I agree with this, these new laws are more of a response to all these recent shootings. I am in favor of limiting gun violence in anyway possible, but these laws seem short sighted to me. Although i agree, my veiws will probably change once i have kids of my own.

I'm just curious, Skinny, because that's some serious firepower. But you were able to get that thing licensed at your age? Or shouldn't I be asking?

I mean, you're technically not even old enough to drink (although I've always maintained that it's ridiculous that one can be in Afghanistan at 18, but not in the corner bar).

I dont usually keep it with me in Jersey. I think im allowed to possess it but all the clips i have for it are illegal. I bought in North Florida a week after i turned 18. They did everything legally required within 20 mins right at the counter. I have never bought a gun in NJ. Everywhere in the US you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. Usually its 18 to buy/own a rifle or shotgun. In NY its 21. In NJ it varies from town to town. Honestly it is a lot of fire power. But i and the rest of my family have traditionally been gun nuts. I through out my life have owned 3 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 handguns. My dad owns 12 or 13. My mom has one. Like I said I like guns.

I do agree with you as to being able to drink though

Didnt they try and outlaw 4 Lokos a while back? But it had more than just alcohol in it. A friend of mine brought me back absinthe from a HS trip to Germany.

I'm not an NRA supporter or member. But I do own guns. I'm concerned that people who don't own or like guns are going to support legislation that won't do very much to stop violence but will do a lot to expand government oversight of law abiding gun owners.

For example, Feinstein's proposed legislation would make a number of semi-automatic weapons illegal but also grandfather in others. The problem is that the grandfathered weapons would need to be registered under the NFA which is the same law we restrict automatic weapons under. Long story short, if you owned a certain semi-automatic weapon (not just a rifle) for all intents and purposes you'd be treated the same as if you owned a machine gun. I don't see much value in that.

I would support universal background checks and greater sharing of medical data when someone has been involuntarily committed or has some sort of psychosis. I also would like more prosecution of people who fail background checks and gun dealers/individuals who make illegal sales.

But past that I start getting a little uncomfortable when people say "no one needs x". I might not need or want x but someone else might.

Skinny I will be 1000% honest, i have zero idea what a AR whatever is. Ive heard but wouldnt be able to identify. No idea about guns, clips or whatever. I think growing up around a killing field they turned me off, also knowing my temper there just not something I want for myself. My one question is do most buy for protection, sport? Im tired of every gun owner being labeled a "gun nut". What if are there any percentages?

If you think firing a bolt action 30-06 is hard on your shoulder try firing one that shoots it in full-auto.

One of the most brutal machine guns ever is a Browning Automatic Rifle BAR M1918 which shoots 30-06 rounds on fullauto. It was the favorite gun of Clyde Barrow and the same model gun used to kill him and Bonnie Parker in that ambush when they were killed.

It's a real beast.

Its basically a civilian version of a M16/M4. It is the platform of gun used by the US military for the past 30 plus years. It is the only gun i own that is for sporting purposes. It has absolutley zero practicality. I guess i can shoot small game like foxes with it but i dont. I have a shotgun and a pistol that I would call their primary use self defence. I inhereted a pistol when my grandfather passed away, but i would never use it. Everything else i would use for hunting. I dont do as much as i used to when we moved to Jersey. But yeah i grew up around guns just used for different purposes.

Me, too.

I don't own any long guns because I don't need them. But, if I lived in one of Arizona's many remote areas, I'd probably want a tactical shotgun and an AR-15 as defensive weapons, just in case.

My fear is that well-meaning people want to do something to stop this tragic massacres. They'll enact various controls and think the problem is "solved"--until the next massacre. The imperative is to identify the potential killers and to prevent them from getting firearms.

Has anyone actually ever seen Wayne LaPierre and Stephen King in the same room?

This right here..

Me, three. I've probably discussed this with both of you before, but I have handgun licenses in both Florida and New York State. I also own a hunting rifle that I never use.


I knew you were out to get me, Lilo. You broke my heart.

No, Mommy. Please don't hit me again. I'll clean up my roooooooom!!!!


That's one of the most rational things you've ever posted, EHI. I pretty much feel the same way. The guns that I own are out of necessity. And they're legal. That's the key word right there. The universal gun haters and peaceniks fail to get their heads around the idea that some people need to own guns out of necessity .


I thought you were on original Jersey Boy, Skin. Where are you originally from?

They whole point here is that no one in his right mind believes that people should not own guns for protection, hunting, target practice, or for that matter just having a gun collection. That is a constitutional right. Period. But the second amendment talks about the "militia" being "well regulated," which leaves room for regulation of clips, magazines, types of guns etc.

The real question here is whether or not there enough left of center people who understand that there is an absolute right to bear arms not going too far, and the right of center people understanding there is a problem with guns getting into the wrong hands and the constitutionality of trying to keep them out of the wrong hands coming together and squeezing out the extremes on both sides. Lets face it when the far left or far right is calling the shots the tail is wagging the dog.

Justice Scalia, in the DC and Chicago cases, affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right. But he was careful to note that it didn't pre-empt states and municipalities from enacting gun controls that didn't violate the Second Amendment.


There is a shortage of rationality on both sides.

It is regretful this shortage exists in areas way beyond gun control.

i agree that their is little common ground, but the lack of education on the anti-gun side really drives me crazy. everyone has a right to their opinion, but seeing as how we live in an age where information is literally at our fingertips, ignorance is no longer a valid excuse. its even worse when politicians want to eliminate something that they are unfamiliar with, here is a prime example...

Information may be more accessible today than ever, but so is misinformation. In fact there is more misinformation and manipulation of facts on the internet than legitimate information. There is more general ignorance today than I could ever recall. There are misguided views on all sides of the gun debate. And when the issue of guns is raised, make no mistake that there are more than two perspectives.

Thank you for that Kly. I am sick & tired of the implication that people who don't cling to guns don't know anything. The gun lovers MUST take their blinders off and see both sides. I hate the attitude of "Nothing can ever ever be done and basically telling those of us who want to make changes to STFU. I may not be a gun expert BUT when children are blown to shit (I hear each child killed had anywhere from 5 -20 bullet holes in them)I for one won't accept that attitude. There is NO reason this shouldn't be talked about and changes made.


TIS

TIS, both you and Kly are correct. I am appalled by the profound ignorance that so many Americans have about their Nation's Constitution. However, that does not preclude them from commenting on it as if they are intimately familar with its origins, content, original intent, and interpretation. Despite the wealth of information that I've accumulated about it, I still hestitate to represent that I know very much about it.

Some of the posts above do touch on elements of the 2nd amendment's original intent, but that's only some.

Thanks Oli,

I guess for obvious reasons, this last shooting tears me apart. I pray for some good/honest dialog and changes. I won't hold my breath, but I still have hope.




TIS

I have a question about the constitution wasn't the only reason why the constitution worked was because the people here were tge framers and tge people living here were religious.

Now the left says it does not work and it does not work for them because they are not religious.

I was talking to a black man in my doctors waiting room today. The conversation got to gun control. He told me he has a gun for self protection, and we talked about how easy it was to get a gun not a legal gun.

It is a lot harder to get a gun if you do it legally.

The Constitution works the same whether individuals are religious or not.

I don't know if you are saying all the LEFT is not religious or not BUT that's simply not accurate.


TIS

The constitution was an attempt to correct the deficiencies of a failed confederation of the States which was established after we won the war of independence. Consider it our Second Republic. The Constitution tried to strike a balance between federal and state power and between the concepts of pure democracy and indirect democracy (hence the House and Senate, and the Spearation of Powers. The people who conceived and wrote it understood it was an imperfect document and thus created a means by which it could be amended, hence when "original intent" was that women could not vote and that slaves counted as three fifths of a person, there was room to change that, which has happened. As for religion, at the time various states favored different religions. Maryland for example was heavily Catholic, other states were Anglican, Puritan etc., the idea of the First Amendment was to allow for the practice of any religion without interference by the government, and the purpose of the applicable portion which set forth the criteria for qualifications to hold office was specific in that it said religion could never play a role in anyone's ability to hold office. Many of the founders were not even Christians. They were deists.

Klydon and Don T: You two guys argue so convincingly, that you make me think you both could have been trial lawyers .

Olivant: When you use big words, you remind me of Little Carmine .

Hi Pizza Man