Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    I personally draw the line at fully automatic weapons , calibers greater than .45, any sort of special amunition (dum dum bullets and the like,) and clips for rounds larger than 10. Why?  Because no one needs those things for hunting or self-defense. Does that help?

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    AR-15 rifles are perfectly valid weapons for hunting, target shooting, and home defense as long as they are the legal semi-automatic kind. The full automatic versions are, and should be, reserved for the military and swat teams.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/foghorn/the-truth-about-the-ar-15-rifle/

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    There should not be a line on firearms.

    RPGs etc should be available the ban should be on the ammo for these aka grenades (disarmed grenades) OK.

    It would be nice to have an RPG for collector purposes but, to have ammo is silly since it would never be needed.

    Tanks same thing if no secrets are exposed and no arsenal is available

    Cruise missles are arsenal so BAN

    Disarmed land mines ok, the explosives NO

    Military aircraft with no sensitive info OK if, you have few million laying around to purchase one but, the arsenal BANNED!

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There should not be a line on firearms.

    RPGs etc should be available the ban should be on the ammo for these aka grenades (disarmed grenades) OK.

    It would be nice to have an RPG for collector purposes but, to have ammo is silly since it would never be needed.

    Tanks same thing if no secrets are exposed and no arsenal is available

    Cruise missles are arsenal so BAN

    Disarmed land mines ok, the explosives NO

    Military aircraft with no sensitive info OK if, you have few million laying around to purchase one but, the arsenal BANNED!

     [/QUOTE]

    Toys!  Let's play with deadly toys!  Bizarre. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    Why is the line at whether it is semi-automatic vs. automatic, without regards to damage?


    I think the more telling metric is the size and power of the round. If I had to take a bullet, I'd rather it come from a .223 caliber AR15 than a .45 caliber handgun. The latter is not very survivable.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    Generally I'd draw the weapons line were it is today.

    What I'd change would be licensing, permittng, training and recertification criteria.

    Close the gun show loophole

    Require full fedral background checks

    Require medical exam for license/permits

    Require higher level of recertification and medical exam based on gun class.

    There are a lot of farmers on our southern boarder who deal with illegal immigrants or drug trafficers all the time, they have the right to arm themselves and to me this is a no brainer.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There should not be a line on firearms.

    RPGs etc should be available the ban should be on the ammo for these aka grenades (disarmed grenades) OK.

    It would be nice to have an RPG for collector purposes but, to have ammo is silly since it would never be needed.

    Tanks same thing if no secrets are exposed and no arsenal is available

    Cruise missles are arsenal so BAN

    Disarmed land mines ok, the explosives NO

    Military aircraft with no sensitive info OK if, you have few million laying around to purchase one but, the arsenal BANNED! 

    [/QUOTE]

    You've said what, but not the why.

    What's this "arsenal" business supposed to mean?

    Why should someone be able to fly a blackbird at Mach 3 simply because it has no missiles? You don't think that could be used to cause catastrophic damage?

    Aiming a jet going 2,100 mph at NYC generally and hitting any building.

     

    You still haven't answered the question. You reasoned that we should have AR-15s because the weapon doesn't matter, the person does.

    If the weapon doesn't matter, the person does, then your logic compels you to say that civilians should have ALL of the above, fully operational.

     [/QUOTE]

    You are waging a ridiculous argument!

    What you are saying is that since I think people should be allowed to own FIREARMS that I must think they can own tanks and fighter jets and nukes too!!

    fvcking ridiculous!!!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    I draw the line based on the constitution.  That's the only place to draw the line.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jim-in-Littleton. Show Jim-in-Littleton's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is the line at whether it is semi-automatic vs. automatic, without regards to damage? It's a military weapon designed to cause maximum bodily damage based on bullet tumble.

    There are plenty other weapons that can be used for hunting, nevermind that self-defense, and not hunting or target shooting, is the purpose of the 2nd Amd. according to the Supreme Court.

    [/QUOTE]


    In response (even though it wasn't directed at me...) I'd ask what the difference is in this "damage" between an AR-15 and a bolt action hunting rifle that also fire a .223 cal round?  The cartridge/bullet is identical.  Why is one "skeery" but the other acceptable (at least as the majority of the public sees it.)?  Yes, I know there is the issue of the quantity of bullets here but you've mentioned "damage" and the "tumbling" aspect - both of which happen with just one shot fired as well.

     

    (That "tumbling", btw, only happens at extended range when the bullet from a .223 drops in speed from supersonic to subsonic and it isn't unique to the .223. It can happen with any bullet fired at supersonic speeds.  In cases like the CT shootings it isn't relevant. All of those people were killed at close range. The .223 doesn't drop to subsonic until it is 300-400 yards from the muzzle (depending on the length of the barrel it's fired through.)) 

