If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

noxiously said:

Why do you need to carry that many bullets to go hunting. LMAO you must be a horrible shot. From my experience in the woods, and yes, I've had plenty, but usually when you take one shot at a deer or other wild animal, they do what......yes that's correct, they start running. So, if you are taking all 100 shots at a deer in order to kill it maybe you are being an irresponsible gun owner. Because if you are spraying the woods with that many rounds, you may, just may hit another hunter who is out there that you can't see.

Click to expand...

st0wandgrow said:

noxiously, I agree with you for the most part. I too don't see any practical need for the average citizen to own an assault rifle and a 100 round magazine. BUT, it isn't a s clear cut as it may seem at first glance.

Lets say the assault weapon ban and ban on large capacity magazines goes in to effect. What about all of the assault rifles and large capacity magazines already out there?

Click to expand...

Do we send the brown suits around door to door to collect them, and if so how do you think that will go over? Is that even feasible? Let's take this a step further, and pretend the door to door campaign is a success. What's stopping these types of weapons from being smuggled in through our very porous borders?

Banning weapons seems impractical to me. As a society we have embraced the right to bear arms, and as such it would be next to impossible to implement any type of weapons ban. I'm hoping to see some type of system implemented where we can easily identify who is allowed to have a gun (any gun), and who isn't. We then would need to make the penalties very stiff for anyone caught with a gun that isn't supposed to have one.

I don't think we can EVER prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening. If someone is nutty enough to do something like that, then no amount of legislation will be able to prevent it. What we may have better luck in preventing is the nickle and dime thugs who think they're bad ass carrying around a stolen pistol. If they knew they would face a mandatory minimum 10, 15, or 20 year sentence for JUST being caught with a gun, it may deter some from going that route, and perhaps make our inner cities a little safer.

It's a very complex issue, imo.

Click to expand...

noxiously said:

100% true. Reason always goes out the door when talking about gun control. No, guns should never be banned, I'm not saying that. I love my guns too much to just hand them over, which they would never try that anyway. But also, we need to come to some kind of middle ground to try and prevent these things from happening again. If you can't meet in the middle then nothing gets done about it, and that's what the NRA and all of it's wacko followers are trying to do. It's a stand off, you cry long enough and hard enough to distract people from the real problem until we forget the real problem and nothing gets done about it.

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

I would be oh so much more willing to explore the middle ground were it not for the Ratchet. Gun control laws have historically only gone one way ... tighter, with the interesting exception in the '90s of the appearance of a groundswell of "shall-issue" CCW laws. These have not had the predicted (by antis) deleterious effect on public safety.

Break the Ratchet. Show America's gun owners and prospective gun customers that we are not under media siege. Discard the snarl term "assault weapon". This I would like to see. cn

Click to expand...

noxiously said:

I gotta give you some cred for that post about deer needing tenderizing, I was cracking up when I read that. But as it is now our guns laws haven't gotten as strict as people believe they are. I didn't have a problem with getting my CCW's, and to tell the truth...I really don't believe that class was all that professional about it. When I was watching some of the other people do their shooting portion I can say that atleast half the class barely hit their target at the close range. Some of them didn't even hit the target all together, and the sad part....they all passed and now have their CCW's. So out of the 30 or so people that was in my class atleast 15 of them shouldn't have passed but, the Sheriff who offered the class passed these people anyway. So maybe those people are in need of these high capacity magazines lol.

My cousin made a good point and I had never really thought about it until he said it. He made the comment that it's not the "criminals" who are doing these mass shootings. That these mass shootings are done by law abiding citizens who snap one day. Criminals kill one or two people and they run.

So what does that mean? It's not the criminals you should be worried about, it's these so called "law abiding citizens" who snap one day and just go psycho. They are the ones who shouldn't have assault rifles with high capacity mags. Hell, atleast the criminals only kill one or two people with their weapons, and never do they go into an elementary school and kill a bunch of children.

Click to expand...

Mindmelted said:

Question for ya.Do you smoke pot?
If yes! then you are a criminal and law abiding citizen Who happens to have a CCW!
How ironic is that.

Click to expand...

Mindmelted said:

Question for ya.Do you smoke pot?
If yes! then you are a criminal and law abiding citizen Who happens to have a CCW!
How ironic is that.

Click to expand...

NLXSK1 said:

I am sure that if we have a national gun registry and combine all the databases, nobody in the government will suggest taking away all those CCW's and guns from the criminals using medical marijuana...

Couldnt happen right?

Obamanation...

Click to expand...

noxiously said:

You actually brought up a good point. In the states where MMJ is allowed, and the two states that is completely legal for recreational use, what will the government do when it comes to those who smoke weed and have CCW's? I've never really looked into this much, but I think CCW's are issued on a state level instead of a federal level, so if the state has MMJ or recreational use that is allowed then those who use marijuana are no longer viewed as criminals in the states eyes. They may be viewed as criminals in the federal governments eyes, but can they take away one's CCW's? I'm sure they can take them away, but would they.

In my opinion I don't think they would, it wouldn't be worth their time or money to take away someones CCW's just because they smoke weed. I don't see them doing that unless they are being charged for something bigger.

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

I otoh think that the Feds will use every lever at their disposal to express displeasure with the flouting of the Fed-level prohibition. "Weapons enhancements" are de rigueur in drug gases these days. And that is a key factor that has kept me from applying for a CCW ... it "leaves a datum".

I don't agree with your dichotomy of criminals and "ordinary citizens who snap". I won't profile criminals into habitual v. occasional. The moment someone gets serious about doing something mean or dumb with a crime , he (almost always he) has crossed the line into criminality. More insidious imo is the prtrayal of Average Citizen as "the bigger danger".

My biggest beef with CCWs is their uneven availability. In the places where they are most desperately needed, such as Eastern metro areas, they're not being made available. cn

Click to expand...

NLXSK1 said:

I love AZ... Open carry state. You dont need a CCW unless you want to carry concealed. You can buy a handgun and put it on the passenger seat of your car and you are A-OK!!

It smells like freedom...

Click to expand...

Memukan said:

It is people like Uncle Buck that scare me.

Click to expand...

Memukan said:

It is people like Uncle Buck that scare me.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

goes to show: only people who need those 30 round clips are the raging vaginas that can't handle a man with an axe.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

goes to show: only people who need those 30 round clips are the raging vaginas that can't handle a man with an axe.

Click to expand...