it connects an action with a weapon. Any assault involving a rifle by definition means one is using an assault rifle.
I think many want to know when a high capacity magazine would be of use in a real life situation and I'll be happy to give you a circumstance when having one would be critical...
Let's take a look at the home invasion incident just the other day in Georgia. A woman was home alone w/her 9yr old twins, her husband had left for work. There was a knock on her door and to make a long story short I'll skip the small details (you can find the story online). A man began to make his way through the front door w/a crowbar so she grabbed a revolver and hid w/her children in an alcove (small closet under the stairs).. He opened the alcove door and he was face to face w/her... MIND YOU MOST HOME INVASIONS ARE DONE IN 2-4+ MAN TEAMS. Thankfully this idiot chose to pull one off alone. She had only 6 bullets and she laid them all on him, hitting him w/5 of them since he was so close. He was STILL able to leave the scene and get arrested down the road 15 mins later. He's alive..
**THINK FOR A MOMENT about what the chances would have been for the survival of this woman and her two 9 yr old female children had this been a typical team of men and especially ARMED men, which criminals typically are... She'd not have had a fighting chance w/only 6 shots... No criminal is going to sit and wait for her to reload her pistol.
HOWEVER, if she'd have grabbed a firearm w/a high capacity magazine, her chances for protecting herself and her children from a most likely rape and murder would have increased greatly... This woman was brave and LUCKY to boot, but this type of scenario happens daily around this country. I certainly hope that you're intelligent enough to comprehend that the media pick and choose what they report..There is no reason for a responsible citizen NOT to have the choice to have a magazine that holds multiple rounds...
#7 Jan 16, 2013
just like deer hunting, you only need one bullet.
#8 Jan 16, 2013
Unless the deer are jacked up on PCP and carrying a baseball bat...
#9 Jan 16, 2013
You don't seem to comprehend The United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I'd venture to say that you don't comprehend much of this countries history and fight to flee the tyrannical ruling of Britain.
As an American citizen, that should certainly be something that you know by heart. The Second Amendment was not at all written for the sake of hunting.
Our forefathers were well aware of the acts of violence that some in any group of people were very capable of committing. They witnessed it themselves and it's no different today. As long as there are humans, we will always have those that are good and those that are bad. They assured every citizen the unalienable right to own and bare their firearms for protection from the criminals in society.
Furthermore, they were also very aware that a government allowed to grow too large would most assuredly become corrupt and tyrannical and they speak about that very clearly/specifically.
You state, "I have no qualms with hunting guns and hand guns" and you move along later to state that "this country have lost any bit of common sence" (correct spelling is "sense")
That being said, you don't comprehend that there are many very popular handguns that are referred to as "assault weapons" because they are semi-automatic. The manufacturer GLOCK for instance.
The difference in recoil is typically why a person would prefer a semi-automatic over a revolver. With the semi-auto you will feel much less recoil. The reason behind this is that a semi-auto uses the rearward motion caused by firing a round to cycle another round into the chamber. If you don't like heavy recoil then one would prefer a semi-automatic.
Semi-Auto pistols/handguns have been around since the late 1800's, something which most ordinary individuals don't realize. Those who are uneducated about this tend to "freak out" thinking that this is a new and more dangerous technology when REALITY is that it's no more dangerous than a revolver. The only other difference is that a revolver holds 6 shots and a semi-auto holds 10-12 shots.
Hunting rifles aren't different and certainly no less dangerous. In fact, in spite of what those who aren't well educated in the subject love to say, there ARE hunters that prefer to hunt with semi-automatic rifles. They're popular with trackers and still-hunters because they auto load the next shot in the chamber and because gas-operated actions soften recoil....
There is NO DIFFERENCE in the lethality of a bolt action over a semi-auto rifle. BOTH are "hunting rifles"... One however is being placed in a made up for fear category of "assault" rifle.
...(will continue to answer your post in another post)
#10 Jan 16, 2013
I'm glad that you have the opportunity to have revolvers if those are what your preference is. However, you don't have the special privilege of making that choice for all other citizens. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee's that no other citizen needs you to condone their choice.(vice versa) Neither does our governments, at any level. That is written very solidly as our "unalienable" right...
(please take the time to look up the definition if you don't comprehend the meaning)
You speak about stepping up and being responsible for "our actions"... Who's actions are "we" responsible for? Are you stating that you are responsible for the actions of Adam Lanza?... Should we hold you personally accountable?
I'm certainly not responsible for his actions, nor am I responsible for your actions or for the actions of anyone other than my own. So, I'm a bit confused with who's actions you're stating that "we" are all responsible for....
It appears also that you're stating that an inanimate object has actions of its own or that it bares the responsibility for the actions of Adam Lanza or any other criminal or mentally insane person....
Common Sense?... Where is yours? Seriously....
The NRA is a citizens group that has been responsible not only for protecting our Second Amendment rights since the very early 1800's, but also for teaching and sponsoring responsible firearm ownership and safety courses, shooting skills, skeet, etc... Firearm sports...
**Please tell me that you're aware of the fact that we have Olympic Shooting teams that enjoy the shooting sports...
ONE of these people could you remotely consider a criminal anymore than yourself.(unless of course you happen to be a criminal, because I don't know you)...
What makes you think this very important citizens protection group is "of the devil"?.... That statement is simply ludicrous and delusional.
Oh wait, you go on again to hold the citizens group "National Rifle Association" accountable for the actions of Adam Lanza and James Holmes....
No one that has any common sense and education could agree with your illogical and unreasonable views. You may want to take the time to rethink your position because not a sentence of it is remotely sensible.
Since: Mar 12
#11 Jan 17, 2013
@CallItAsISeeIt: Great comment. I agree 100%. People should just live and let live. If they want guns, they should be allowed to have guns. If they don't want guns, no one is forcing them to buy them. I personally will always keep a gun for hunting and protection, but I will never try to tell others what kind of firearms they should or shouldn't have. Everyone has a different reason for their beliefs, and they should be allowed to exercise their unalienable rights.
#12 Jan 17, 2013
Assault weapons were banned in 1934. Now if you're talking about semi-automatic (which is probably the case) we need these to hunt bear & elk in Colorado. Just because "you" don't need one does not mean "we" don't need one.
Add your comments below
|Judge Benningfield||43 min||TTH||35|
|Shooting on 111||44 min||TTH||59|
|BASF hiring (Mar '10)||47 min||TTH||63|
|2 Missing Dogs||2 hr||Missing Dogs||1|
|white trailer trash||5 hr||Helloubytches||4|
|Taco Metals||10 hr||WTF||7|
Find what you want!
Search Sparta Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC