Ban Laws

[Rackin A Round]

Okay, I was just wondering what everyone's views are on the ban laws, if you have any in your jurisdiction, etc. please fill me in. What do you think about handguns? For it? Against it? go for it guys!

[mohican]

Okay, I was just wondering what everyone's views are on the ban laws, if you have any in your jurisdiction, etc. please fill me in. What do you think about handguns? For it? Against it? go for it guys!

I think everyone should turn in their handguns.




To me :D :D
email me, and I'll give you the shipping address :D :p

[Rackin A Round]

hahaha, I hear ya PFD, wanna send some to me too??? I can add to my collection!

[hog]

it is our right as an American to keep and bear arms....as soon as some asshole politician bans guns ....Guess what only criminals will own them........it will not stop crime

[Chia6004]

I believe that some restraints need to be put in place. Like the assualt weapon ban and no guns for crimnals, and persons on the terrorist watch list. Who the hell they are allowed to buy guns here is beyond me. Better question is how did they get in.

[Emtmom]

I believe that some restraints need to be put in place. Like the assualt weapon ban The only problem with this one is this, when they went after assault weapons the last time, they left it too broad a description. They wanted to ban any automatic or semi automatic weapon. Which would mean to many law abiding citizens like my self, that we would lose our weapons. MY weapon is a semi-automatic 15 shot 22 rifle. Because of the fact that it is a semi-automatic weapon, it would have been illegal for me to own. You have to be very careful what you're asking for!

[Hopewell]

I already posted my clearly unpopular opinion on another thread that I personally think that only police and military should carry handguns.

I see a legitimate purpose for private ownership of rifles and shotguns for hunters, outdoor sportsmen, target shooters and those who wish to have a firearm for home defense.

P.S. This is only my opinion. I don't expect others to agree or care for it. That's what makes the 1st amendment the best of the bunch.

P.P.S. As an aside to those who argue the 2nd amendment (i.e., hog), I will only consider your arguments when you can quote and understand the entirety of the amendment, not just the half you know.

[No Fear]

What about the U.S Pistol team Hope, do we make that a thing of the past, Tho I do respect your opinion on firearms I think there should be other considerations. Like very tough gun laws where they are involved in a crime and mandatory lenghtly periods to be served in prison. Not just to be plea bargain. If we were tough and sentenced these assholes away for a long time maybe the word would get out, there will be no excuse if you use a handgun in the comission of a crime. Your going to jail for along time

[paramedic 35]

I thank God that I live in WV, where we can carry concealed weapons, with a permit, and where the NRA is a strong force. I agree that there needs to be stiffer penalties for commission of a crime involving a weapon and that criminals should not be allowed to own firearms. They do, however, need to take into consideration the large population of law-abiding citizens who are gun owners for sporting purposes.

As a hunter I do believe in very strict Gun Control (please see definition below)

Gun Control: a 5 shot, 1/2 inch group at 100 yards.

[Rackin A Round]

paramedic, that is target control, gun control is using both hands and a firm grip! lol I am glad that I am getting some responses on here, very interesting to hear from different localities on their version of ban laws. Here in Virginia you can carry conceled at 21 with a permit, but at 18 you can carry as long as it is in plan view. The only thing that I do not like is that depending on which county you live in, you might not have to ever shoot that gun before they give you a permit for conceal carry. I would also like to see more laws protecting gun owners. The NRA is strong here and pushes for alot, but without the public to back it up, it can only go so far. I think it is pathetic that if we shoot an intruder in our own home and do not kill him, we have that fear of being sued by the intruder! There should be laws to protect the good guys, not the bad ones!

[mohican]

I believe that some restraints need to be put in place. Like the assualt weapon ban and no guns for crimnals, and persons on the terrorist watch list. Who the hell they are allowed to buy guns here is beyond me. Better question is how did they get in.

The so called assault ban had zero effect on crime

It did have a positive result though

no guns for criminals - are you naive enough to think that criminals will turn their guns in? The only time criminals turn in weapons is when they sell guns to the government in those idiotic, no questions asked buy back programs

Armed criminals are only a true threat when the law abiding citizenry is unarmed.

[mohican]

P.P.S. As an aside to those who argue the 2nd amendment (i.e., hog), I will only consider your arguments when you can quote and understand the entirety of the amendment, not just the half you know.

I understand the whole 2nd amendment, and if you are referring to the militia, in the days when the constitution was framed, the militia was every able bodied male of a certain age. The "national guard" arguement does not apply because the national guard came into being years after constitution was written.

Well regulated? in the parlance of the times, that meant that you were trained to hit what you shot at. Back then, "regulating" was what we call "sighting in".

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the constitution should never be construed as to prevent free men from bearing arms.

[kep.ctc]

:confused: I already posted my clearly unpopular opinion on another thread that I personally think that only police and military should carry handguns.

I see a legitimate purpose for private ownership of rifles and shotguns for hunters, outdoor sportsmen, target shooters and those who wish to have a firearm for home defense.

P.S. This is only my opinion. I don't expect others to agree or care for it. That's what makes the 1st amendment the best of the bunch.

P.P.S. As an aside to those who argue the 2nd amendment (i.e., hog), I will only consider your arguments when you can quote and understand the entirety of the amendment, not just the half you know.


:mad: Just one note this amendment is meant to protect the people from the government. Go and research a european news website/Australia and take the time to read how violent crimes against the citizens has increased due to the guns being removed by the socialist/communist pigs.

HOW MANY CRIMINALS HAVE PURCHASED GUNS AT A GUN SHOW? MY GUESS IS NONE

[kep.ctc]

I understand the whole 2nd amendment, and if you are referring to the militia, in the days when the constitution was framed, the militia was every able bodied male of a certain age. The "national guard" arguement does not apply because the national guard came into being years after constitution was written.

Well regulated? in the parlance of the times, that meant that you were trained to hit what you shot at. Back then, "regulating" was what we call "sighting in".

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the constition should never be construed as to prevent free men from bearing arms.


WELL SAID PFD

[kep.ctc]

In Maryland it is illegal to protect yourself. Since there is NO self defense law!!!!

[Mad Co Citizen]

Hopewell,

The problem in America is gun-ignorant people like you want to limit our rights because you believe the BS statistics that are being put out by...people like you!!! Your statement:

"I personally think that only police and military should carry handguns. I see a legitimate purpose for private ownership of rifles and shotguns for hunters, outdoor sportsmen, target shooters and those who wish to have a firearm for home defense."

A criminal with a handgun (if you think laws will get handguns out of the hands of criminals, you are flat out stupid) stands no chance of losing to a rifle toting homeowner. You have no problem with me wanting a weapon for home defense, but you want to TAKE AWAY the BEST weapon for the task.

Once again look at where handgun bans are in effect...for example (and I know that I sound like a broken record, but you people want to IGNORE THE FACTS) look at Washington, D.C. The only people who have handguns are the criminals and the cops, which leaves the law-abiding citizens without an effective way of defending themselves.

[Hopewell]

I understand the whole 2nd amendment, and if you are referring to the militia, in the days when the constitution was framed, the militia was every able bodied male of a certain age. The "national guard" arguement does not apply because the national guard came into being years after constitution was written.

Well regulated? in the parlance of the times, that meant that you were trained to hit what you shot at. Back then, "regulating" was what we call "sighting in".

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the constitution should never be construed as to prevent free men from bearing arms.You are correct that I was referring to the first part of the 2nd amendment, the whole of which reads:

"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You are also correct that the National Guard came into being years after the constitution was written. In revolutionary times, prior to the creation of an army, citizens were indeed expected to be soldiers, (i.e., minutemen) and Jefferson was a proponent of the 2nd amendment.

However, the framers of the constitution were great believers in state's rights, and the well regulated militia refers to a formally trained and organized body of soldiers able to be summoned for defense of the state.

[Rackin A Round]

However, the framers of the constitution were great believers in state's rights, and the well regulated militia refers to a formally trained and organized body of soldiers able to be summoned for defense of the state.


First off hopewell, I want documentation that they were formally trained. Were they put through a set course with well defined qualification standards or were they just the ordinary citizen wanting to help the best they could? They wanted to protect THEMSELVES, their PROPERTY, their FAMILY, and their GOVERNMENT. does that not sound like what we are doing in present day?? I own a gun not to kill, but to protect. If you want to be the one to try to take that away from me, good luck, I wish you the best in your efforts, how absent-minded they might be...

[Hopewell]

:confused:


:mad: Just one note this amendment is meant to protect the people from the government. Go and research a european news website/Australia and take the time to read how violent crimes against the citizens has increased due to the guns being removed by the socialist/communist pigs.

HOW MANY CRIMINALS HAVE PURCHASED GUNS AT A GUN SHOW? MY GUESS IS NONE
The second amendment was indeed intended to protect citizens from their own government. With what I have stated already, I believe the founding fathers intention would be upheld.

Violent crime statistics have much more to do with socio-economic factors, including illegal drug trade, geographical norms and mores, and culturally-bred violence than with gun regulation or lack there of.

[mohican]

The second amendment was indeed intended to protect citizens from their own government. With what I have stated already, I believe the founding fathers intention would be upheld.

Violent crime statistics have much more to do with socio-economic factors, including illegal drug trade, geographical norms and mores, and culturally-bred violence than with gun regulation or lack there of.

I agree with your second paragraph

Although I can not fathom a true supporter of the 2a being against handguns. If I responsibly use my handguns, what problem do I present to others? the answer is that I don't.

The War Between the States is proof that the federal government does not take states rights seriously.

[No Fear]

Kep, why I can understand what you are saying about no self defense law in Maryland. Some of your statement isn't true either. You must be able to prove that you were in fear that serious bodily harm or death may occur. I f you can't then you have some problems. For example if someone comes up to with a baseball bat and threatens you and you respond inside your house and come outside and shoot the SOB, you will have problems. But if he comes in and threatens you with the bat , light their ass up. You can prove to anyone that you were in fear .Its self defense, which is a legal defense

[Hopewell]

First off hopewell, I want documentation that they were formally trained. Were they put through a set course with well defined qualification standards or were they just the ordinary citizen wanting to help the best they could? They wanted to protect THEMSELVES, their PROPERTY, their FAMILY, and their GOVERNMENT. does that not sound like what we are doing in present day?? I own a gun not to kill, but to protect. If you want to be the one to try to take that away from me, good luck, I wish you the best in your efforts, how absent-minded they might be...Not having been an officer in the colonial army, I can not write conclusively on the training standards that the first American settlers underwent before taking arms against the red-coats and gaining independence for our great land. Nor can I relate with authority how they conducted the formation of our first American armies subsequently.

What I can tell you is that the regiments that came to be formed in the new federal army were originally grouped by the states from which the participants hailed from. The next major military conflict that America engaged in after the Revolution was the war of 1812, where said regiments were sent into battle... as a federal army representing the "united" states against the British.

It seems as though the founding fathers wishes had come to fruition, as the need arose to defend the land.

[Hopewell]

Hopewell,

The problem in America is gun-ignorant people like you want to limit our rights because you believe the BS statistics that are being put out by...people like you!!! Your statement:

"I personally think that only police and military should carry handguns. I see a legitimate purpose for private ownership of rifles and shotguns for hunters, outdoor sportsmen, target shooters and those who wish to have a firearm for home defense."

A criminal with a handgun (if you think laws will get handguns out of the hands of criminals, you are flat out stupid) stands no chance of losing to a rifle toting homeowner. You have no problem with me wanting a weapon for home defense, but you want to TAKE AWAY the BEST weapon for the task.

Once again look at where handgun bans are in effect...for example (and I know that I sound like a broken record, but you people want to IGNORE THE FACTS) look at Washington, D.C. The only people who have handguns are the criminals and the cops, which leaves the law-abiding citizens without an effective way of defending themselves.Okay, Mad Co., you just got your one free shot at me. I haven't insulted you or your views personally. Is there a reason you aren't extending me the same courtesy? Do I seem un-intelligent to you?

I've tried to respond to your post, piece at a time but it's too time consuming for the moment. Suffice it to say;

1) You've lumped me into a stereotype, i.e. ("people like you", "gun ignorant", "flat out stupid", "you people") You either haven't digested what I've written or choose to assume that dissenters of your opinion fall into the category of, "if you're not with me, you're against me."

2) Please read my post regarding factors of violent crime to kep.ctc and what that really means, If you think that the reason Washington D.C. is a haven for violent crime is because of strict gun regulation, then I would urge you to seek further. Virginia and it's nearly cash and carry gun laws across the river, make it sooo easy for ANYONE to get a gun. If you live in D.C. and can afford a Metro (that's the subway in D.C.) fare card, you can get a gun.

3) If you think the only way to defend your home against the (statistically) extremely unlikely event of a home intruder is with a handgun, I invite you to enter my home around 3 a.m. unannounced any day of the week, and bring your .50 cal. Desert Eagle with you. If you don't think a short barreled 12 guage pump with double-ought buck and an extended tube will meet you half-way, then come on in. I'll leave the door unlocked. ;)

[Hopewell]

To: PFD3501, No Fear, kep.ctc., and Rackin A Round,

I know my views are unpopular, and I'm alright with that... I have to be in the fire service where everyone's a conservative. :D

Thank you for keeping debates civil, friendly, and lively.

[No Fear]

No problem Hope, you have express your opinion in a civil way and I respect you for that. It is America and thats what its all about.

Take Care in the Big City and Be Safe

[Hopewell]

No problem Hope, you have express your opinion in a civil way and I respect you for that. It is America and thats what its all about.

Take Care in the Big City and Be SafeThanks, No Fear,

Got your back in a fire anytime...

[kep.ctc]

Kep, why I can understand what you are saying about no self defense law in Maryland. Some of your statement isn't true either. You must be able to prove that you were in fear that serious bodily harm or death may occur. I f you can't then you have some problems. For example if someone comes up to with a baseball bat and threatens you and you respond inside your house and come outside and shoot the SOB, you will have problems. But if he comes in and threatens you with the bat , light their ass up. You can prove to anyone that you were in fear .Its self defense, which is a legal defense


Sorry, I just made a general statement did not have time to string out my statement and do agree with you NO FEAR

Hope I also like a nice clean debate and believe this is what makes AMERICA great go to CHINA and talk this way!!! and see what happens to you

[Rackin A Round]

Hopewell, I enjoy having this civil debate with you, unlike many here on TWD, you express your views completly and intelligently. We may have different views on somethings, but we are here for the same reasons. I like to be able to discuss and carry on intelligent conversations on here, but rarely happens =)

[mohican]

Thanks, No Fear,

Got your back in a fire anytime...

Likewise here, hopewell
got your six covered

[mohican]

kinda curious though, are CIVIL debates allowed in this section of the forum? :D :D

[Rackin A Round]

not normally, but hell....though i would give it a go...better than bustin his balls =) I would hate to get the nick name ball buster!

[2EngTrk3]

I think it is pathetic that if we shoot an intruder in our own home and do not kill him, we have that fear of being sued by the intruder!

That is why you make sure he/she is dead! But then there is always the family crying wrongful death. So you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.

As a person going into law enforcement myself, I have no problem taking the life of another person. I sat down and thought about it before making my career choice. The conclusion I came to was this:

If he/she is wielding a weapon and willing to try and take my life, I damn better be prepared and more than willing to take theirs. It doesn't matter if it is an old lady, some punk drug dealer, or an eight year old kid. If they are willing to point a weapon at me and try to injure me, you can bet your ass I will take the measures needed to get me home at the end of the shift.

As far as gun control, what do you want?? By banning guns, all you will do is remove them from the hands of the honest people. (Keeping the honest, honest) Anyone that wants one, can and will find a way to get one.

Just like drugs, they are illegal, but if somebody wants them, they ask around a little bit, and eventually they are able to attain what ever they want.

[Hopewell]

That is why you make sure he/she is dead! But then there is always the family crying wrongful death. So you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.If I'm not mistaken, I believe that law enforcement officers, when placed in the position of having to use deadly force, are trained to aim their weapons at center mass and fire to incapacitate. I have no problem with that philosophy.

As a person going into law enforcement myself, I have no problem taking the life of another person. I sat down and thought about it before making my career choice. The conclusion I came to was this:

If he/she is wielding a weapon and willing to try and take my life, I damn better be prepared and more than willing to take theirs. It doesn't matter if it is an old lady, some punk drug dealer, or an eight year old kid. If they are willing to point a weapon at me and try to injure me, you can bet your ass I will take the measures needed to get me home at the end of the shift.I commend you for examining the possibility of having to take life before making your choice. I hope you never find yourself in the position of having to do so. Just the same, if you act in a manner consistent with what you know to be right, you will make the right decision. Even with every regard for human life and judicious leeway, your safety should be paramount.

As far as gun control, what do you want?? By banning guns, all you will do is remove them from the hands of the honest people. (Keeping the honest, honest) Anyone that wants one, can and will find a way to get one.

Just like drugs, they are illegal, but if somebody wants them, they ask around a little bit, and eventually they are able to attain what ever they want.Ah, now you've stepped into the heart of the debate. I've only scratched the surface with what I think a utopian gun solution would be... and also with what I believe is either reasonable or practical given what is actually so in our current society.

I think you are correct in your views about gun control... and also wrong, as may be my views and several other's contributions to this thread. There is no pre-packaged answer, which is why our politicians flounder over it, and also why we are able to have this interesting discussion.

[Rackin A Round]

I can't believe that I am saying this, but I actually agree with Hopewell...there is no pre-package answer. If there was, it would be a perfect world. I also commend you 2EngTrk3 for thinking about it before hand on whether you are willing to take another life. Before I went into the military and before I became law enforcement I too had to consider all of the 'what if's'. I came to the conclusion that if they are willing to take my life, I am more than willing to take theirs, but only as a last resort. I much rather incapacitate them than kill them, but that goes back to shoot how you were trained. If your department trains you to shoot two in the chest, one in the head (failure to stop) then at that split second, you will revert back to your training. That is one reason why I cannot preach training enough...Good points people, keep it up!

[crash_&_smash]

I may touch on bits and pieces of posts and opinions already made, but I feel obligated to throw in my two cents…

As an avid hunter, even I think some guns should have restrictions. Any firearm that has the capability to go full automatic (Tek 9, Mac 10, Uzi) should be outlawed, and police should have the right to shot on site of an automatic weapon (not assault weapon)…. Kinda a kill or be killed theory.

I’ve seen other folks post about the “assault weapons ban”. Can someone please define assault weapon for me? People have been assaulted with baseball bats, golf clubs and hockey sticks, but they’re not banned. The point is, any gun can shoot and kill someone, and the titling of that Legislation was misleading and wrong from the get go. I would not be against an “automatic weapons ban” and I think the police should be able to shot back with what type of weapon is fired in their direction.

Again, just my two cents.

PS…Hopewell, Rackin_A_Round, No_Fear, kep.ctc and PFD3501..you all make great arguments and your part of what makes this a great forum.

[Ghetto3FF]

There is an old saying: Locks were meant to keep an Honest Man out, but a Criminal can still get in.

No matter what you ban, if a person wants it, He/She will get it any way they can & at any cost no matter what. Illegal Drugs are banned, but people still get them with little problem. Ban Automatic Weapons & People will STILL get them if they want them bad enough.

[Emtmom]

I know this isn't here in the US, but it's relevent to the conversation/debate!

Fighting Crime the 11th Century Way....

Thu Mar 17,10:04 AM ET Oddly Enough - Reuters


By Peter Apps

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Tighter gun ownership laws are pushing South Africans to buy crossbows, spears, swords, knives and pepper sprays to protect themselves from violent crime.



"We've had to build an entirely new shop because the demand from people is so great," Justin Willmers, owner of Durban Guns and Ammo, told Reuters. "It can be anything from a Zulu fighting spear, battle axes, swords, crossbows."


New gun controls came into force last year under South Africa's Firearms Control Act, but some weapons shop owners say high crime rates are pushing law abiding citizens to look for alternative means of defending themselves.


Despite official figures showing the murder rate falling 10 percent in the year to March 2004, South Africa's Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association says individuals face a one in 60 chance of being the victim of a violent crime in any given year.


Many houses are surrounded by razor wire and electric fences, but with police turning down 80 percent of firearms license requests after an 18-month application process, Association spokesman Alex Holmes said people were forced to look at other options.


"It's not really a matter of choice," Holmes said. "Licensed firearms are not used in crime at any great rate."


Estimates of the number of illegal firearms in South Africa vary between 1 and 4 million, he said, but the real problem is from some 30-40,000 hardcore criminals using a small number of illegal guns.


SILENT CROSSBOW


South Africa began a firearms amnesty on Jan. 1 that to date has netted some 13,000 weapons, officials told Reuters, but critics say most of the weapons handed in are old and would never have been used for crime.


"It's mostly been grannies and grandpas that are handing in weapons that are probably unusable anyhow," Willmers said. In the meantime, people from all walks of life are acquiring weapons not restricted by law.


"The guys have just had enough," Willmers said.


Men are buying machetes to fight off hijackers or crossbows to shoot people breaking into their property, while women are more likely to buy a pepper spray, he said.


One customer successfully fought off three hijackers with a machete, slashing one, he said. A beggar had bought a pepper spray so he could fight off those who tried to steal his shoes as he slept on the street.


With some homeowners worried about prosecution if they kill intruders, the crossbow is particularly popular because of its silence and the difficulty of tracing the firer from forensic evidence, he said.


With no legal restrictions on sales, weapons shop staff had to exercise judgment in who they sold to, Willmers said.

[Rackin A Round]

Mom- great article, in fact I was reading that somewhere earlier this morning.
Crash - I think what they mean my assault weapons is like the full auto firearms, could be wrong but I think that is what they mean.

You know, here in Virginia they started this thing a while back that if you were to have a full auto or similar, you had to register with the state and pay a fee. This was their way of 'keeping track of the high powered guns'. Okay, no problem if you want to register your gun (although I am against it just because it is one more way of big brother tracking you, but if you aren't doing anything illegal, what is there to worry about right?) but to pay a fine?? you already had to purchase the gun, why are you going to place a fee on top of that? What about all of the collectors and rare firearm museums? Once again, the honest person might report their gun to the state department, but the criminals will not. Why place these restrictions on the honest working man (or woman...)

[kep.ctc]

EMTMOM good research it goes to show criminals do not get their weapons legally and that ordinary citizens will find ways to protect their families and their property. I applaud them for taking proactive measures. I am against government gun control laws. I am in a proffession that deals with people that spends some time behind large fences. If you understand what I mean. I may need a gun to protect my family from intruders or other attacks.

Diclaimer: All statements made by me are my opinions and do not reflect where I work or Volunteer!!

[crash_&_smash]

Crash - I think what they mean my assault weapons is like the full auto firearms, could be wrong but I think that is what they mean.

I’m not following you here. Are you saying that your full automatic is an assault weapon?
My point is any weapon can assault someone. They (politicians) need to write it as Full Automatic weapons, not leave things vague for interruptions by Sheriff Buford T Justice.

This was their way of 'keeping track of the high powered guns'. Okay, no problem if you want to register your gun (although I am against it just because it is one more way of big brother tracking you, but if you aren't doing anything illegal, what is there to worry about right?) but to pay a fine?? You already had to purchase the gun, why are you going to place a fee on top of that? What about all of the collectors and rare firearm museums? Once again, the honest person might report their gun to the state department, but the criminals will not. Why place these restrictions on the honest working man (or woman...)

And after you register the gun, if a crime happens in the area with that caliber, whose door do you think they'll knock on? You pay tax on the gun and then pay the extra fee? Where does this extra money go to? What Gov’t program does it help/support?

[QUOTE=kep.ctc]I am in a profession that deals with people that spends some time behind large fences. If you understand what I mean. I may need a gun to protect my family from intruders or other attacks.[QUOTE]

kep...I'm glad people like you do what you do. I worked juvenile prison before coming to my senses. I'll stick with the hot stuff and my hose.... :rolleyes:

Just for grins and giggles I think we should hang drug dealer in the middle of town. Go back to some old school @ss kicking to bring society back to someplace peaceful (but this is for another thread) :D

[Emtmom]

Just for grins and giggles I think we should hang drug dealer in the middle of town. Go back to some old school @ss kicking to bring society back to someplace peaceful (but this is for another thread) :DI don't know, I think overdosing them might be fun to watch! Is there a way to make that slow and painful, so they can suffer like the kids they get hooked?

[Mad Co Citizen]

Hopewell,

I lived in the DC area most of my life, so I am very aware of the issues...and I do not think that you lack intelligence. Look at the before and after statistics for DC (handgun law).

Criminals do NOT need to go to Virginia to get a handgun, anyway. They are readily available...but illegal. So I'll say it again...who has the handguns in DC? Cops and criminals, right? There is NO argument against this statement, period. Have shootings gone up or down? Up, period. So what is the logical conclusion...NOT that the ban worked.

The desert eagle is too heavy and would not be my choice. Your shotgun is great until you have to maneuver. I choose manueverability, accuracy at short range and good knock-down. What you are saying is that you believe my choice should be limited, right? That is gun control and I am against it and passionate about it. Why? Because what is next? Can you stop the madness? What if your shotgun was next...you would be pissed, huh? Can't happen? Look at Australia!

Sorry for putting you in a category.

[mohican]

I may touch on bits and pieces of posts and opinions already made, but I feel obligated to throw in my two cents…

Any firearm that has the capability to go full automatic (Tek 9, Mac 10, Uzi) should be outlawed, and police should have the right to shot on site of an automatic weapon (not assault weapon)…. Kinda a kill or be killed theory.

.

the guns that you have listed, when sold over the counter without a Class III license, take an extreme amount of work by knowledgeable gunsmiths to convert them from semi to full auto. The thing about the boyz in the hood modifying a Tec9 in their garage to fire full auto is just an urban legend, and the stuff of wet dreams for Charles Schumer & his ilk.

[mohican]

Just for grins and giggles I think we should hang drug dealer in the middle of town. Go back to some old school @ss kicking to bring society back to someplace peaceful (but this is for another thread) :D

For 1st time offenders? Too harsh. Unless they are dealing to kids. Then public hanging (slow strangulation, not the quick neck snap).

Public horsewhipping for drug dealers? Ok.

[crash_&_smash]

For 1st time offenders? Too harsh. Unless they are dealing to kids. Then public hanging (slow strangulation, not the quick neck snap).

Public horsewhipping for drug dealers? Ok.


Ok...I'll admit it's extreme, but desperate times call for desperate measures. It's obvious that the liberal solution of drug clinics is not working. A good sturdy rope is cheaper than the cost of (1) the clinic, (2) arrest paperwork (3) courts and (4) prison. Hanging might even solve the overcrowded prison problem.

[Rackin A Round]

But think about it, back in the days that they used public hangings, crime was lower. People actually got to see what would happen if they did the crime. Bring back public hangings and public beheadings. I bet my life that crime rate would lower drastically. Unfortuantley we are a more 'civilized' nation and would never think of going back to this.

[mohican]

I’m not following you here. Are you saying that your full automatic is an assault weapon?
My point is any weapon can assault someone. They (politicians) need to write it as Full Automatic weapons, not leave things vague for interruptions by Sheriff Buford T Justice.

:D
Despite anything you may have been led to believe from 60 minutes or other wonders of journalism, fully automatic weapons have been highly regulated since the 1930's.

You can own fully automatic weapons if you get a class 3 license.

[mohican]

Hanging might even solve the overcrowded prison problem.

maybe we should go with the concept of penal colonies

[Emtmom]

maybe we should go with the concept of penal colonies
Some more of those tent camps like that one warden has would be GREAT!

[mohican]

Lets build fences around NYC, LA, and Miami and turn them into prisons

[crash_&_smash]

Lets build fences around NYC, LA, and Miami and turn them into prisons

Is that sarcasm I sense? Do you have a better idea for the rising crime rate in the country? Maybe we should open all of the prisons and put convicts on the honor system. Again, I'll admit it's extreme, but times are geting hard.

[STEALTH MODE]

Is that sarcasm I sense? Do you have a better idea for the rising crime rate in the country? Maybe we should open all of the prisons and put convicts on the honor system. Again, I'll admit it's extreme, but times are geting hard.
Make STRONGER penalties for offenders like in other countries (i.e., the cutting off of the hands if you steal, etc.) - Rapist, child molesters, etc. - KILL THEM... I bet you crime would go down then... just my opinion though!

[hog]

The bad thing is that prisoners have way too many rights and way too much time at our expense........i believe in the death penalty but they have to be carried out....not this BS like with Charlie Manson where they did away with the death penalty in California so the taxpayers have to pay to keep the creep alive...........but i also believe in the rights of good folks that don`t comit crimes.....that is why there shouldn`t be a gun ban ...........you ban guns (which is our right to keep and bear) only the criminals will have them .....and i want a chance at protecting myself

[mohican]

Is that sarcasm I sense? Do you have a better idea for the rising crime rate in the country? Maybe we should open all of the prisons and put convicts on the honor system. Again, I'll admit it's extreme, but times are geting hard.

I would especially be in favor of fencing in LA if they left all of Hollywood there.

I do think they should bring back public hangings, gelding of molesters & rapist. I would also like to see a politician other than Ron Paul or JD Hayword grow a large enough set of stones to do something about the illegal aliens.

[STEALTH MODE]

Are you a Liberal, Conservative or Southern Conservative?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around
the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah,
raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 10MM, and you are
an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your
family.







What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberal's Answer:

Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him
that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife
think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club
and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this
situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Does he
definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I
were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was
stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need
to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier,
healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so
confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try
to come to a consensus.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conservatives Answer:

BANG!




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Southern Conservatives Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....

(sounds of new magazine loaded)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

[Hopewell]

Dude, I could pick at that post from sooo many angles, and try to defend the "liberal" stance on (A) the liberal vs. conservative view on society, and (B) the inherent flaws in what is stated.

However, I realize that it was posted in humor... and it is pretty funny, so I guess we'll leave it at that. :rolleyes:

P.S. So you favor high capacity magazines I take it. Try switching from a 10 mm round (unusual in a Glock) to a .40 or .45 caliber round. Better stopping power with fewer shots... not that it would slow down a southern conservative! :D

[crash_&_smash]

Thanks Stealth, now I know that I'm not a liberal, but I'm confused about my status as a conservative. If I'm an expert shot, I would only need one round, but it might be a "stress reliever" to empty both magazines just for GP. I’m not from the South, but I do live in Mississippi…..what do I do? I feel undefined..

PS..Hopewell, What are you doing posting at 2:20am? Does anyone think or operate at that time?

[mohican]

Dude, I could pick at that post from sooo many angles, and try to defend the "liberal" stance on (A) the liberal vs. conservative view on society, and (B) the inherent flaws in what is stated.

However, I realize that it was posted in humor... and it is pretty funny, so I guess we'll leave it at that. :rolleyes:

P.S. So you favor high capacity magazines I take it. Try switching from a 10 mm round (unusual in a Glock) to a .40 or .45 caliber round. Better stopping power with fewer shots... not that it would slow down a southern conservative! :D

Uh, Hopewell, hate to break it to you - the 10mm is a 40 caliber round, and in fact has much more moxy than the 40 S&W or 45 ACP. In Fact, in some loadings the 10mm exceeds a 357 mag and approaches the 41 mag. The 40 S&W was the 10mm with the case shortened to 9mm parabellum.

Praise God and pass the Ammo !!!!:D

[Rackin A Round]

Well, I know I am a southern conservative...I would shoot him again and again, but I might go through like 3 or 4 mags. Man, I love to watch them dance.....

