You knew it wouldn't be long after the tragedy for this to be brought up

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
Hunters use assault rifles ? Huh.

Like what, 1 percent of them ?
Click to expand...

LG, I usually sympathize with your posts; seems that we're the few liberals on here (although I'm not a Democrat and don't describe myself as such either). However, I come from good, ole' down home stock, and yes, there are numerous hunters who use assault rifles (or at least 10 clip rifles like a mini-14). I wouldn't say the majority by any means, but quite a few nonetheless. These guns are very useful for hunting small-game that can cause a lot of havoc on farmers' crops (like wild pigs, for instance), or coyotes that can threaten livestock or family pets. I certainly understand why some on the left don't want people to own such weapons, and there's no doubt that some of these weapons have caused a lot of harm to innocent humans. Even so, they do serve a very useful purpose, which most people (who aren't privy to life out in the country) don't quite understand. I know people who need weapons like these to help them defend their crops, livestock, and financial well-being even. I think the left would be better served by focusing its energies on other important issues, like gay rights, religious tolerance, etc., which are projects that could potentially alleviate violence while also not turning away those on the right or taking away important gun rights.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
Hunters use assault rifles ? Huh.

Like what, 1 percent of them ?
Click to expand...

Calling a gun an assault riffle is kind of like calling a sports car an "assault car". The vast majority of the public cannot own automatic weapons which are truly "assault weapons". What the press and Dems like to rail against are nothing more than semi automatic riffles that resemble military weapons.
 
#78
#78
hog88 said:
Calling a gun an assault riffle is kind of like calling a sports car an "assault car". The vast majority of the public cannot own automatic weapons which are truly "assault weapons". What the press and Dems like to rail against are nothing more than semi automatic riffles that resemble military weapons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good point. I wasn't even thinking when I posted that these "assault" rifles aren't even automatic. To be an actual assault rifle, the gun has to at least have that capacity. What I was referring to in my previous post is a semi-automatic rifle that possesses a large magazine (up to 30 rounds). Now, to be fair, a good gunsmith (or anyone who knows gun mechanics very well) can potentially alter a weapon to make it automatic; however, last time I checked, I hadn't heard of any gunsmiths who were going around using assault rifles on people.
 
#79
#79
I would never give up my guns. Its tragedies like this that should show more reason for the right to carry a concealed weapon. And if there were a law to stop the possession of guns, tell much how much effect that law would take on people who would break it and do exactly this.

I feel personally that had it been my family, I would rather know that they died from someone trying to defend them, as to someone intentionally trying to cause them harm.

I'm sorry if you don't like the 2nd amendment, but if you don't; move next door to me and this sign goes up.
yard-sign.jpg
 
#84
#84
There's no doubt that guns, and handguns and large-capacity magazined semi-automatics especially, have caused a good deal of grief in this world. I'm sure there would be those whose lives could be sparred if these weapons were not legal (and more easily available), although this would not completely solve the issue of gun violence altogether. However, there are also innocent people who have had their lives/well-being saved due to guns. In fact, there are cases from our country's history when possessing a gun helped the causes of good, innocent people who might otherwise have gone unheard and continually repressed (i.e., the coal wars, or race riots, when minority homes were under attack). Now, one could argue that these people are also attacked and harried by people with guns (so what's the difference), but simply possessing guns can help to level the playing field between a minority group that is vastly outnumbered by an oppressor, whoever that oppressor may be.

Regardless, the issue is one worth debating, and I can see the merits of viewpoints from both sides. I don't think it's as simple as guns kill or guns save people sort of thing, with no in-between.
 
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
Hunters use assault rifles ? Huh.

Like what, 1 percent of them ?
Click to expand...

As is often (well, very often actually) the case when discussing most anything firearms related your ignorance is showing. The use of AR platform weapons for sporting use has exploded over the last decade. So much so in fact that terms like "modern sporting rifle" are being used to refer to them. (go ahead and google that by they way, no dearth of information on this) Heck, Remington (maker of about a jillion sporting shotguns and rifles) has their own AR platform hunting rifle called the R15/R30. (depending on caliber)

Strictly speaking the term "assault rifle" isn't really accurate since that would refer to a military weapon with full-auto capability which you aren't going to be buying at Walmart. What you can buy at Walmart is a semi-auto variant that shares a similar platform.
 
#89
#89
volprof said:
Yeah, that's a good point. I wasn't even thinking when I posted that these "assault" rifles aren't even automatic. To be an actual assault rifle, the gun has to at least have that capacity. What I was referring to in my previous post is a semi-automatic rifle that possesses a large magazine (up to 30 rounds). Now, to be fair, a good gunsmith (or anyone who knows gun mechanics very well) can potentially alter a weapon to make it automatic; however, last time I checked, I hadn't heard of any gunsmiths who were going around using assault rifles on people.
Click to expand...

A quick google search and....

[YouTube]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CF0QtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7yBmiWUyTdI&ei=zkkMULW5OcXZ0QGY_tGDBA&usg=AFQjCNE2prmlaV-Huu4vR0IEQWhU1t4bzw[/YouTube]

Seems really tough for these teenagers to figure out and explain in 2min.
 
#90
#90
burntorangeVOLffle said:
A quick google search and....

[YouTube]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CF0QtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7yBmiWUyTdI&ei=zkkMULW5OcXZ0QGY_tGDBA&usg=AFQjCNE2prmlaV-Huu4vR0IEQWhU1t4bzw[/YouTube]

Seems really tough for these teenagers to figure out and explain in 2min.
Click to expand...

Your link doesn't work, so I'm not sure what it is, whether it's actual guns or paintball guns. Regardless, anyone who is hell-bent on getting automatic weapons for a shootout is probably going to do that whether it's legal or illegal. Furthermore, I'll be the first to admit that most guns used in these kinds of shootings are probably not automatic. Do guns make it easier to kill mass numbers of people in a short amount of time, you bet they do. This is very unfortunate, and I think worthy of debate. I advise, however, for anyone who is absolutely set against gun ownership or strict gun control to read my previous post above.
 
#91
#91
volprof said:
Your link doesn't work, so I'm not sure what it is, whether it's actual guns or paintball guns. Regardless, anyone who is hell-bent on getting automatic weapons for a shootout is probably going to do that whether it's legal or illegal. Furthermore, I'll be the first to admit that most guns used in these kinds of shootings are probably not automatic. Do guns make it easier to kill mass numbers of people in a short amount of time, you bet they do. This is very unfortunate, and I think worthy of debate. I advise, however, for anyone who is absolutely set against gun ownership or strict gun control to read my previous post above.
Click to expand...

It's a video of two teenagers showing how to make an AK47 fully automatic by filing down a part of the trigger mechanism so the hammer just barely slows down.

In a perfect world there would be no guns or misuse of guns. My personal belief is that the 2nd Ammendment was not written with semi or fully automatics in mind. Unfortuately that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. I'm not sure what the answer is.
 
#92
#92
I know this is morbid but it sounds like this guy was intent on doing some damage that night. Had he not gotten his hands on guns (legally or illegally), he would have rigged up explosives and waltzed into the theater that way. I'm going to guess an explosion in that place would have done more damage. It's kind of funny they want to blame the tool and not ever really dig deep into the absolute moral decay of this society that causes these problems, but they that may make people squirm a bit. And even then, it's not the government's place to step in and enforce anything.
 
#93
#93
burntorangeVOLffle said:
It's a video of two teenagers showing how to make an AK47 fully automatic by filing down a part of the trigger mechanism so the hammer just barely slows down.

In a perfect world there would be no guns or misuse of guns. My personal belief is that the 2nd Ammendment was not written with semi or fully automatics in mind. Unfortuately that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. I'm not sure what the answer is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, burntorange. I actually don't think you and I disagree irrevocably on this issue. I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous to begin with - throw in historical contextualization, and the amendment gets even more ambivalent. I agree that it is incapable of accounting for things like semi- and automatic weapons, as well as handguns. This is just one reason why I've stated in my other posts that the issue is definitely worth debating. However, like I've said there as well, some of these weapons (maybe not automatic weapons) have served good purposes for law-abiding citizens who would otherwise be gravely threatened by corporate thugs, racist thugs, or even government thugs on occasion in our nation's history. Possessing these weapons were often the only things that helped level the "playing field" for these oppressed peoples against their otherwise more powerful foes. I know today that it doesn't seem like we're as threatened by such things, but I'm also of the mind that we can never really know when a turn here or a turn there can lead to one thing or another that would possibly render innocent people otherwise defenseless once again, whether it be mob violence or even government violence (which I think is why the drafters of the Constitution made a 2nd Amendment).
 
#94
#94
volprof said:
Thanks for clarifying, burntorange. I actually don't think you and I disagree irrevocably on this issue. I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous to begin with - throw in historical contextualization, and the amendment gets even more ambivalent. I agree that it is incapable of accounting for things like semi- and automatic weapons, as well as handguns. This is just one reason why I've stated in my other posts that the issue is definitely worth debating.
Click to expand...

Started off amiss...

volprof said:
However, like I've said there as well, some of these weapons (maybe not automatic weapons) have served good purposes for law-abiding citizens who would otherwise be gravely threatened by corporate thugs, racist thugs, or even government thugs on occasion in our nation's history. Possessing these weapons were often the only things that helped level the "playing field" for these oppressed peoples against their otherwise more powerful foes. I know today that it doesn't seem like we're as threatened by such things, but I'm also of the mind that we can never really know when a turn here or a turn there can lead to one thing or another that would possibly render innocent people otherwise defenseless once again, whether it be mob violence or even government violence (which I think is why the drafters of the Constitution made a 2nd Amendment).
Click to expand...

...but ended well. :good!:
 
#95
#95
PKT_VOL said:
Started off amiss...



...but ended well. :good!:
Click to expand...

haha! Thanks! But I will stand by my point that the 2nd Amendment is incapable of accounting for those kinds of weapons, which hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment was written for a particular historical time period. This, however, is not to say that it can't still apply to us today, but it is to say that to what extent it applies (in other words, what weapons it constitutes) is debatable. It would be akin to drafting a weapons amendment today that would have to apply for 200 or 250 years in the future when who knows what personal arms could exist.
 
#96
#96
volprof said:
haha! Thanks! But I will stand by my point that the 2nd Amendment is incapable of accounting for those kinds of weapons, which hadn't even been invented yet. The 2nd Amendment was written for a particular historical time period. This, however, is not to say that it can't still apply to us today, but it is to say that to what extent it applies (in other words, what weapons it constitutes) is debatable. It would be akin to drafting a weapons amendment today that would have to apply for 200 or 250 years in the future when who knows what personal arms could exist.
Click to expand...

doesn't that logic equally apply to the 1st Amendment? I'm confident that the founding fathers didn't anticipate the advent of computers and, with them, bloggers and anonymous message board posters. yet, we extend 1st Amendment protecfions beyond the traditional press that existed in the 18th century.
 
#97
#97
dreVol said:
doesn't that logic equally apply to the 1st Amendment? I'm confident that the founding fathers didn't anticipate the advent of computers and, with them, bloggers and anonymous message board posters. yet, we extend 1st Amendment protecfions beyond the traditional press that existed in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. The Constitution, for all its glory was incapable of accounting for many things. Heck, it didn't treat anyone like a real citizen who wasn't a white male. There are still fundamental rights in there, however, that I think should be guaranteed us. Free speech, free press, and the right to bear personal arms (not necessarily automatic or ones with magazine capacities over 30 rounds) should still be granted. However, I'm not really going to argue with anyone who argues otherwise on the gun issue unless their claiming we should have our gun rights completely taken away from us.
 
#99
#99
burntorangeVOLffle said:
In a perfect world there would be no guns or misuse of guns.
Click to expand...

maybe the second part works but I fail to see how no guns would make this a perfect world. I own quite a few and have never misused them and I'm sure that holds true for the vast majority of gun owners. You shouldn't allow a few isolated incidents to control your entire belief
 
#100
#100
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top