 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Really? Is it so terrible to prohibit the sale of assault-type rifles? |
Aaron Scott |
I grew up with guns. Use guns. Love guns. Support the 2nd Amendment.
But where do we draw the line?
I think most of us would say that having "nuclear arms" is too far. So we agree the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited.
An assault-type rifle is not for hunting, nor is it for home protection. I have a feeling that most people who have them are likely overcompensating in some way. Perhaps they feel it makes them more macho, etc. Not a bad thing...but really it is unnecessary.
An assault rifle is designed to fire a lot of rounds...and fire them quickly. I cannot think of the any time I have ever heard of someone protecting their home and needing even a full clip of bullets. A single shot is enough to send most felons scurrying. And a few more will ensure that the cops are enroute to help.
So, really, what would happen if we just said, "No more assault rifles will be sold?" Would we now be unable to protect ourselves?
Yes, the bad guys will keep theirs. But over time and with attrition, they, too, will be taken. Further, a bad guy cannot easily hide an assault rifle as he walks through the neighborhood, so their utility (thanks to OTCP!) is limited to showing off...or really nasty acts.
I'm FOR gun ownership. But if we were to keep one assault rifle out of the hands of someone who plans to use it for evil, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Again, where do we draw the line? If there isn't one, then nuclear arms is OK, too, right?
Last edited by Aaron Scott on 12/6/15 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
12/5/15 8:39 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Please begin by providing your exact definition of an "assault-type" rifle. Be specific. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/5/15 8:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Really? Is it so terrible to prohibit the sail of assault-type rifles? |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I grew up with guns. Use guns. Love guns. Support the 2nd Amendment.
But where do we draw the line?
I think most of us would say that having "nuclear arms" is too far. So we agree the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited.
An assault-type rifle is not for hunting, nor is it for home protection. I have a feeling that most people who have them are likely overcompensating in some way. Perhaps they feel it makes them more macho, etc. Not a bad thing...but really it is unnecessary.
An assault rifle is designed to fire a lot of rounds...and fire them quickly. I cannot think of the any time I have ever heard of someone protecting their home and needing even a full clip of bullets. A single shot is enough to send most felons scurrying. And a few more will ensure that the cops are enroute to help.
So, really, what would happen if we just said, "No more assault rifles will be sold?" Would we now be unable to protect ourselves?
Yes, the bad guys will keep theirs. But over time and with attrition, they, too, will be taken. Further, a bad guy cannot easily hide an assault rifle as he walks through the neighborhood, so their utility (thanks to OTCP!) is limited to showing off...or really nasty acts.
I'm FOR gun ownership. But if we were to keep one assault rifle out of the hands of someone who plans to use it for evil, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Again, where do we draw the line? If there isn't one, then nuclear arms is OK, too, right? |
It's not that difficult. The context of the 2nd amendment is arms that a man can carry, like a rifle. So called "assault rifles" are protected.
But here is a point few consider. The 2nd Amendment was not written to GIVE anyone a right. It was included to protect already existing rights from Federal encroachment. So it's repeal would not grant the Federal Government t any new powers to ban guns. It would simply mean that every State is sovereign to make its own gun laws, which was really the original intent even with the 2nd Amendment to begin with. The only way the Federal Government could ban guns would be for the States to give them such power by way of a new Constitutional Amendment.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
12/5/15 10:21 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Really? Is it so terrible to prohibit the sail of assault-type rifles? |
UncleJD |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I grew up with guns. Use guns. Love guns. Support the 2nd Amendment.
No you don't you're words below clearly demonstrate the opposite of each of those.
But where do we draw the line?
Plenty of Lines have already been drawn, there is no need for any more, there is need to enforce the ones we have, but since that would include going into the high-crime areas and confronting the illegal gangs there, or "God forbid" racially profiling those more likely to be committing crime, then we will never do it. The illogical left knows this so they want to throw more laws at the problem so they somehow feel better. (wouldn't you FEEL better if they passed another law?)
I think most of us would say that having "nuclear arms" is too far. So we agree the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited.
The 2A is very clear, keep and bear arms, "nuclear arms" and such silly arguments are beneath comment.
An assault-type rifle is not for hunting, nor is it for home protection. I have a feeling that most people who have them are likely overcompensating in some way. Perhaps they feel it makes them more macho, etc. Not a bad thing...but really it is unnecessary.
Not that the 2A is for "hunting" like so many libs try to misinform us. But your idea of hunting is different than mine, many hunters hunt with semi-auto rifles and have for a hundred years or more. Painting them black so libs can cry about "assault rifle" has nothing to do with facts. True assault rifles have been regulated since the 1930s and new production (wrongly) banned since the 80s. This speaks to your claim of "loving guns", you know very little of a subject you claim to "love"
An assault rifle is designed to fire a lot of rounds...and fire them quickly. I cannot think of the any time I have ever heard of someone protecting their home and needing even a full clip of bullets. A single shot is enough to send most felons scurrying. And a few more will ensure that the cops are enroute to help.
You must not read much, many homes are protected on a regular basis with "many rounds" (semi auto weapons), very few are ever protected with bolt-action "hunting" rifles that would be next on your list once you "rid the world of evil black 'assault' rifles). And the fact that you said "clip" once again speaks to your dishonest claim about "loving and growing up with guns". There may have been guns around, but you obviously never took the time to learn anything about them.
So, really, what would happen if we just said, "No more assault rifles will be sold?" Would we now be unable to protect ourselves?
I would be able to, with "assualt" rifles, my concern is for people who wait until its too late.
Yes, the bad guys will keep theirs. But over time and with attrition, they, too, will be taken. Further, a bad guy cannot easily hide an assault rifle as he walks through the neighborhood, so their utility (thanks to OTCP!) is limited to showing off...or really nasty acts.
In an age when you can print a gun this is as naive as it gets.
I'm FOR gun ownership. But if we were to keep one assault rifle out of the hands of someone who plans to use it for evil, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Typical liberal illogic. No, it wouldn't be a good thing. Because there are more than just "one" guy out there that are nuts and want to kill people. I don't care what they are wanting to use to do it. A knife, a car, a bomb, a brick, I will empty multiple rounds into their twitching carcass if they come at me, my family or my friends.
Again, where do we draw the line? If there isn't one, then nuclear arms is OK, too, right?
You're welcome to go try to buy one (really do you think you're speaking to a bunch of idiots with this first grade logic?
|
|
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
12/5/15 11:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
georgiapath |
| You will never keep guns out of the hands of crazy or evil people. You will just keep guns out of law abiding citizens and they are not the ones going around shooting people. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7594
12/5/15 12:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Problem is |
Cojak |
I know some good men, one a very educated first Cousin, that KNOW we are going to have a revolution one day; WE must be prepared. Now of course this has been going on for over 50 years.
There was ALWAYS going to be some internal war in the USA. The reasons vary, but these are good guys, I love 'em. I think they are wrong, but I sure cannot prove it.
It is true, at some point in 'war logic' accuracy gave way to 'heavy fire power', spray the room instead of taking time to aim.
I see no need for a 'machinegun' in my home or life, but some people really do. With millions of 'assault' type weapons out there, most will never be seen or heard, BUT THEY ARE READY!
Banned they would still be available, but at enormous prices.
We have been outlawing drugs for years, and I hear you can buy anything you need in a short period of time TODAY!
Banning only 'restricts' an honest guy, not the dishonest.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 12:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Uncle JD |
Cojak |
You do not have to know all about weapons to 'love/appreciate' them. I remember having to know every thing about my 'rifle'. break it down and put it back together in the dark, etc. But I did not respect it anymore than my BIL who knew how to oil and use a bore brush.
Why be so nasty in breaking a guys comment down? YOU don't know him.
There are plenty of folk with the view the fully automatic should be banned and they are sure not liberal.
Anyway gun control here is sorta like the Alcohol/caffeine discussions. 
I still like you uncle! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Uncle JD |
UncleJD |
| Cojak wrote: | You do not have to know all about weapons to 'love/appreciate' them. I remember having to know every thing about my 'rifle'. break it down and put it back together in the dark, etc. But I did not respect it anymore than my BIL who knew how to oil and use a bore brush.
Why be so nasty in breaking a guys comment down? YOU don't know him.
There are plenty of folk with the view the fully automatic should be banned and they are sure not liberal.
Anyway gun control here is sorta like the Alcohol/caffeine discussions.
I still like you uncle! |
Sorry Cojak, but you do have to break down an argument like Aaron's to show the silliness of it all. He posted points, he expects point-by-point rebuttal. And I for one am tired of the Joe Biden "I like guns" lie. He doesn't, Aaron doesn't, and yes if you grow up around guns and use them, you know basics like what a clip is and what its not, and that a semi-auto rifle painted black is not an assault rifle. I'm not new to Aaron and all of his incarnations over the years. He's a good guy, but he's said this several times over the years and he knows it. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
12/5/15 1:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| I keep picturing a boat with an assault rifle used as a mast for a little white sail. Is this the sail that Aaron wants to ban? Such philosophical questions one must ponder! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/5/15 1:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I keep picturing a boat with an assault rifle used as a mast for a little white sail. Is this the sail that Aaron wants to ban? Such philosophical questions one must ponder! |
Yeah, I was thinking it won't sail anyway  so why ban it  
But I have seen this before though...not sailing 'em.
I would think everyone would be against sailing assault weapons.
It is a very dangerous thing...for the ones sailing them  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
12/5/15 2:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tim Finlayson |
Assault Rifle definition: Very scary looking gun.
Hey I thought you were raised around guns, what the heck is a clip? It is a magazine.
The 2nd amendment is there to protect the rest of the constitution. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1101
12/5/15 2:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Tim Finlayson wrote: | Assault Rifle definition: Very scary looking gun.
Hey I thought you were raised around guns, what the heck is a clip? It is a magazine.
The 2nd amendment is there to protect the rest of the constitution. |
It was a clip for years before it was referred to as a magazine. The official definition of The M-1 is a 'clip fed, gas operated, semi automatic shoulder weapon.
Then The BAR first used clips, then switched to the name of magazine.
Just so you will know the term 'clip' does not in anyway indicate ignorance, Having been ordered "With a clip and three rounds, lock and load", or hearing 'With a full clip, lock and load.'
I might ask, "You mean you have been around weapons all your life and really do not know what a clip is?" 
There is a difference in a clip and a magazine of course, but they have been used interchangeably.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 3:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Rifles and Guns |
Cojak |
I knew ONE guy who made the mistake of referring to his rifle as a gun. He spent a lot of time telling his mates the difference in his rifle and his gun.
I later learned: GUNS make more noise!
To the OP, WE should always be able to bear arms. I know the Automatic assault rifle was not around when the 2nd amendment was written, but down inside I really think if it had been, it would not have been an exception.
Mass killings are not a good argument against the automatic, just yesterday in Egypt 17 were killed by an explosive. Not one rifle or handgun was used to attack the twin towers or the pentagon. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 3:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Cojak wrote: | | The official definition of The M-1 is a 'clip fed, gas operated, semi automatic shoulder weapon |
You are correct Cojak the M1 is indeed a clip-fed rifle. What Aaron was referring to as a "clip" is not, it is a magazine. I'm sure he appreciates the defense though. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
12/5/15 5:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| UncleJD wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | The official definition of The M-1 is a 'clip fed, gas operated, semi automatic shoulder weapon |
You are correct Cojak the M1 is indeed a clip-fed rifle. What Aaron was referring to as a "clip" is not, it is a magazine. I'm sure he appreciates the defense though. |
He doesn't need any help my friend, I was just giving my opinion of nomenclature, there was a time that the term clip and mag were inter change able. Small thing though since in the sentence it was obvious what was meant. I do not agree with a ban, I thought that was pretty clear.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 5:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
c6thplayer1 |
| Banning assault rifles would only be the beginning. Semi Automatics would be next , then High Powered weapons ,then pistols etc. Governments want control. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
12/5/15 5:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| c6thplayer1 wrote: | | Banning assault rifles would only be the beginning. Semi Automatics would be next , then High Powered weapons ,then pistols etc. Governments want control. |
I tend to agree with this. People like to control others it seems. It is even down on the Home Owner's Associations level. The attitude: We need to tell you what you can have in your yard, type of fence and who cuts your grass. Sometimes I think congressmen were the ones who started Home Owner's associations.. 
Controls DO GROW!
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 6:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
c6thplayer1 |
| Cojak wrote: | | c6thplayer1 wrote: | | Banning assault rifles would only be the beginning. Semi Automatics would be next , then High Powered weapons ,then pistols etc. Governments want control. |
I tend to agree with this. People like to control others it seems. It is even down on the Home Owner's Associations level. The attitude: We need to tell you what you can have in your yard, type of fence and who cuts your grass. Sometimes I think congressmen were the ones who started Home Owner's associations..
Controls DO GROW! |
But sometimes yards grow to.... 
 |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
12/5/15 7:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Some thoughts... |
Aaron Scott |
First, Uncle JD, I forgive you for being harsher than you had to be. No, you didn't ask for forgiveness--may not even think you need it--but just in case, there it is (SMILE).
We can disagree without being hateful, and because I esteem you as a brother, I hope you can understand that my point is not to paint myself as rip-roarin' gun lover who wants some guns banned.
I suppose I could have used a more appropriate word than "love." My point was I was raised with guns and am FOR gun ownership. I suppose I could have said that "I'm fine with guns," since that seems more along the lines of what I meant to convey. It was not an attempt to be "dishonest," as you put it. By the way, why are so you angry? You DO realize that good folks can be on different sides of an issue, right?
In any case, here's the equation in my mind:
Assault type rifles make very little unique difference in terms of actually protecting a home. That is, another, "lesser," gun will serve the purpose--a .38 revolver; a 9mm, and certainly, my favorite, a 12 gauge pump.
All of these weapons can serve to protect a home in virtually all but some Hollywood version of the zombie apocalypse. But in real life, we all are aware that an assault rifle is not for hunting (never saw anyone hunting with one, anyway) and is designed for rapid-fire and high count ammunition.
It just is.
Yes, all of these other guns will kill you just as badly, but while they will serve as well (and perhaps even worse) than an assault rifle in protecting one's home, they will NOT serve as well if the intent is to kill a lot of people in a short time. I can get off my five shots of my shotgun, but then I need to reload. I can get off all the shells in my .357, but then I have to stop, etc. But with an assault type weapon, I have a dramatic edge in terms of the amount firepower.
There is a reason that this is the gun of choice, increasingly, for those who intend to kill a lot of people. So, since we almost would never need such a gun to protect our home, why not accept that we have what is needed to protect our homes...and get rid of the guns that are too often used for evil purposes?
Let me put it this way.... If hand grenades were the weapon of choice for killers, does that mean we need grenades too? No. In fact, it is almost surely the case that we should NOT have grenades! Rather, by using what we already have easily available, we can take out those with grenades.
And in the context of our protecting our HOME, we certainly would not think grenades would be the best idea.
These things being the case, it MIGHT be that by prohibiting the sale of such things, we would edge our way forward in preventing these tragic attacks. It's not a silver bullet, but surely if we make it harder for killers to get their hands on them, then AT THE LEAST we have slowed down the death rate and so forth.
There's no need to get upset because I see it differently than you. It's not like I'm going to pass a law. I'm stating my opinion. You have one too. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
12/5/15 7:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| c6thplayer1 wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | c6thplayer1 wrote: | | Banning assault rifles would only be the beginning. Semi Automatics would be next , then High Powered weapons ,then pistols etc. Governments want control. |
I tend to agree with this. People like to control others it seems. It is even down on the Home Owner's Associations level. The attitude: We need to tell you what you can have in your yard, type of fence and who cuts your grass. Sometimes I think congressmen were the ones who started Home Owner's associations..
Controls DO GROW! |
But sometimes yards grow to....
|
Okay to keep this on track, that on the right could be used for a gun safe (Unplugged of course). Freezers work well for that. However I really think the ice chests are a little much, but that scaffolding in the back is to be used for a Deer stand.
I am digging thru this stuff looking for my AR, I am sure it is there somewhere. Let's not ban scaffolding, it is a necessary evil also.
BAck to my yard, Honestly, I have cleaned this up since you were here.
While LOOKING FOR MY 'SALT' RIFLE.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Cojak on 12/6/15 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/5/15 7:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
