Subject: GUN CONTROL - Page 2




 
--
Subject: GUN CONTROL
 
May 15th, 2006  
major liability
 
 
Subject: GUN CONTROL
I've always liked to believe that American soldiers would simply refuse to become the instruments of tyranny.

But if they should choose the wrong path... we must be prepared.
May 15th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Topic: It Ain't Gonna Happen ...


Gun control (in this country), does not mean no weapons allowed. What it means here is that there is no possible usage that can be put forward for a machine gun or and auto-fire assault weapon ... you can NOT use them for deer hunting ... the only possible usage for these types of weapons are as "man killers". Restricting them to specially licensed collectors, special police squads and to the military makes a lot of sense (even to those of us who do own weapons).

The right to bear arms has been guaranteed by the constitution and I can not see Americans anytime soon voting to give up that right. I know that if/when the authorities tried to confiscate my firearms and the firearms of my neighbors, there would be a war border to border by those Americans who value their freedom above all else.

As soon as that legislation hit the floor in the House and Senate, Americans everywhere would rise up in opposition ... our legislators will NOT cross that line. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
May 15th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CABAL
If firearms are purchased illegally, the Government should respond appropriately to protect its citizens. But if their security is not guaranteed by the state, then whats the point of paying taxes? If no guarantee exists, then that Government becomes a corrupt organization who squander the wallets of law-abiding citizens.
Pipe dream. It is impossible to prevent illegal firearms from entering the country.

While it is nice to preach ideals and rhetoric, they do nothing to deal with reality.

Quote:
The Admendment for freedom to firearms is unnecessary since other rights in the Constitution exists. There is only one dominant protection racketeering firm in the US and that is the US Military itself. People pay taxes and they should recieve reliable security in return. If not....their government is a failure.
Please read the Posse Comitatus Act. It is not the military's function to protect law abiding US citizens from those that would choose to commit crimes.

Quote:
Whenever there is firearms, there are always gang wars. Or even perhaps worst, sectarian violence, insurgencies, or national rebellions. A good example of a country that has no restrictions at all is Iraq.
In the US millions of Americans have legally owned firearms, they aren't members of gangs or militias. They aren't killing Baptists because they're Catholic. They aren't staging insurgencies against the US government. I have several several thousand dollars worth of firearms and I've never had the desire to harm anyone outside of my job.

Guns are merely tools. They do not force anyone to stage coups or go out and cap their next door neighbor.

If you were somehow able to remove all of the illegally owned firearms from every gang within the United States, do you honestly believe the violence would stop? No, of course you don't because it wouldn't.


--
Subject: GUN CONTROL
May 15th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
PJ24, I am not suggesting what the US should do or not do. The US can do all it want on Gun Control.

However what I suggested is that the American Idea of the 2nd Admendment will not simply work in other nations, especially in nations who have already experienced a series of anti-government rebellions which Bulldogg is probably suggesting. The US is far away from a national security crisis, most of its concern is externally related.
May 15th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Violence is a living creature, guns are a cause of it. PEOPLE ARE.

I own 86 firearms. Everything from pocket pistols and "assualt rifles" to high power hunting rifles.

I believe that every American Citizen should be able to own anything that they want too.

The 2nd Amendment is about duck hunting or collecting folks. It's about the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

'Nuff Siad....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CABAL
PJ24, I am not suggesting that the US should do or not do. The US can do all it want on Gun Control.

But what Bulldogg suggested about implying the idea of arming citizens in Western Europe is an insane idea.
Hell, I think an armed society is a polite society. Everyone should own a firearm.

Cabal, if someone broke into your house and held your loved one hostage with a knife. Would you want to wait the three to five minutes for the police or would you want to drop that sonva ***** right there and now.

Please tell me that you would not want to wait for the police.
May 15th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
Please tell me that you would not want to wait for the police.
He's not going to give a straight answer. He will come up with a "I would want a gun but the State can't think like a private citizen does because...". Wait and see.
May 15th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
A guy breaking into my house and holding a loved one with a knife? Would I shoot him? No thanks. I havn't fired live ammunition since I was serving in the Bundeswehr.

Originally I wanted a Taser as a second line of defense, should the security alarm fails, but I found it was too expensive to maintain and is quite dangerous to handle.

So I decided to buy something more cheaper that is non-lethal which is the pepperball launcher. I tried it out and surprisingly it packs a huge punch for more than a 50 meters.

So for that guy who held my loved one hostage, of course my loved one would be irratated by that powder, but can dissolve the dangerous situation.

And besides 5.56X45mm, collecting 86 firearms sounds more like a hobby. And if you said that the 2nd Admendment is about is about hunting or a hobby, I hope you're right on that one.

But like I said, US can do anything it want on Guns. This topic is not much of a big deal in Germany.
May 15th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Ooh, that answer is even worse than expected.
Won't it make it more likely for the bad guy to randomly hit the loved one with the knife? Just asking.
May 15th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
Italian Guy, the SA10 looks more lethal than a knife. Especially if the guy sees it pointing at directly at him. Plus the velocity is strong enough.

But anyhow, buying lethal firearms in the US is impossible for me. I live in the US for schooling and I am not an American Citizen. Therefore the 2nd Admendment does not apply for me.
May 15th, 2006  
deerslayer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CABAL
A guy breaking into my house and holding a loved one with a knife? Would I shoot him? No thanks. I havn't fired live ammunition since I was serving in the Bundeswehr.

Originally I wanted a Taser as a second line of defense, should the security alarm fails, but I found it was too expensive to maintain and is quite dangerous to handle.

So I decided to buy something more cheaper that is non-lethal which is the pepperball launcher. I tried it out and surprisingly it packs a huge punch for more than a 50 meters.

So for that guy who held my loved one hostage, of course my loved one would be irratated by that powder, but can dissolve the dangerous situation.

And besides 5.56X45mm, collecting 86 firearms sounds more like a hobby. And if you said that the 2nd Admendment is about is about hunting or a hobby, I hope you're right on that one.

But like I said, US can do anything it want on Guns. This topic is not much of a big deal in Germany.
The man who breaks into my home first has to get a car down my 1/4 mile long driveway without me seeing or hearing, because my west window faces it. Then he's looking at three men with the capacity to retaliate, after he breaks in and climbs a flight of stairs. Is he dead? Certainly.

Gun control is a good sight picture- if you take the guns away from the citizens, we won't have any way to protect ourselves. However, I would like to get a load of that pepperball launcher, I've never seen them in action except for videos. Doesn't look fun to be on the receiving end.