 |
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
|
Nature Boy Florida |
Eddie Robbins wrote: | Freedom. Just another reason to vote Libertarian. Don't we already have enough laws telling us what to do? When will we wake up? |
All laws tell you what to do.
If we had no laws, it would be anarchy.
We don't want that. None of us do.
So we must decide which laws keep us safer.
Is 70 mph on the highway safe enough - or should it be 125?
Should drivers licenses be required?
Should you be required to show a govt id to vote?
Should you be able to come in and stay in this country without a visa - or should you be deported?
Should laser pointers that shine several miles be allowed for everyone or not?
Should all weapons be available, or some? Cannons, grenades, nukes, AR-15s?
Should everyone be able to buy guns instantly without a background check or waiting period - or should we add background checks to all purchases and 14 day waiting period?
We need reasonable decisions on all these questions. Some laws are required - and we need to enforce them - or else the laws don't really exist. _________________ Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 7/8/16 2:22 pm

|
|
| |
 |
|
Here's the deal... |
Aaron Scott |
We DO have a problem with bad guys with guns. We know that the good guys (those of you here) are going to do the right thing...but the problem is that your right to purchase high-capacity guns/assault rifles also enables the BAD GUYS to do so.
I don't think anyone here would think that it was OK for everyone to have a nuke. No, the good guys wouldn't be a danger...but if the bad guys got their hands on one....
Yes, the police NEED such guns. Because they might be trying to arrest an entire gang, or what have you. That is, they are often under COMBAT situations. In almost no instance do homeowners face true combat situations (and by that, I mean where the bad guys are standing their ground, have combat-level weapons, etc.). Most of the time, bad guys are going to run when they hear your 12-gauge being pumped to chamber the round.
As someone snarkily asked, "Is there anything else I don't need." Well, yes...the attitude for one. I'm not trying to make your life miserable. I'm trying to find a way to keep the worst weapons from the hands of the worst people. And the only practical way to do that is to, for one, stop selling them.
The 2nd Amendment, speaking of a well-regulated militia, is speaking of self-preservation. Collectors can't claim that outright. Hunters, to some extent can. Protecting our families/property/homes is self-preservation at it's most essential. But for those things, we do not need such weapons.
Consider this: IF IF IF we really think we have to protect ourselves from the government with our weapons, then we better do a WHOLE LOT BETTER than an assault rifle. Because if the government decides to take you down, they are going to have a lot more men than you, better weapons than you, tanks, jets, and bombs, if necessary. Do you think we ought to get to have those things too, since the guvm't might attack us at any moment?
No! No one on this board has made a cogent argument for the maintaining of such weapons. Arms can include up to nukes, right (e.g., nuclear ARMS). Does that mean the 2nd Amendment allows that? OF COURSE NOT! DON'T BE A DOOFENSCHMIRTSCH! Seriously, folks...a good pistol or three...a good shotgun...a good rifle...that's all you really need to keep your family safe under most circumstances. Circumstances beyond that would almost likely not be changed just because you had an assault rifle. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 7/8/16 4:55 pm
|
|
| |
 |
Re: Here's the deal... |
UncleJD |
Aaron Scott wrote: | The 2nd Amendment, speaking of a well-regulated militia, is speaking of self-preservation. Collectors can't claim that outright. Hunters, to some extent can. Protecting our families/property/homes is self-preservation at it's most essential. But for those things, we do not need such weapons. |
This is the Joe Biden, "I like guns" "I'm pro second-amendment", lie. Its never been about collecting, hunting or home defense, those were considered natural rights and would NEVER had been deemed reasons to take up ink on a founding document. This is a country who had just had their government confiscate their guns and occupy their homes. Each of the Bill of Rights was a guarantee felt necessary by the states to protect themselves from an over reaching government, period.
And if you're like Uncle Joe and think all you need to defend your home is a good pump shotgun that you can fire up in the air, then be my guest. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3147 7/8/16 7:58 pm

|
|
| |
 |
|
diakoneo |
In the wars we have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan we understood we could never really win without a ground assault.
House to house is the way ultimately a government would win a war against it's citizenry. A well armed citizen is an impedance against a dictatorial style government. Period.