[Emtmom]

State Legislators Weigh in on Gun Debate

Sat Apr 9, 7:42 PM ET Top Stories - AP


By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

With more than four out of five states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, that argument is finished. Now, the nation's long-running argument over guns turns on how much to loosen the rules — should guns be allowed in judge's chambers? Bars? In workplace parking lots?


The work in state legislatures following the latest spate of fatal shootings shows how much the debate has changed. The 1999 Columbine school shootings sent moms marching into the streets for tougher gun laws, but this year, many state legislators are looking at ways to broaden access to weapons and ease training and other requirements.


"Where do you stand on self-defense?" said New Mexico state Rep. Thomas Anderson, a Republican who said local judges asked him to change the law to let judges carry weapons into their court chambers. "I believe in it."


His bill died in committee, but it will be back next year. New Mexico this year already broadened its concealed-weapons law, passed just two years ago, to drop the age requirement to 21 and allow the state to reach agreements with other states so gun-carriers can cross borders without worry.


The push for concealed weapons began in the late 1980s, when all but 10 states refused to allow residents to do so, or only allowed it in special circumstances. But starting in 1989, those barriers fell. Now it's up to 46, with 35 states allowing just about anyone who is not a felon to get a permit.


The late 1990s saw a rise in gun control legislation. In 1999, after 15 were killed, including the gunmen, at the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, gun control gained a sharp edge and legislators' attention.


Violence hasn't subsided this year, from courthouse shootings in Atlanta and Tyler, Texas, to the school killings at Red Lake, Minn., the most deadly since Columbine. But the reaction has spurred something far different, drawing on the idea that if the victims had weapons they might not be victims.


"At the scene of these crimes, despite all the good intentions of the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the judges — they're all coming in later," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. "The country as a whole is taking another look, across the board, at the idea that maybe it makes good sense to allow people to protect themselves in as many situations as possible."


Current legislation in some cases is a direct response to the recent shootings, though often predates it. In recent weeks:


_Florida legislators passed a measure allowing people to "meet force with force" to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, extending the right from their homes to anywhere they're legally allowed to be. Gov. Jeb Bush said he intends to sign it.


_Arizona's Senate approved letting people carry guns into bars and restaurants, as long as they're not drinking. The House has yet to act.


_North Dakota legislators approved removing the shooting test needed for a concealed-weapon permit, though the bill awaits final approval from the governor.


Even schools and workplaces, the scene of some of the most horrific violence, saw restrictions fall. A new Virginia law lets people with concealed handguns onto school grounds, as long as they and the gun remain in their car. A 2004 Oklahoma law lets employees with permits keep guns in cars in job parking lots.


"Employers have a responsibility to make their workplace a safe place. For them to let workers with guns onto the premises is insane," said Brian Seibel, senior counsel at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. And bars? "Hello? Do you want to mix alcohol and guns?"


The shift in opinion and legislation comes directly from the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004, and the national focus on security after Sept. 11, both sides agree.


"There's an ebb and flow," Seibel said. "There's no question that the NRA is on the offensive trying to roll back the gun laws on the books. ... Their vision of society is everyone ought to have a gun. That's not our view of a safe society. I don't think it's Americans' view of a safe society."


Still, the struggle hasn't all been one-sided.





Missouri, where legislators approved a concealed-weapon law even though a statewide referendum rejected it in 1999, gave cities the right to restrict weapons on city-owned property. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor John Street, both Democrats, are studying sweeping changes.

Illinois, one of the significant battlegrounds, saw legislation that seeks to ban .50-caliber ammunition, close a loophole that allows sales at gun shows without background checks, and require guns to be sold with "trigger lock" safety devices. Gun-rights interests scored a victory last week by killing a bill that would allow lawsuits against gun dealers.

Anderson, in New Mexico, said restrictions are outlawing the way he grew up, when he learned about guns before he was a teenager. In his view, restrictions make crime more likely, and his view seems on the rise.

"There should be the possibility that any house on the street should have a weapon," he said. "Do I think every house should have one? No. But the bad guy should think so."

[eastshoreoutlaw]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Maryland to ease gun restrictions.

[BigGreasy]

maybe not ease eastshore but the push to ban hasn't quiet the momentum with the liberals losing the governor seat. I quick point the brady law bans all kinds of guns and is what most politicians bring up when they wanna ban guns but it doesn't ban the gun used in shooting brady and prez reagan a little ole .22 handgun. Ok I lied 2 points most the people shot in baltimore arent shot with an assault rifle it is usually small caliber handgun that was stolen or illegally obtained so no ban or law will touch the people shooting on our city streets.