Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds? - Page 4
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds?

  1. PTSD could be over come with major thank you for your service. I'm sorry you killed so many ,how may I help you.No well it was to bad you were there . Buy him a beer and get on with it.Treat them like the hero's they are .The time is going to come when we will want to have them on our side again.War is HELL and GOD knows that nobody is the same. They were protecting us from death and we need to help them as much as possible.

  2.   
  3. I am not in favor of regualtions however I understand they are nessesary. I feel the backgound checks now in place should be adequate if they are administered properly. One of the things I fought for was the right to keep and bear arms. I think we should be allowed to bear arms in any location with in the boarders of the United States period. I think if that were the case and more of us did so there would be less not more crime.
    ["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
    - Ben Franklin
    FONT]

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    I sympathize with soldiers who have PTSD - but the fact remains that I don't want them doing anything (operating heavy machinery, driving a car, carrying a firearm) that gives them the opportunity to do serious damage if they were to lose it.
    Lose it? Can you explain that? Provide an example of that actually happening? Rambo does not count. People with PTSD operate heavy machinery, drive a car, carrying a firearm, fly private & commercial planes everyday without incident. Do you know what PTSD its causes and effects? Do you have it? Are you sure? Have you been evaluated? Ever have a traumatic event in your life? This is exactly the problem with mental health requirements. A mentally health requirement can be used to everyone on the planet, including the shrink that does the diagnosis
    Those who would, deny, require permit, qualification, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    486
    ZERO RESTRICTIONS EVER!

    The best scenerio would be to REQUIRE all adults to open carry at all times! Seriously!

    If every individual had a firearm strapped on openly, just like the "wild west" then everyone else would know that if they reached for their's, someone else was going to level them.

    Simple math, mutually assured distruction. Works with nukes, works with bad guys. If all cops were suddenly restricted to totally concealed carry, no ID and no marked cars, then suddenly you would see a rash of "attacks" on LEO's. But nobody trys to rob a cop in uniform. Do you think they are afraid of the badge?, or of getting busted?... NO it is the gun they fear.

    When someone draws down on a bad guy, unless suicide was his original plan, he usually drops the weapon ... he would not draw it in the first place if he had ANY thought that his victim was armed.

    REQUIRED OPEN CARRY --- the end of crime as we know it!

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by rmarcustrucker View Post
    I say for concealed carry, if you can pick it up...you should be able to own it and shoot it. So that puts weapons that can be mounted on gun boats and aircraft off my list.
    I think if you can afford to buy, maintain, and arm an A-10, you should be able to own one. If you are ballsy enough to unleash its 30mm Gatling Gun upon society, I hope you're a great pilot since you'll have the best combat pilots looking to shoot you down.

    Same goes for a tank.

    Same goes for a sniper rifle.

    Same goes for a snub nosed revolver.

    "Arms" are not defined. I just hope the BG's aren't nearly as good at using them as the GG's.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    A single hole through the skin may not do anything (although I wouldn't want to try), but it could make a much bigger hole in a window. You also don't want to end up hitting something vital, like wiring for control surfaces or an O2 tank, which is possible with FMJ rounds.

    I've actually never seen a movie where cabin depressurization occurred due to flying bullets; I had made the assumption based on the use of Glasers by air marshals. Maybe I don't watch enough movies.
    "U.S. Marshals" with Wesley Snipes and Tommy Lee Jones.

    A convict, using a .22 pen gun brought down a Boeing 727.



    A week later, I watched Harrison Ford's "Air Force One", where they had gun battles with 9mm's, MP-5's, and all sorts of other stuff....the plane kept on flying. Go figure.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    5
    No.

    And probably none.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoomChick View Post
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

    arm[3] 1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm
    firearm : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
    Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

    I want to know if there is any location that you would allow firearms to be prohibited were it your choice and why or why not.

    And, by anywhere, I mean anywhere.

    Jails?
    CIA headquarters?
    Some other place?

    Also, what weapons would you want banned, if any, if you could choose which "arms" were and were not banned for the general population.

    A-10 Warthog?
    WMD?
    Some other weapon?

    Where is your line for small arms?
    Would you be less than thrilled if I was picnic'ing in a public park with a 50 cal on my blankie?

    As silly as these questions may seem, I'm hoping to get a feel for where the boundaries might be among the folks on this board.

    -BoomChick

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    "The District may not attempt to solve its crime problems by violating the rights of law-abiding citizens." -- Robert Levy

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    I am not in favor of regualtions however I understand they are nessesary. I feel the backgound checks now in place should be adequate if they are administered properly..
    "Reasonable Restrictions" aids rapists stalkers and killers. "Reasonable Restrictions" get law abiding citizens killed. They have never ever stopped a crime.

    Rebecca Griego had a Order of Protection against her stalker she had moved repeatedly changed her phone number refused to answer the phone at work. The police knew she was at risk. Her work security knew she was being stalked and had death threats made against her. She had applied for a Concealed Weapons permit and was told there would be a six to eight week wait for her background check to clear. She had gone in to purchase a handgun and told there would be a five day wait until her background check cleared. She was gunned down three days later.