Nuclear bombs have no place in the discussion. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3382 7/8/16 8:07 pm
|
|
| |
 |
|
c6thplayer1 |
Nature Boy Florida wrote: | Some laws are required - and we need to enforce them - or else the laws don't really exist. |
They dont exist for some politicians. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6385 7/8/16 9:25 pm

|
|
| |
 |
Re: Here's the deal... |
Old Time Country Preacher |
Aaron Scott wrote: | Seriously, folks...a good pistol or three...a good shotgun...a good rifle...that's all you really need to keep your family safe under most circumstances. Circumstances beyond that would almost likely not be changed just because you had an assault rifle. |
Ats what you think, Aaron. I got one a these on each corner of the roof a ma house, an one just inside the bedroom door a mine an mommas bedroom. You thugs wanna 50 cal, come an git it.
 |
Acts-pert Poster Posts: 15570 7/8/16 9:41 pm
|
|
| |
 |
|
AnOnYmOuS4ArEaSoN |
First....What is an assault weapon?
Second...What weapon(outside of military issued) is "automatic?"
Third....What gives you the right to tell me what "I need?"
Fourth....My 2A didn't guarantee my right in case a deer came after me.
Fifth....If you think this Dallas shooting is about guns....then you're an idiot/liberal. |
Friendly Face Posts: 202 7/8/16 10:22 pm
|
|
| |
 |
Re: Is it time to limit assault weapons? |
Link |
Nuclear bombs are arms. Do we each have an individual right to bear nuclear bombs? If the government can limit nuclear bombs, can it limit assault rifles?
When the constitution was written, firearms were custom-made one-shot front load muskets. How about if the government decided to restrict all fire-arms except the kind in use when the constitution was written, custom made, one-shot, front load muskets.
I recall learning in history class, that in addition to the cotton gin, Eli Whitney invented replaceable parts, firearms created off a mold that allowed for one part of a gun to be replaced by a manufactured part. This probably had a much broader global impact for manufacturing than the cotton gin. Before Eli Whitney, individual weapons were custom made.
I'm not a real ideologue on either side of the issue. I shot (someone else's) assult rifle at a shooting range several weeks ago.
I don't see how getting rid of most firearms would immediately solve the problem. If they passed a law to outlaw modern firearms, maybe after 120 years or so after the firearms rusted away, we could have a society without these weapons, except for law enforcement and those who buy smuggled in weapons.
If they want to get rid of these weapons, they need to do it legally. The second ammendment needs to be repealed first, or else they could consistently use a historical approach to interpreting law. They could use that to get rid of anything later than a front-load musket, but they would need to do away with gay marriage and some of the rights of the federal government if they want to do that.
If they wanted to get rid of these weapons, they had to have year-round dear hunting for a year or two, or the farmers will suffer. Either that, or they need to allow people to set traps for deer. _________________ Link |
Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 7/8/16 11:47 pm
|
|
| |
 |
|
Cojak |
bonnie knox wrote: | I'm with caseylee on this.
What happened is an outrage, but the answer is not banning guns. |
I have to parrot Bonnie who agrees with CL.
There is not answer as long as the manipulated mind is involved.  _________________ Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011 Posts: 24285 7/8/16 11:55 pm

|
|
| |
 |
|
Cojak |
No one 'Needs' the automatic weapon (as yet) but it is hard to legislate a mental level. No one knows the mind of the twisted. As was mentioned, the fool in OK City did not use a weapon, but did irreparable damage.
We do like to try to 'pick' the weapon the terrorist is going to use, but that is impossible.
As a sniper, the Cheap Russian lever action 7.62 from the right angle could take out as many as an 'assault rifle'.
I have no idea the best way to go, but killing? there are so many ways a terrorist can accomplish the dastardly deed. _________________ Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011 Posts: 24285 7/9/16 12:04 am

|
|
| |
 |
Re: Here's the deal... |
Aaron Scott |
UncleJD wrote: | Aaron Scott wrote: | The 2nd Amendment, speaking of a well-regulated militia, is speaking of self-preservation. Collectors can't claim that outright. Hunters, to some extent can. Protecting our families/property/homes is self-preservation at it's most essential. But for those things, we do not need such weapons. |
This is the Joe Biden, "I like guns" "I'm pro second-amendment", lie. Its never been about collecting, hunting or home defense, those were considered natural rights and would NEVER had been deemed reasons to take up ink on a founding document. This is a country who had just had their government confiscate their guns and occupy their homes. Each of the Bill of Rights was a guarantee felt necessary by the states to protect themselves from an over reaching government, period.
And if you're like Uncle Joe and think all you need to defend your home is a good pump shotgun that you can fire up in the air, then be my guest. |
Uncle JD, the BRITISH government did indeed want to confiscate our arms. But for over 200 years now, we have acted as if our OWN government might come for our guns at any time. The problem with this is the familial and sympathetic ties that our own military has for its people. Like Robert E. Lee and many others like him, some quit and joined the "resistance" when America threatened their families and states.
And trying to act like I am wrong because Biden is also for a saner gun policy is not only fallacious, but poorly played. Biden may be wrong on many issues, but he has a point that there is simply little need for assault weapons in the hands of civilians...not for hunting, not for home protection. Further, if terrorists are any indication, I have heard that they much more feared the results of a shotgun that that of a rifle, go figure.
If there was some way to ensure that only good guys could have access to assault weapons, that's one thing (of course, robbery could undermine even that). But to allow such particularly unnecessary, overkill weapons into the easy range of a criminal element is not a good idea. It gives them the firepower to do FAR WORSE DAMAGE than could ordinarily be effected with more standard weapons.
I know you feel differently. But there are legitimate points here if you will consider them fairly. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 7/9/16 9:50 am
|
|
| |
 |
Re: Here's the deal... |
skinnybishop |
Aaron Scott wrote: | UncleJD wrote: | Aaron Scott wrote: | The 2nd Amendment, speaking of a well-regulated militia, is speaking of self-preservation. Collectors can't claim that outright. Hunters, to some extent can. Protecting our families/property/homes is self-preservation at it's most essential. But for those things, we do not need such weapons. |
This is the Joe Biden, "I like guns" "I'm pro second-amendment", lie. Its never been about collecting, hunting or home defense, those were considered natural rights and would NEVER had been deemed reasons to take up ink on a founding document. This is a country who had just had their government confiscate their guns and occupy their homes. Each of the Bill of Rights was a guarantee felt necessary by the states to protect themselves from an over reaching government, period.
And if you're like Uncle Joe and think all you need to defend your home is a good pump shotgun that you can fire up in the air, then be my guest. |
Uncle JD, the BRITISH government did indeed want to confiscate our arms. But for over 200 years now, we have acted as if our OWN government might come for our guns at any time. The problem with this is the familial and sympathetic ties that our own military has for its people. Like Robert E. Lee and many others like him, some quit and joined the "resistance" when America threatened their families and states.
And trying to act like I am wrong because Biden is also for a saner gun policy is not only fallacious, but poorly played. Biden may be wrong on many issues, but he has a point that there is simply little need for assault weapons in the hands of civilians...not for hunting, not for home protection. Further, if terrorists are any indication, I have heard that they much more feared the results of a shotgun that that of a rifle, go figure.
If there was some way to ensure that only good guys could have access to assault weapons, that's one thing (of course, robbery could undermine even that). But to allow such particularly unnecessary, overkill weapons into the easy range of a criminal element is not a good idea. It gives them the firepower to do FAR WORSE DAMAGE than could ordinarily be effected with more standard weapons.
I know you feel differently. But there are legitimate points here if you will consider them fairly. |
Aaron, Aaron, Aaron.......How can you be wrong about every single issue we discuss on this forum? (I kid....mostly :wink: )
Your idea of banning "assault weapons" sounds great, but you know it won't stop mass shootings. C'mon man. Forget who needs what, the 2nd Amendment, and nuclear weapons for citizens for a moment.
Suppose we ban AR-15s, which is basically what the government wants.
A Ruger Mini 14 is just as deadly
At close range (Orlando) a Ruger 10/22 is deadly
A Marlin 30-30 is deadly.....
Granted a 30-30 doesn't have the same size magazine, but it only takes seconds to reload. So what is the difference, if I'm barricaded from an elevated position, as was the shooter in Dallas.
He could have had a 1965 Remington 742 Woodsmaster and killed just as many people. He could have had a NEF Handi-Rifle and been pretty effective.
