Trying to understand...

[freyasman]

Alright, I've always owned firearms and I truly don't understand people like Cuomo and Feinstein, who don't want citizens to be armed. I thought perhaps, the reason was I didn't ever speak to, or spend time with, people with an anti-gun sentiment. I found this board and have been hanging out and posting here and there for the last few days, and now I would like to ask for people to share their views on private ownership of firearms, and more importantly, the reasoning for their views. We should be able to have a civil, rational, discussion about this subject, even if we disagree. Would anyone like to discuss?

 

[888888]

You want to own a gun buy one and get a background check. Get rid of the 15/100 round magazines and allow nothing more than what a standard gun would come with, as worked out by those in the business and congress can agree on. Make a crime with a gun to have a standard sentencing.

All anyone wants is safety and a little bit of common sense. People should make sure guns don't fall into the hands of those who are nuts. Guns kept in a home need to be made safe from kids getting their hands on them, maybe something as easy as child proof trigger lock, not to mention a gun shouldn't be laying around, esp with amo in them.

The truth is why would someone want a gun they have little or no use for it, if all it's going to do is maybe kill someone they love or at least know. I could buy a gun like the ones being talked about, as I own two hunting rifles, a twenty two rifle and once owned a hand gun. I have no need to shoot 15 shots, and can't ever see where it would happen.

 

[freyasman]

OK, this is the kind of thing I wanted to talk about. Lets talk about magazine capacity; you said what it comes with standard right? How do you feel about firearms that come standard with 13, 15, 17, or 30 round capacity? As in, this is what they were originally designed to hold.

(BTW, I like your avatar picture)

 

[afella]

Alright, I've always owned firearms and I truly don't understand people like Cuomo and Feinstein, who don't want citizens to be armed. I thought perhaps, the reason was I didn't ever speak to, or spend time with, people with an anti-gun sentiment. I found this board and have been hanging out and posting here and there for the last few days, and now I would like to ask for people to share their views on private ownership of firearms, and more importantly, the reasoning for their views. We should be able to have a civil, rational, discussion about this subject, even if we disagree. Would anyone like to discuss?

I own plenty of firearms, even two AR-15 varients. I have no disagreement with regulations and laws regarding firearms. I have my personal stance on the issue, I personally feel that there should be no limit to private ownership. It is radical, but it is my opinion. Now, I also understand that living in a society means there has to be some sort of an establishment of rules and regulations.


Given the laws and regulations as they are, I see no effectiveness of any law passed today or tomorrow that will solve the issue. Firearms violence will remain an issue regardless of what we do. The main reason being that the law will fluctuate depending upon who's in office, and who's in control of congress. We will end up in a revolving door of legislation. If anything is to be done, it should be done constitutionally, meaning it should be an amendment to the constitution limiting or expanding the rights. A conservative court will rule one way on a case, while a liberal court will rule another.


The law should simply be more clear, if the 2nd amendment is outdate it should be amended as such.

 

[BitterPill]

Alright, I've always owned firearms and I truly don't understand people like Cuomo and Feinstein, who don't want citizens to be armed.

Actually, that is a false statement. I believe Cuomo and Feinstein want to ban some weapons but not all. That means they don't mind citizens being armed.

I thought perhaps, the reason was I didn't ever speak to, or spend time with, people with an anti-gun sentiment. I found this board and have been hanging out and posting here and there for the last few days, and now I would like to ask for people to share their views on private ownership of firearms, and more importantly, the reasoning for their views. We should be able to have a civil, rational, discussion about this subject, even if we disagree. Would anyone like to discuss?

I like the 1934 National Firearms Act and believe it should be used as a model for future federal firearm regulation. For one, the 1934 national Firearms Act has passed constitutional muster. Secondly, the regulations seem to work well.

 

[freyasman]

OK BP, I get the impression from their actions, that Feinstein and Cuomo and some others like them would prefer all American be disarmed, but thats just my take on it. They do seem to want to limit the average persons access to the more modern, and effective firearms, while still providing these weapons to the police and military. Why do you think they are OK with a police officer having this technology, but not a citizen?

What exactly, is it you like about the 1934 NFA, and how would you model future fireams regulation off of it?

 

[OldGaffer]

They do seem to want to limit the average persons access to the more modern, and effective firearms, while still providing these weapons to the police and military. Why do you think they are OK with a police officer having this technology, but not a citizen?

Do you think that criminals should have more firepower than the police? Because criminals are being armed from the pool of private weapons in the hands of citizens, not from National Guard Armories. Do you think Waco and Ruby Ridge should be viable scenarios on a routine basis? If your side loses an election, does that give you a "constitutional right" to start an armed insurrection? Was that not settled in 1865? These militia groups are being tracked by the SPLC as hate groups, and by all definitions, they fit that category. IMHO armed insurrection against the legally elected government only deserves the needle that Timothy McVeigh received.

