Yes far right

Nothing wrong with that!!

Mig: "Every citizen on the planet has a right to protect themselves (sic). Any government has no right to take guns awayfrom anyone."

You say this is right, but it is not. Lets take a citizen of Afghanistan, who happens to be a radical member of the Taliban, and lets say he is in a sniper's nest near a military base, and he has a gun. And lets also say a member of the U.S. Army sees him there.

According to the logic posted, the guy in the U.S. Army, who is a government employee has no right to take that gun from the Taliban guy because the Taliban guy is A "CITIZEN OF THE PLANET."

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=jeYscnFpEyA



This one is for the people who like video posts so much...

Was I talking about someone who lives in Afghanistan?

They knew what you were talking about...they just like to twist things up.

of course you didn't, but you have to remember that when dealing with the whole "reasonable restriction crowd", these kinds of extreme scenarios are the norm, and they are to be expected. it was pretty clear to me what tiger was trying to say, but muddying the waters with examples like the afghanistan one is nothing more than a way to turn common sense on its head, and frame the debate in such a way to try and discredit the opinions of some based on extremely silly hypotheticals.

for the sake of a debate i will address the taliban scenario. of course a soldier has the right to stop a threat to himself, it boils down to self defense. this is the same argument that is so hard for so many to understand: a law abiding citizen should have the same rights to self defense. generally firearms are the most effective form of defense against hostile threats, which may include hostiles armed with a gun.

Im about as far left as you can get.I support same sex marriage,pro choice the only right wing politics i support is guns and death penalty

A taliban member with a gun is not a citizen but a member of the milatery.So your argument completley goes out the window.I think it will be good if a citizen of Afghanistan owns a gun because then they CAN defand themselves against the taliben.

And i dont give a fuck if a guy is a government employee he has no right to take anything from me because at the end of the day he is just a human being just like me and im not impressed by his title of soldier all i care about is protecting myself and myy family

I don't think you need an automatic or even a semi automatic weapon to defend your home against intrusion. And in this day and age where government is armed to the teeth, good luck defending yourself against them, that ship sailed long time ago. Even in the civil war when government didn't have the new weapons they have today, the confederate states eventually lost the war. I think you should protect the first amendment, that's the only thing that's going to shield your from the government.

3rd and final part:

It is called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.

If some people feel that they don't need to have or use guns then so be it. It is simple..Don't

But, leave the rest of the people alone so we can.

You want your rights and so do we. We don't want our rights taken away or curtailed because of a few bad users or by someones fear of them.

And we sure don't like it when people are willing to give up OUR rights because they don't like something, but bitch and scream for what they want.

And I need a Cobra and an F-16. I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment that gives people the right to have automatic and semi automatic weapons or grenades or explosives or tanks. You can have your rifles and shotguns, as part of a well regulated militia, meaning you'd have to have training and know your responsibilities that comes with possessing guns.

the supreme court has already ruled on this, stating that the 2nd amendment gives us the rights to posses weapons "commonly in use at the time". why go the same route and bring jet fighters and tanks into this? nobody besides people who are against guns tend to throw that into the mix. people who claim that nobody needs a semi-auto are essentially saying nobody needs a firearm period. the vast majority of firearms are semi-auto, and the technology in well over 120 years old.

who needs a shotgun? who needs a weapon capable of firing multiple pellets with each pull of the trigger? who needs a rifle with a scope? no civilian needs a "sniper rifle"! if you can't shoot a deer without a scope, then you probably shouldn't be hunting in the first place! see how easy it is to throw out silly statements that have no merit?

Automatic weapons are commonly used in gang shootings, war zones, etc. If someone honestly wants to protect themselves against home intrusions, they wouldn't want them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone who wants to buy automatic guns is up to no good. Tell me a scenario that a shotgun doesn't take care of defending your property.

Afsaneh are you referring to semi-automatic weapons?
Or automatic weapons, which are indeed extremely restricted for legal civilian usage? In the US you can't own an automatic weapon made after 1986. And to own a weapon made before then is difficult and comes with a higher level of restriction, inspections and scrutiny.

no they are not. despite what you may see in hollywood, the majority of gang shootings are done with handguns. you can look it up through the fbi if you don't believe me. fully automatic firearms are highly regulated in the usa, and there have only been 2 murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons since they were heavily regulated in 1934, and one of those was a police officer. people enjoy shooting all kinds of guns, and until you have experience, its a stretch to say that everyone who might enjoy that is up to no good.

we have between 3-5 million ar-15s legally owned in this country, and the overwhelming majority are law abiding. i've went into this here before, but a shotgun is big and bulky, and depending on the load, has a very heavy recoil which makes it unsuitable for a women or man of smaller stature. on top of that, the majority of buckshot loads common for self defense have a much greater chance of penetrating walls and injuring family members, as opposed to the high velocity, lightweight 55-60 grain 5.56x45/.223 cartridge fired from an ar. hope this helps.

Both. Anything that leads to mass murder. And there has to be AK-47s made prior to '86, right? So how it could make any less damage?

the 1986 ban prohibits the sale and importation of automatic weapons made before 1986, and the market is very limited as a result. to get your hands on one, you first need to live in a state which allows it. you need to go through an extensive backround check wit the atf, and pay a bunch of fees. then, you must find one for sale. due to the limited availability, the prices range from about $15,000-$20,000 for a fully automatic ak-47, as opposed to less than $1,000 for a semi-automatic variant. very unlikely that a criminal or someone planning to do something horrible would go through all that time and money!

FF, fair point on shotguns. This is not an issue that I feel strongly about. And I really don't know much about guns. But I hope that people come to a compromise that would stop these mass murders.

Machine guns, generally speaking, aren't what we're using to kill each other. If you want to buy one legally, which is difficult to do given restricted supply, you will need permission of local law enforcement, pass a more detailed federal background check, pay some higher taxes, and from what I understand agree to more intrusive federal checks on your usage of the gun, whether you still have it and so on, all without warrant. You also can't sell it or transfer it without their permission. The people that have the time, patience and resources to do all that aren't for the most part in either street or organized crime.

Semi-automatics are a different animal of course but given the sheer number of guns, the right to keep and bear arms and the cultural place that guns hold, I don't think there is any support for revoking the 2nd amendment, which is what it would take to outlaw the ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

There ought to be more focus across all levels of government on identifying how criminals get their guns and stopping that flow. I think that's something most people can agree with.

Thanks for the info Lilo.

Gee Five did you leave your a Cobra and and F-16 out again?

I sure hope you didn't leave your tank parked on the street again. You know how the neighbor's whine and whine about that. Then they throw it back in ours faces.

17 pages later and we still are trying to teach people the facts of this stuff. It just goes to show you that people don't read or don't litsen to what is being posted....

800,000 ar's sold last year alone to the people.
Someone feels that there is a need to own one!

Yes, I have pistols, rifles, shotguns, AK's, AR's plus others in my home. Up to no good? Nope!!

Sorry Mig, I meant no disrespect. But seriously, are you getting ready for a war?

My mom's uncle was a hunter, and that was the only thing that I didn't like about him, otherwise he was the dearest and nearest relative to us. Personally I've not seen any gun other than air guns, and that includes the time that I spent in the US. I felt safe in B'ham, Alabama, and never felt I need a gun to protect myself.

While background checks and licensing might not have prevented the sort of Newtown massacres, still it bewilders me to find that people here are resisting the idea of regulating guns. I mean, you look at the cars, you have to have a license to drive, have to renew that on a regular basis with passing eye exams; then for the car you have to get a license plate and renew that each year, and that's just a car. Granted, I'm nervous enough while I'm driving these death machines that somehow brings out the maniac in me, and I really have no desire to live in a condition that make me feel another death machine is necessary.

PS: And I forgot the mandatory insurance for cars as well.

Mignon, do you sometimes feel that non-gun owners just don't get it at all? They just can't understand what other people enjoy doing,and they come up with all kinds of reasons why we shouldn't have the enjoyment we do.
Maybe it is because so many people justify guns for protection, rather the the enjoyment shooting gives people. Socially in a goup, or at shooting event, or a competition, millions of Americans enjoy each year. Whether hunting or just for preparedness, gun knowledge is a skill all people should have.
Like I said 800,000 black rifles alone sold last year and hundred of thousand of other kinds of handguns also sold.

This thread is a misnomer, and is just the kind of misdirection the NRA wants. No one in his right mind is for "gun control" per se. The Supreme Court has ruled (wrongly IMHO but ruled nonetheless) that every citizen has the right to bear arms....BUT with certain limitations. Convicted felons, crazy people, etc. do NOT have this right. FS., Mig, you seem like reasonable people, who I assume have no criminal weapons...so by all means go out there and buy whatever you want. You can have a whole warehouse full of guns. I do not care. I do not want to control your right to have as many arms as you want to have. No one should. It is your business. Period.

The debate is not about whether or not we can control guns. We can... up to a point. The debate is over how we allow the distribution of guns, and whether or not safeguards can be put into place to help....I do not say insure...that some guns do not get into the wrong hands. If one cop is saved a year by such measures as closing the gun show loophole, who in his right mind could oppose this?