Those points don't even address the fact that illegal items aren't that hard for someone to get. C'mon man. _________________ Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1055 7/9/16 11:35 am
|
|
| |
 |
RE: Assault Weapons Ban |
klane60 |
Please stop calling civilian purchased rifles assault weapons. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The M-16 I carried in the Marines and into combat was an assault weapon. An AR-15 is semi-automatic just like any .22 semi-automatic rifle that I had growing up. A sniper does not use superior firepower but calculated well aimed shots (I was a Marine Sniper) and I did not use a M-16 but a rebuilt Remington 700. I am a AR-15 carrying 2d Amendment supporter and I use mine in Excellence-in-Competition and NRA matches and home protection. Strict gun laws in Chicago and DC hasn't stopped a thing and almost all of the murders there are the result of handguns.
An AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON PEOPLE. Assault weapons are fully automatic. Learn the difference. _________________ Kenneth Lane
Eph 3:7 NIV |
Friendly Face Posts: 143 7/12/16 9:23 am
|
|
| |
 |
|
bonnie knox |
Some jurisdictions that are banning "assault" weapons may be including the AR-15 on their list.
I think I might have read something about California including it on their list--I'll have to double check.
So, while the AR-15 is not a fully automatic, the definition of "assault" might be more fluid. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 7/12/16 9:33 am

|
|
| |
 |
AR-15 |
klane60 |
(I am not the author)
The AR-15 rifle is once again under fire by gun banners—who ignore the fact that rifles of any kind are seldom used in crime, and seem to despise anyone who dares to own one. Many who are ignorant on firearms even consider the gun a “weapon of war,” suitable for nothing but murder and mayhem.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Fact is, the AR-15-type rifle is the most popular rifle in America for many reasons. Here are my Top 10 reasons to own an AR-15, in no particular order:
Self-Defense
Gun-banners would have you believe the AR-15 isn’t useful for home defense, but they couldn’t be more wrong. NRA commentator and former Navy SEAL Dom Raso, who now trains individuals in self-defense, said it best: “For the vast majority of the people I work with, there is no better firearm to defend their homes against realistic threats than an AR-15 semi-automatic. It’s easy to learn and easy to use. It’s accurate. It’s reliable.”
Fun/Recreation
If you can find a rifle out there that’s more fun than the AR-15 to take to the range and punch some holes in paper, I’m not sure what it would be. From short-range plinking to longer-range precision shooting, the gun is easy to shoot—and easy to hit targets with. And, as you know, nothing’s more fun than hitting what you shoot at.
Teaching/Learning
With simple operation and very low recoil, there’s no better rifle to teach youngsters the skill of accurate rifle shooting. The fact that shooting this rifle is easy and tons of fun also makes it great for starting out new shooters, regardless of age. I’ve yet to take a beginner—young or old—out to shoot an AR-15 without them getting a huge smile on their face after the first magazine.
Hunting
The AR-15 and its big brother, the AR-10, are excellent hunting rifles. AR-15s in 5.56/.223 are perfect for varmints and predator hunting, and with the proper ammunition can make a great deer rifle. Of course, the AR-15 is also chambered in a number of other more powerful cartridges for big game, and the .308-chambered AR-10 is a deer hunting favorite for many. Don’t buy the gun-banner lie that the AR-15 can’t be a good hunting rifle.
Tinkering
If you like to tinker, the AR-15 is the rifle for you. Aftermarket parts and upgrades are readily available from hundreds of sources, and the gun’s easily understandable operation system makes it simple to work on. If you can’t build one of these rifles on your kitchen table with just a few specialized tools (legally, of course), you probably skipped shop class in high school. Installing new stocks, triggers, hand guards, pistol grips and other parts is also a breeze.
Farm/Ranch Use
The AR-15 is an excellent all-around rifle for farmers and ranchers to carry in their trucks for predator control or other utilitarian uses. Excellent accuracy combined with good magazine capacity is enough to put the hurt on a pack of coyotes preying on calves or lambs—or on wild hogs tearing up your alfalfa or wheat field. An AR-15 is also handy for farmers and ranchers to have on hand in remote areas should they run into those who would do ill to them.Fact is, the AR-15-type rifle is the most popular rifle in America for many reasons.
Competitive Shooting
The AR-15 platform is excellent for a variety of competitive shooting sports. As a 3-gun competitor, I see hundreds of people shoot AR-15s safely and accurately on a regular basis. Banning ownership of AR-15-type rifles for law-abiding Americans would be devastating to 3-gun—the fastest growing shooting sport in the country right now.