 

[freyasman]

Well, point by point...
-I'm not too concerned with whether a criminal is armed, as long as I am. If he or she is so violent or predatory, why are they running around loose?
-Waco and Ruby Ridge were examples of HORRIBLE judgement on the part of the authorities; if you act in a stupid fashion, don't be surprised when things spin out of control.
-The "armed insurrection" thing... well, many people believe, (as do I), that fundamental Rights are not subject to a majority vote, and that an elected official who attempts such, has given up any lawful authority they may have. If there are ten people in a room and 9 of them vote to enslave the 10th, this is still not a legitimate action. (Simplistic example, I know)

 

[NightSwimmer]

Alright, I've always owned firearms and I truly don't understand people like Cuomo and Feinstein, who don't want citizens to be armed.

Probably because you have never lived in the city. No real use for a gun in the city except to shoot other humans.

 

[freyasman]

NightSwimmer, I was born and raised in the 4th largest city in the US, and every single adult male in my life carried a pistol everyday, (and most of the females too). The only time there was any violence is when they were stopping violence against themselves or someone else.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Well then... Never mind.

 

[freyasman]

NightSwimmer, this is off-topic but, the sig line at the bottom of your posts; what language is that and what does it say? I'm curious...

 

[middleview]

OK BP, I get the impression from their actions, that Feinstein and Cuomo and some others like them would prefer all American be disarmed, but thats just my take on it. They do seem to want to limit the average persons access to the more modern, and effective firearms, while still providing these weapons to the police and military. Why do you think they are OK with a police officer having this technology, but not a citizen?

What exactly, is it you like about the 1934 NFA, and how would you model future fireams regulation off of it?

Are you kidding? Would you like for criminals to be able to outgun the police? One well known incident in Los Angeles had two guys with full auto ak-47s able to hold off hundreds of LA cops.

 

[freyasman]

You mean the bank robbery in Hollywood? That was mostly bad tactics on the Police's part, rather than a lack of hardware. To be fair, the 2 shooters reacted with good suppressive fire and "violence of action", and that will get you through some bad spots IF you don't lose your momentum. And I'm pretty sure it was a dozen or so cops, rather than hundreds...

 

[Bo-4]

NightSwimmer, I was born and raised in the 4th largest city in the US, and every single adult male in my life carried a pistol everyday, (and most of the females too). The only time there was any violence is when they were stopping violence against themselves or someone else.

You grew up in a big city and "every single male and most females" packed heat along with them 24/7?

Sorry, but i find this hard to believe.

Are you sure you're not thinking of those old Gunsmoke episodes?? ;-)

 

[middleview]

Well, point by point...
-I'm not too concerned with whether a criminal is armed, as long as I am. If he or she is so violent or predatory, why are they running around loose?
-Waco and Ruby Ridge were examples of HORRIBLE judgement on the part of the authorities; if you act in a stupid fashion, don't be surprised when things spin out of control.
-The "armed insurrection" thing... well, many people believe, (as do I), that fundamental Rights are not subject to a majority vote, and that an elected official who attempts such, has given up any lawful authority they may have. If there are ten people in a room and 9 of them vote to enslave the 10th, this is still not a legitimate action. (Simplistic example, I know)

1. You aren't too concerned if a criminal is armed? So you intend to become a one man vigilante group? How many cops are kiled each year by a criminal with a gun? Your statement is ill considered.
2. Waco was a badly run operation, but the idea of shooting at law enforcement officer isn't exactly something you can defend...especially in the case of Waco (or even Rugy Ridge). Remember that there was a warrant outstanding for Randy Weaver. Ignoring a court order to appear was guaranteed to bring law enforcement to his home....

 

[middleview]

NightSwimmer, I was born and raised in the 4th largest city in the US, and every single adult male in my life carried a pistol everyday, (and most of the females too). The only time there was any violence is when they were stopping violence against themselves or someone else.

I'm 60. I've lived in quite a few large cities in my life, some very well known as high crime places (Miami and LA for instance). I've never needed to have a gun to stop violence and never known anyone else to need one. Just how many times do you have personal experience or known someone who did where a gun was needed to stop violence?

 

[freyasman]

Bo-4, the majority of them were in law enforcement, the rest, well, they just carried. When you grow up with something you assume its the norm; I was in my teens by the time I realized that it wasn't. Its still much more common than many people realize though.

middleview, I once read that the definition of "stress" is when a man is presented with a problem that he is not confident he has the resources to solve. I have the skill and the will to defend myself, and If I am armed, I have the resources; it enhances my confidence.

 

[middleview]

You mean the bank robbery in Hollywood? That was mostly bad tactics on the Police's part, rather than a lack of hardware. To be fair, the 2 shooters reacted with good suppressive fire and "violence of action", and that will get you through some bad spots IF you don't lose your momentum. And I'm pretty sure it was a dozen or so cops, rather than hundreds...

Would you like an opportunity to research the robbery before throwing out misinformation in defense of robbers with machineguns? There were 11 policemen wounded. There were 19 officers who received commendations. You really think there were only a "dozen or so"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

 

[Bo-4]

I'm 60. I've lived in quite a few large cities in my life, some very well known as high crime places (Miami and LA for instance). I've never needed to have a gun to stop violence and never known anyone else to need one. Just how many times do you have personal experience or known someone who did where a gun was needed to stop violence?

You have a few years on me but ditto MV. And of the hundreds of people i've known in smaller towns and big cities, i knew exactly one who carried a concealed weapon (retired cop). Freyas sounds like he lived in Frontierland in the 1800s or something.