- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Not only do I believe every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun but our Constitution says it as well . It's NOT the gun it is the person ! And if this terrorist mass shooting taught us anything , we live in a very , very dangerous Country today and I'm certain if those people would have been carrying we would NOT have seen such carnage .
The only difference would have been possibly the security was armed. Less people would have died, but people would have still dies. The people in the club would have been unarmed because alcohol was served there.
You're right. But. Just maybe, in the future, AK47s won't be an easy option.
Yes, I believe the average citizen should be allowed to own guns. You have the right to defend yourself and your family. Guns can greatly assist in that endeavor, whereas grenades and poisonous gas won't.
Obviously, for most people, there is a line drawn somewhere in which the potential danger to the public outweighs the right to defend oneself. Personally, I have zero problems with a person being able to concealed carry a handgun. Yes, some people will abuse it, but it is also the most effective and convenient way for a person to defend themselves from an aggressor. Even a 5 foot, 100 lb woman can stop a would-be rapist if she has this tool.
Because the right to defend oneself is one of the most important rights, barriers to acquire a handgun should be minimal. I do admit that when talking about more sophisticated weaponry, like an AR-15, I am comfortable with more checks. I don't think they should be banned, but I am starting to think more thorough background checks might not be the worst thing for these types of guns. Yeah, I know that sounds noncommittal. I am currently having some serious internal debates regarding this subject and my opinion seems to be changing by the hour.
"Concealed??"" I'd like to see an America where seeing someone walking down the street openly carrying a firearm doesn't turn a single head.
I also keep wondering when someone is going to get sued for failing to prevent a mass killing. Since a private business can be sued for failing to be safe in a lot of other ways. when do we see a lawsuit for a mass attack like this where the business owner gets sued for making the business a target with a "No guns allowed." policy? For the anti-gun group, a successful lawsuit like this could change things across the board...
Spot On!
Security was armed. He was an off duty cop, moonlighting as a bouncer and initially engaged the shooter, but was unable to get a clean shot w/o collateral damage. In a crowed night club, bad place to have to shoot in self defense.
A weapon is anything that can be used against another for attack or defense - so the answer is making all weapons illegal is impossible. You bring a gun to a gun fight, a knife to a knife fight, a bat to fight a burglar, poison to kill a rat, fire to kill a forest, water to drown a traitor, rope to hang a thief, .....well, you see where I'm going with this. There will always be weapons to injure or kill others. It is in our nature and all the way down to our own personal strength. Animals in the wild is really all that we are if it comes down to it to defend ourselves and take what we perceive is ours to take.
I hate to be so philosophical but people who think that removing guns will stop violence are just stupid ideologists. They should all just sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya - about the same thing will be accomplished.
At some point the collateral damage becomes moot I would think. Just my opinion mind you.
How about AR15s? SKS? Tavor Bullpups? HK 91s and 93s and their clones? Sten guns?
You do know we can legally make our own at home or office right....with no serial numbers or knowledge by the BATF?
You see Maggie, I like to prepare for any scenario. I've been to 3 different riots in Oakland, SF and LA. I know what absoouter lawless chaos exists.
If a terrorist group, or any foreign threat, gets access to our water supply, power grid( both all computerized now), activates an EMP, or for any other reason...................those AKs, ARs and all the other 20 something designs, will be invaluable to the citizens, because there will be no Law Enforcement!
Of course, that entails a large supply of ammo for the different weapons as well.
And do you really think that if they banned all of those weapons by the end of this year, it would make a dent? These things have been selling by the millions, since 2004, with a huge surge since 2008. Plus, they can be manufactured at home.
Yes, I believe the average citizen should be allowed to own guns. You have the right to defend yourself and your family. Guns can greatly assist in that endeavor, whereas grenades and poisonous gas won't.
Obviously, for most people, there is a line drawn somewhere in which the potential danger to the public outweighs the right to defend oneself. Personally, I have zero problems with a person being able to concealed carry a handgun. Yes, some people will abuse it, but it is also the most effective and convenient way for a person to defend themselves from an aggressor. Even a 5 foot, 100 lb woman can stop a would-be rapist if she has this tool.
Because the right to defend oneself is one of the most important rights, barriers to acquire a handgun should be minimal. I do admit that when talking about more sophisticated weaponry, like an AR-15, I am comfortable with more checks. I don't think they should be banned, but I am starting to think more thorough background checks might not be the worst thing for these types of guns. Yeah, I know that sounds noncommittal. I am currently having some serious internal debates regarding this subject and my opinion seems to be changing by the hour.
Not only do I believe every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun but our Constitution says it as well . It's NOT the gun it is the person ! And if this terrorist mass shooting taught us anything , we live in a very , very dangerous Country today and I'm certain if those people would have been carrying we would NOT have seen such carnage .
Of course, we should be allowed to have guns. The question that needs debating, IMO, is "what kind." Even those people I know who keep loaded firearms on their walls, leaning by their front and back doors, who live in fly-over cities, towns and burgs, do not see a need to own AK47's. We really don't live in the Wild West. There isn't a psycho behind every bush.
Realistically, what we need more than anything is, not stricter laws, but stricter punishments. Mandatory sentences...more prisons...trying juveniles in adult court...two strikes and you're out. That's the real way to curb gun crime, IMO. And it's all about less crime...not less guns...'cause the genie's out of the bottle on that.
I think a rational understanding of what constitutes appropriate arms would be exactly what the Revolutionary ideologues would have upheld; what would be the arms and armaments any militiaman would be expected to have when called to service in defense of his home, State, or Nation? That is the proper understanding of the first clause of the Second Amendment.
Pretend we don't have a standing army (something those Revolutionary leaders opposed as a threat to liberty), and then imagine what current weapons you would want a militiaman to actually need if required to muster in a minute (Minutemen). The idea that responsible citizenship includes accepting responsibility for self-defense and the defense of the nation.
I would add going back to civics courses in high school as a requirement, and exposing youth to training in the safe and responsible use of firearms, much like driving lessons before permitting a juvenile to drive a car.
You think stricter punishment would have stopped the Orlando? I for one doubt it, after all the guy died in a shootout. That's about as steep of a punishment as it gets.
I think in this country EVERYONE should be packing something concealed or otherwise almost everywhere. I think it should be required in fact. Weapons should be fashion accessories here. The more armed people there are the less likely people will use them. How often does someone attack a police station?
Should the average person be allowed to own an M16A4? You would probably go to war with a bunch of ammo and possibly some grenades as well. Then there are those that carry the .50 cal's, etc...
To the best of my knowledge and experience, explosives are not standard issue, nor is a .50 Cal machine gun.
The basic infantryman carries a rifle of some kind, a pistol, and enough ammunition to sustain a firefight with.
Grenades are issued as needed, and turned in when not. Crew-served weapons like machine guns are not standard issue, they are issued to a specific crew.
Artillery and Tanks are not "standard infantry issue" either. Would you like to list any other specific types that you think might fit in with what a standard infantryman will always have as basic issue?
Ok, if we're just going off of a standard issue rifle, I'm pretty sure the Marines are using the M16A4. Are you okay with anyone owning one, provided they pass an effective background check and get proper training?
What if there were 40 people in there with semi automatic weapons...I think it still could've gotten pretty bloody. If everyone had a basic single shot pistol, I feel like the gunman may have killed 5 tops. And I think a person could defend themselves pretty well with one.
Agreed, but a very tough call to make and it can come back to bite you in the ass, much later.
It wouldn't have stopped that no. But make the punishment for straw purchases severe and require all private transfers and sales to go through a background check with an FFL. It would be a bit of a hassle and an added $25 or so for the background checks but in all pretty minor. Way better than banning certain types of guns.
I am, with two caveats.
1. Citizens incarcerated for criminal acts or mental illness lose their right for the duration of such incarceration, and
2. While I support training, I do not support background checks.
Like weapon permits, I consider that a flag to government that YOU own a weapon. I don't care what other people believe about such checks being merely a vetting process. Despite government assurances to the contrary, I believe that our government security forces maintain records of such checks and may use them to identify weapons owners.
Assuming otherwise despite all the lies, spying, and other deceptions our government perpetrates in the name of security is IMO very foolish.
Do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to have any guns? If not, can we possess large knives, pepper spray, or tasers? If so, just some, or all? If all, should we also be allowed to possess grenades and poisonous gas? At what point do you believe weapons should be illegal?
Do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to have any guns? If not, can we possess large knives, pepper spray, or tasers? If so, just some, or all? If all, should we also be allowed to possess grenades and poisonous gas? At what point do you believe weapons should be illegal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?