Disaster Preparedness
I’m not someone who believes in an impending doomsday scenario where we will all find ourselves in a critical survival situation sometime soon. But I’m also not one who thinks that couldn’t happen. I don’t see how any survival situation wouldn’t be made better by having an AR-15 or two on hand. In fact, the AR-15 might just be the perfect SHTF firearm.
Bringing Women Into Shooting
Women are currently the fastest-growing demographic in the shooting sports, and the AR-15 is doubtless one of the reasons why. Women love the “cool factor” of the AR just as much as men do. And those with zero shooting experience—who might harbor some fear of rifle shooting because of a rifle’s perceived “kick”—quickly learn that the soft-recoiling AR-15 is not only a pleasure to shoot, but fun to customize just the way they want it.
America’s Rifle
While those who hate guns would have you think the AR-15 is nothing more than a murder machine, in truth it’s the musket of our day—everyman’s rifle, proudly owned by patriotic men and women of all ages, colors and interests. As Dom Raso said in his recent video: “I guarantee you, if the Founding Fathers would have known this gun was going to be invented, they wouldn’t have rewritten the Second Amendment, they would have fortified it in stone. Because they knew the only way for us to stay free is by having whatever guns the bad guys have. This firearm gives average people the advantage they so desperately need and deserve to protect their life, liberty and happiness.”
Regardless of why we, as Americans, choose to own AR-15 rifles, we will always face the scoffers—Second Amendment deniers who would be happy to take away our right to own any gun. In the end, we don’t need to puzzle for answers to anyone who rudely asks us, “Why do you need an AR-15?” Instead, we should simply ask our own question: “Why should the government be able to deny us the constitutionally protected right to own one?”
Owning an AR-15 is as uniquely American as baseball, apple pie and the Second Amendment. It’s a classic example of American exceptionalism, independence and ingenuity—all the things that make us the land of the free and home of the brave. _________________ Kenneth Lane
Eph 3:7 NIV |
Friendly Face Posts: 143 7/12/16 9:43 am
|
|
| |
 |
The problem... |
4thgeneration |
Gen 4:5 (CEV) but not with Cain and his offering. This made Cain so angry that he could not hide his feelings.
Gen 4:6 The LORD said to Cain: What's wrong with you? Why do you have such an angry look on your face?
Gen 4:7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling. But you did the wrong thing, and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don't let it!
Gen 4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go for a walk." And when they were out in a field, Cain killed him.
No gun involved in the first murder among the human race. Anger uncontrolled will find a way to destroy. It always has and it always will. That is the real problem.
Show me a law that prevents a criminal from committing their crime. Drug laws haven't even slowed the production, distribution and use of drugs in America. Drunk driving laws don't keep us from hearing about people DUI causing accidents that often take lives. And a lot of us are even bothered by those who actually drive at or under the speed limit.
I don't own an AR-15, nor do I plan to purchase one. I do know that most of the rhetoric flows in the arena of misidentification of those kinds of firearms as being automatic and assault rifles. Any rifle that you use to assault others with becomes an assault rifle. And it is already completely illegal to own an automatic rifle. One trigger pull resulting in one bullet fired is a semi-automatic rifle of which there are a myriad of versions in all kinds of calibers built on all kinds of stocks. Just because one model looks military doesn't make it automatic or an assault rifle.
Prove to me how making it more difficult for me to purchase firearms and ammunition will result in criminals ceasing to use those to invoke violence, and I will consider your argument. Because we all know how concerned criminals are with following the law.
Just my O! |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1607 7/12/16 2:04 pm
|
|
| |
 |
|
ZKP |
I don't own one, but they are fun to fire on the range. Responsible citizens should be allowed to own an AR-15. However, as with anything else, with ownership comes the responsibility to ensure they are properly secured when not in use. The bad guys are going to be able to get the gun, so to ban a law abiding person from ownership accomplishes nothing. The Dallas sniper purchased an AR-15 from a guy he met on Facebook for $600. All the laws banning or requiring background checks (even at gun shows) and 14 day waiting period would have precluded the purchase of this type of rifle.
Banning the guns and more laws will only restrict the responsible and law abiding gun owners. In most cases, such restrictions will result with zero impact on deterring the bad guys from accessing these type of guns. |
Member Posts: 34 7/13/16 6:08 am

|
|
| |
 |
|
|