     

    As for your original question, I think MassModerateJoe is on the most sensible track.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And for some examples as to where an armed populace worked I give you the American colonies, Switzerland, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Can you give me some examples of where unarmed populaces were successful in warding of invasion or expelling occupiers?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is just ridiculous.

    You're trying to equate the American Revolution with America today.

    My gawd you've seriously lost your freakin marbles.

    For starters, the British were trying to maintain control of it's colonies that were 6000 miles away, a weeks worth of travel for either troops, supplies or even basic communications. Contrast that with the best equiped, best trained military in the world with armor, jets, helicopters, missles and artillery that can reach targets 20-30 miles away.

    And you think clutching your AR-15 is going to stop that?

    Like I said, the absurdity of such ignorance is mind boggleling.

     

    Vietnam was a country that was equiped by the Soviet Union with the latest weapons they had including jet fighters, radar equiped AA rockets and artillery. They weren't just a bunch of farmers with AK47s. They were trained and equiped by Russia for a proxy war. You fantasy that they were just a bunch of farmers with guns is just plain ignorant of history.

    Afghanistan is another country that has weapons supplied by foreign countries. Do you seriously think that in one of the poorest countries in the world, Joe Afghan would be spending the $400 for an AK47 himself? That would be a year of savings.

    Geepers, if you are going to just create these ridiculous and implausible scenarios while remaining completely ignorant of history or reality than you have completely jumped the shark.

    For your crazy notions to be plausible, the citizens of the US would need to align with an anti-American country like say China, to have any hope of defeating the US military.

    Newsflash ya freakin moron, if that happens then it ain't America any longer and you can bend over and kiss your lily-white faux patriotic a555 goodbye, as well as the Constitution and that 2nd amend you hold so dear.

     

    I didn't realize that these boards have become a place to just post absolutely ridiculous rants that have no basis in reality. These are just whacko wingnut truther memes regurgitated from echo chamber websites.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your argument of calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot is sooo compelling.  sigh. 

    I would point out that Allende in Chile disarmed the people, and therefore they were not able to come to his aid when he was deposed.  There's one example of where gun control went wrong from a liberal perspective.

    How about a slight variant of Newsters point 1?  Take a survey of the illegal arms confiscated in crimes, cities, etc. and make that least that level of guns/features legal, plus/minus some outlyler issues like hollow points and full automation?

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    What makes the moonbats think that some foreign country  might not supply some people here with weapons? What happened to all their angst over right wing militias or abortionist killers? How do they know what the future holds? They can't even take the time to point out a situation where they might be concerned for their own safety. Why am I not surprised? The kumbayah singers have led us down the path of disarmament to war over and over so at least they are consistent in the matter. Great way to debate. Ask the question. Get an answer with some other questions. Don't answer the questions and pronounce yourself the winner.

     




    So spanky, why don't you describe a scenario where a foreign country would supply enough weapons and of sufficient lethality for a group of Americans to take on the US military-industrial machine.

     

    Which country, exactly, would aid a group of ultra-wingnuts to revolt? Remember, the country that sends aid must believe the revolt is in that country's best interest and is simpatico with the wingnut goals. Can you name one country that would 'ally' with the wingnuts?

    And how exactly would those weapons actually get into the country? Do you hink that you wingnuts could just drive some tanks and AA batteries off a ship and no one would notice?

    And if you really believe in your crazyass scenario, doesn't that mean that you don't really need own assault weapons because when and if you really need them, some foreign gov't will just give them to you anyway.

     

     

    And there is no conceivable situation where it is plausible that I would need an assault weapon in addition to the few guns I own today.

    By conceivable, of course I mean a situation that is rooted in reality and is not some whacko wingnut alternate reality concocted in the throws of a psychosis.

    [/QUOTE]

    The classic two- front attack. Single action is not a viable alternative, unless your accuracy is like that of the tv shows you idolize.

    "assault" is just a marketing better get over it.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Seriously, where DO you draw the line.

    News Flash............

     

    WASHINGTON -- A majority of Americans support stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown school shooting, but most oppose banning assault weapons, a move that is backed by President Obama as a step to curb gun violence, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

    Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say they favor stricter gun laws, up from 43% in October 2011. And the American public, which favored enforcing existing gun laws over passing new ones by a 60%-35% in 2011, now is split on the issue, with 46% favoring enforcing current laws and 47% favoring passing new ones.

    In terms of specific laws, however, the ban on assault weapons, which are a favorite target of gun control advocates — including Obama -- hasn't gained any significant support, according to the poll. Forty-four percent support such a move and 51% are against it. In October 2011, 43% supported an assault weapons ban and 51% said they were against it.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share