    Her story is by no means unusual. I know of more than a few women that had been raped/assaulted waiting for a permit. Others who have been assaulted and/or raped because they were in a gun free zone and so not allowed to carry a gun. Just as it is not uncommon to find stories of business men shop owners who have applied for gun permits and either due to the delay or out right being denied a permit mostly in states like NY CA and ILL that later have been robbed assaulted or killed

    Here are a couple of the more obvious examples.

    Who knows how many were killed, assaulted and raped because of the gun grab from those left in New Orleans after Katrina. More than a few as dozen reported having to fight off looters. Who know what happened after their guns were taken away

    Watts Riots. During the Watts riots gun shops were over overwhelmed by people wanting to buy guns to protect themselves and their property only to be told there was a 15-day waiting period before they could pick up their firearms. By the time the riot subsided, 34 people had been killed, 1032 injured, billions of dollars of property was damage or destroyed

    Rodney King riot. Once again LA residents learned that due to their gun control requiring background checks laws they would be unable to buy any guns to defend themselves with over 50 killed, and over 4 thousand were assaulted.

    Even excluding the thousands victimized during those two events. I know personally at least half a dozen women victimized while waiting to get their gun or for their permits to clear. It safe to assume Nation wide over the past few decades of gun control that it has happened to thousands. Just as it is not uncommon to find other stories of those that have been robbed or killed while waiting to get their guns or for their permits to clear. If anything my statement about the real life cost of gun control is an understatement.

    No can anyone find a single story of a Gun Control law saving a life or stopping a crime? Has a background check ever stopped a rape a robber assault or murder. I was taught long ago feelings are not facts. Laws and policy should be based on facts not feelings
    Those who would, deny, require permit, qualification, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  10. Did I hit a nerve? No where in my post did I use the term, "Reasonable restrictions." I fail to see how I was misunderstood here. I said I understood that they were nessesary. Needed not so much to keep any of us safe but to appease the majority in the country the non gun owning voters in this country.

    I agree a lot of very sad stories could have ended better had the victem chosen to arm themselves and then learned how to protect themselves with one. I am always saying that. I know we are never going to lose the restrictions that are now in place we have a compromise situation. I feel the current laws in my state WA are not to bad but like most here I would like to see them loosened. I live in the real world though and things being the way they are I highly doubt that will happen. About the best I can hope for is to maintain the level of freedom we have now.
    Last edited by The Gunny; 09-30-2008 at 11:47 PM.
    ["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
    - Ben Franklin
    FONT]

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    Did I hit a nerve? No where in my post did I use the term, "Reasonable restrictions."
    Yes you hit a nerve but no my post was not intended to attack you in any way. Probably should not have quoted you. My post IS in responce to the whole Reasonable Restriction" including background checks concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    Did I hit a nerve? I said I understood that they were necessary. Needed not so much to keep any of us safe but to appease the majority in the country the non gun owning voters in this country.
    This IS a position I do disagree with the more we Kow Tow the more the anti's push and take it as weakness. An example is people began to carry concealed to not offend the sensibilities of a few it is now expected by the majority and open carry has negative connotation even among those who carry. So when we accept background checks or other so called reasonable restriction the general public and the gun community begin to buy the anti's stance that they are necessary and useful. We lose ground
    Second in any negotiation coming to the table willing to give in to all the insane demands of the antis does not placate them. It motivates them to push harder towards complete ban. In any negotiation you demand more than you want than settle for what you do want. You do not gain ground by giving in at the outset.
    As a warrior you know we do not win wars by giving up territory

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    I agree a lot of very sad stories could have ended better had the victem chosen to arm themselves and then learned how to protect themselves with one.
    Background checks and other so called reasonable restriction prevent that from happening in time for many. Many die because of that. For them it is not sad. Its a horrific nightmare. Burying your children is some thing no one should have to do. As you may know.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    I know we are never going to lose the restrictions that are now in place we have a compromise situation.
    I am not yet defeated. I have not doubt accepting the status quo will result in our losing all of our gun rights, followed by the rest of our rights. It is like going up on a down escalator it can be done but you must keep moving the instant you stop you will hit the bottom. Accepting things as they are will NOT maintain what we have. It will cause us to lose it all. We are not thieves that need to tip toe around to keep our ill gotten goods. We are being stolen from and we need to be screaming for the thievery to stop and take back what is ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gunny View Post
    I feel the current laws in my state WA are not to bad but like most here I would like to see them loosened.
    Being the first state with concealed carry laws we got off to a good start but other states like FL and AZ that used to be more restrictive now have more liberal gun laws. So it can be done. If we stop giving in, stop compromising, we like Vermont can achieve acceptance of 2A as written and intended. I think the biggest obstacle is ourselves. Unlike the antis we are divided. Those who care only about hunting, those that care only about SD, those that want to accept what the antis will let them have and the hard heads like me that want it all the way our fore fathers intended.
    Last edited by LongRider; 10-01-2008 at 01:37 AM.
    Those who would, deny, require permit, qualification, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast