Support for government power to ban a particular firearm?

[NeverTrump]

you appear afraid of firearms and its clear you are not someone who actually spends much-if any time-practicing tactical firearms uses

I do-weekly and have done so for decades. I train people how to shoot and the laws surrounding self defense. I have been involved in a shooting where I won and the mopes LOST. So I can tell you, and most who are as experienced as I will confirm-MOST COPS ARE POOR SHOTS. people who CARRY GUNS because they CAN, not because its a job duty tend to be people who LIKE TO SHOOT. its why my then 16 year old son absolutely obliterated the top police in Ohio-the people selected by their departments to compete in the Ohio police olympics. in fact I and the third place NON-LEO beat all the cops

badly

Former CPD trainer testifying in front of Cincinnati City Council circa 1990 or so noted that if he randomly pulled ten police from the Evandale (a suburb of cincinnati) firing range and put them up against 10 randomly selected citizens shooting any saturday afternoon at the nearby commercial range (Targetworld) in shooting skills and knowledge of the laws concerning self defense, he noted the private citizens would beat the cops and beat them bad

OK. That's great for you. Do you want a cookie or something? More hearsay without links or facts to back up your claims. Who would have thought coming from you?

 

[TurtleDude]

OK. That's great for you. Do you want a cookie or something? More hearsay without links or facts to back up your claims. Who would have thought coming from you?

translation

you don't understand guns
you are not trained in shooting
you are not versed in tactics but
you have to respond but have no real argument

so we get this crap

 

[NeverTrump]

translation

you don't understand guns
you are not trained in shooting
you are not versed in tactics but
you have to respond but have no real argument

so we get this crap

Why don't you ever post links to facts that backs up your claims?

 

[natsb]

You make the error of confusing anger with a lack of any toleration for absurdity and inane claims about standards of behavior which endanger children while elevating extremist ideology over their safety. But if you want to label that as anger, it means little to me since this entire nation needs to get extremely angry at the right wing zealots who have hijacked the NRA and use it to buy Congressmen the way a john buys prostitutes to do their bidding. Yes - the entire nation needs to get royally pissed off screaming they are not going to take it any more.

But that would be a show of emotion then wouldn't it. And of course we all know that emotions should never ever ever be used in deciding issues of public policy and we all need to be like Mr. Spock in Star Trek.

Buried in all that hyperbole was an interesting point. What about the group of men's behavior made them dangerous? Did you leave their dangerous actions out of the original story, or is this another imagined status? Pre-Alert: I am imagining you saying that their mere existence was dangerous. So do me a favor, and give me a warning so I don't spit my drink all over the laptop laughing.

Your question about how often this has happened in Lansing is beyond insulting to teachers. But lets use your standard of reasonableness shall we?

How often were people slain at Sandy Hook school before some two dozen were one day in December?

How often was that community college campus in Oregon the site of mass slaughter with firearms before it happened recently?

You want the names of twenty more places just like that with no history of mass killings with firearms before the first time? Start with Columbine and then go to the movie theater in Aurora and keep going.

Such a standard is beyond inane. In fact, I know of no word which white fits its complete insult to teachers the world over whose first job it is to protect kids and keep them safe.

Oops! In a hyperbolic fit, you accidentally deleted part of my post. Perhaps that is why you repeated yourself instead of responding. To save you the time of going back, I'll paste it here again:

"During the break, you can do a little homework on the term "situational awareness". When you get back, we can discuss the difference between mentally disturbed loners stalking gun free zones to prey on innocent people, and large groups of men standing peacefully , in broad daylight, in the presence of armed security."

Point of etiquette: Deleting pertinent text to distort the meaning of another's post could be misinterpreted as trolling. I am sure it was accidental, as you seem legitimate with your concerns.

 

[Crovax]

I thought government was a major reason to want the citizenry to arm itself. Of course it should not determine which weapons a citizen may have.

So you support the average citizen being able to own nuclear weapons?

 

[NeverTrump]

translation

you don't understand guns
you are not trained in shooting
you are not versed in tactics but
you have to respond but have no real argument

so we get this crap

btw just to let you know. Training with guns has nothing to do with whether or not gun laws are appropriate and/or indeed legal. Although, I sure hope you follow gun safety laws, or does that infringe on your rights too? I'm not the one saying you shouldn't be doing these things, but you certainly are the one telling me that I should, "get an education about guns," just because I simply stated government has the power to make gun laws. What type of a teacher can possibly teach people objectively about guns, when that teacher does not keep them up to date on the latest gun laws?? Hum. Answer that one for me.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

shall we have a duel?:mrgreen:

You'd definitely crush me, heck your son could probably out-draw me.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Point of etiquette: Deleting pertinent text to distort the meaning of another's post could be misinterpreted as trolling. I am sure it was accidental, as you seem legitimate with your concerns.

That's kind of his thing.

 

[haymarket]

What about the group of men's behavior made them dangerous?

And once a teacher finds out they are dangerous, it may well be too late. A teacher cannot take that chance with children whose safety has been entrusted to them with the prospect he armed men in camo in front of them and visions and memories of Sandy Hook in their head along with upset children scared to death.

But then you know that since it has been clearly explained to you in several previous posts.

Point of etiquette: Deleting pertinent text to distort the meaning of another's post could be misinterpreted as trolling. I am sure it was accidental, as you seem legitimate with your concerns.

That is why I politely included every pertinent word that needed to be spoken about.

 

[Zyphlin]

But this thread is not about banning cable companies or newspapers. This thread is about banning certain guns. Not ALL. In fact, it also asks if the government is NOT allowed to ban all guns? So you are very clearly saying yes it does.

Which is why I didn't talk about ALL aspects of speech, the press, or religion being banned by the "majority", but rather specific picking and choosing. Still see you refuse to answer, which isn't surprising as i in no way expect you to respond consistently.

You seem to think that despite the 2nd, the government can ban SOME guns and even how MANY guns you own so long as you can still own one. I'm asking if you apply that same standard to the first amendment, or do you just pick and choose which constitutional protection you feel like following? Are you consistent or not

 

[haymarket]

Which is why I didn't talk about ALL aspects of speech, the press, or religion being banned by the "majority", but rather specific picking and choosing. Still see you refuse to answer, which isn't surprising as i in no way expect you to respond consistently.

You seem to think that despite the 2nd, the government can ban SOME guns and even how MANY guns you own so long as you can still own one. I'm asking if you apply that same standard to the first amendment, or do you just pick and choose which constitutional protection you feel like following? Are you consistent or not

You are posing a question based on a false premise - specifically that one Amendments language or rights applies to a different Amendments or rights. Each is distinct and separate with its own specific language and its own specific rights. So questions about other Amendments or rights contained therein are irrelevant in a discussion about the Second Amendment.

 

[NeverTrump]

You seem to think that despite the 2nd, the government can ban SOME guns and even how MANY guns you own so long as you can still own one. I'm asking if you apply that same standard to the first amendment, or do you just pick and choose which constitutional protection you feel like following? Are you consistent or not

You seem to misunderstand my objective and the objective of this thread. I am not talking about my own personal beliefs here, which is what every gun fanatic on this thread is doing. I am simply pointing out that the government working with the people can do the things you are complaining about, if they so desire and they so choose. Isn't that why you are complaining in the first place?

This does not necessarily mean that they will or even want to. For example, I just looked up the gun laws in my state of NJ. Here are some of them. Are these laws illegal in your opinion?

1. Capacities of semiautomatic handguns and rifles (total in magazine excluding chamber) are limited to 15 rounds
2. However, hollow-point bullets may not be carried outside of a place of target practice, dwelling, premises or land possessed by a person, even if one has a valid permit to carry a handgun, except when being transported directly to and from these places.
3. New Jersey limits handgun purchases to one per 30 day period; Declaring a good reason. Reasons may include: recreational shooting; the purposes of collectors; when it is required for certain employment; and when obtaining firearms as the beneficiary of a will.

These laws have already been determined and been in place for years. Seems pretty reasonable to me and we are one of the most liberal states in the country.

 

[jet57]

Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most conservative President of the last eighty years and winner of awards and honors from the NRA for his support of Second Amendment rights said this

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

As President, Reagan signed into law a bill banning some automatic weapons from sale to the public.

Our poll question - do you support government legally prohibiting certain firearms for sale and ownership by the public. Please be aware I am NOT asking you if you support banning ALL firearms or repealing the Second Amendment. I am talking about a selective prohibition such as was used in the 1986 law.

Voting YES means you do support government having the power to do so.
Voting NO means you believe any firearm produced by the gun industry is fair game to be marketed and sold for private ownership.

I do support that and now is another time for it to start a list.

 

[TurtleDude]

You seem to misunderstand my objective and the objective of this thread. I am not talking about my own personal beliefs here, which is what every gun fanatic on this thread is doing. I am simply pointing out that the government working with the people can do the things you are complaining about, if they so desire and they so choose. Isn't that why you are complaining in the first place?

This does not necessarily mean that they will or even want to. For example, I just looked up the gun laws in my state of NJ. Here are some of them. Are these laws illegal in your opinion?

1. Capacities of semiautomatic handguns and rifles (total in magazine excluding chamber) are limited to 15 rounds
2. However, hollow-point bullets may not be carried outside of a place of target practice, dwelling, premises or land possessed by a person, even if one has a valid permit to carry a handgun, except when being transported directly to and from these places.
3. New Jersey limits handgun purchases to one per 30 day period; Declaring a good reason. Reasons may include: recreational shooting; the purposes of collectors; when it is required for certain employment; and when obtaining firearms as the beneficiary of a will.

These laws have already been determined and been in place for years. Seems pretty reasonable to me and we are one of the most liberal states in the country.

NJ is a joke when it comes to following the Constitution. The leaders of that state should be rotting in prison for their violations of constitutional rights. Florio's gun ban was disgusting. HOLLOW POINTS are much safer for people to carry. If you don't know why ask a local cop. One per 30 days-again harassment of citizens.

how are any of those things reasonable unless one is a gun banner?

the politicians who support that crap should be prohibited from having any armed security

 

[NeverTrump]

1. HOLLOW POINTS are much safer for people to carry.

2. One per 30 days-again harassment of citizens.

3. How are any of those things reasonable unless one is a gun banner?

Now you are just acting silly. However, let me address these two points.

1. And you can still carry them, in your home and on your property or at target practice/hunting. How is that infringing on your rights?

2. Well you get to buy 12 guns a year in NJ. Do you buy 12 guns a year? Again, how is that infringing on your rights?

3. You have failed to say how these laws aren't reasonable. Oh I know. Just because guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

Now you are just acting silly. However, let me address these two points.

1. And you can still carry them, in your home and on your property or at target practice/hunting. How is that infringing on your rights?

2. Well you get to buy 12 guns a year in NJ. Do you buy 12 guns a year? Again, how is that infringing on your rights?

3. You have failed to say how these laws aren't reasonable. Oh I know. Just because guns.

the only proper bullets to carry in a self defense pistol on the streets are hollow points

why should there BE ANY LIMIT to how may guns you buy

that is unreasonable. If you can be trusted to buy one gun why not 10 or 20? WTH does the government have any rational reason to say otherwise

you don't understand the use of self defense weapons. hence your not understanding why the hollowpoint law is moronic

 

[NeverTrump]

1. the only proper bullets to carry in a self defense pistol on the streets are hollow points

2. why should there BE ANY LIMIT to how may guns you buy

3. that is unreasonable. If you can be trusted to buy one gun why not 10 or 20? WTH does the government have any rational reason to say otherwise

1. I would wager that most self-defense happens in the home or on your property.

2. Do you honestly buy more than 12 guns a year?

3. You can get 10 or 20. Just not all at once. In NJ it's feasible to that you can acquire up to at least 800 guns within your lifetime. So I don't see why you're so pissed off at that law? Did you really need 800 guns right now? Do you want to be flagged and put on government watch-lists? That's being ridiculously suspicious.

 

[TurtleDude]

1. I would wager that most self-defense happens in the home or on your property.

2. Do you honestly buy more than 12 guns a year?

3. You can get 10 or 20. Just not all at once. In NJ it's feasible to that you can acquire up to at least 800 guns within your lifetime. So I don't see why you're so pissed off at that law? Did you really need 800 guns right now? Do you want to be flagged and put on government watch-lists? That's being ridiculously suspicious.

what sort of idiot would carry FMJs for self defense? what sort of idiot would pass a law making you use ammo that requires you to shoot an attacker MORE times and which are more likely to pass through the attacker and damage someone or something else?

me-yes I have often bought more than 12 guns a year and since I used to win about 5 a year that would count to

why should I have any limit if I am an honest citizen

I often buy two firearms with as close to matching serial numbers as possible. I won't waste time explaining why but its common among serious competitors

why are you so happy with idiotic nanny state nonsense?

why should I be on a watch list unless its because of people who think like you?

what part of freedom is so frightening?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't sport shoot. I don't hunt. I've never been much concerned about home defense, and still feel the same now.

I recognize that other citizens may feel the need to own a firearm for any one, or combination of all of these reasons, and I have no problem with that.

Yet I support the right to keep and bear arms for the primary purpose it has always existed. To provide a chance, however small, for citizens to stand up in revolt against oppression from whatever source.

I do not currently fear my own government. That is why I don't currently own a firearm. Yet I still oppose efforts to regulate or limit citizen access to weapons that might serve as effective tools in the event of such need.

Yes, there are people out there who misuse this right. But the statistics clearly show that misusers are a miniscule fraction of the citizens who possess weapons. Yet their actions are blown out of all proportion in media coverage attempting to increase the ranks of gun-phobes and then scare them into giving up their own right to self-defense.

I am not afraid of people who have guns. Nothing in the news will ever convince me that I should work to either surrender, or allow infringement of this right to keep and bear arms.

 

[NeverTrump]

1. what sort of idiot would carry FMJs for self defense? I often buy two firearms with as close to matching serial numbers as possible. I won't waste time explaining why but its common among serious competitors. Why should I be on a watch list unless its because of people who think like you? what part of freedom is so frightening?

2. what sort of idiot would pass a law making you use ammo that requires you to shoot an attacker MORE times and which are more likely to pass through the attacker and damage someone or something else?

3. me-yes I have often bought more than 12 guns a year and since I used to win about 5 a year that would count to

4. why should I have any limit if I am an honest citizen

1. I don't even know how any of these comments are relevant to the current discussion. But I see you didn't take my bet on HOME self defense.

2. You will really have to back that up with a link for me to answer the question. But knowing you, you won't so again why would you just type it out?

3. Well I guess it's a good thing you live in Ohio then. Though, you shouldn't be complaining about the laws in my state then. You must know about state's rights right?

4. Do you need 800 guns for protection? What is it for?

 

[TurtleDude]

1. I don't even know how any of these comments are relevant to the current discussion. But I see you didn't take my bet on HOME self defense.

2. You will really have to back that up with a link for me to answer the question. But knowing you, you won't so again why would you just type it out?

3. Well I guess it's a good thing you live in Ohio then. Though, you shouldn't be complaining about the laws in my state then. You must know about state's rights right?

4. Do you need 800 guns for protection? What is it for?

do you play 18 holes of golf with a couple clubs

I have actively competed in 7 different sanctioned firearms shooting sports in the last two years

NSSA skeet
ATA Trap
ISU Trap
NSCA Clays
"GSSF" Glock Indoor league
Steel League


I have also competed in

NRA service rifle
NRA small bore
ISU Double Trap
ISU Skeet
"pin Shooting"
USPSA-open, limited, production, single stack divisions
3G events
SASS (cowboy shooting)
IHMSA

each requires different types of guns.

so you believe protection is the only reason why some people have lots of guns

you DO NOT KNOW how hollow points work and why FMJ is less effective for self defense and actually more dangerous to use on city streets?

and why should honest people be limited in how many weapons they BUY LEGALLY

but then again you are in favor of the government being able to ban whatever firearms they want for whatever reason they want

it comes down to a difference in personality. I am a fiercely independent person who sees government as a necessary evil that can do some good but can also do lots of harm. You apparently worship government and see it as a benevolent parent that you trust to tell you what to do

 

[NeverTrump]

1. do you play 18 holes of golf with a couple clubs. each requires different types of guns.

2. so you believe protection is the only reason why some people have lots of guns

3. you DO NOT KNOW how hollow points work and why FMJ is less effective for self defense and actually more dangerous to use on city streets?

4. but then again you are in favor of the government being able to ban whatever firearms they want for whatever reason they want

5. it comes down to a difference in personality. I am a fiercely independent person who sees government as a necessary evil that can do some good but can also do lots of harm. You apparently worship government and see it as a benevolent parent that you trust to tell you what to do

1. I see your point but this does not apply to majority of Americans. Just you and your shooting club buddies.
2. Lot's of guns won't come in handy for self protection. One might not even... It all depends on the situation. But I don't see one in which one person needs five for self defense.
3. I never even brought up FMJ. The question is irrelevant to the topic.
4. I am also in favor of your right to voice your opinion and vote against it. Remember it's not the government so much but the people.
5. Yes it does, but you got my beliefs skewered because you have only been talking to me about this one issue. These laws to me seem reasonable enough for everyday citizens who are not gun fanatics. If you are, you can move to a different part of the country like Ohio.

 

[TurtleDude]

1. I see your point but this does not apply to majority of Americans. Just you and your shooting club buddies.
2. Lot's of guns won't come in handy for self protection. One might not even... It all depends on the situation. But I don't see one in which one person needs five for self defense.
3. I never even brought up FMJ. The question is irrelevant to the topic.
4. I am also in favor of your right to voice your opinion and vote against it. Remember it's not the government so much but the people.
5. Yes it does, but you got my beliefs skewered because you have only been talking to me about this one issue. These laws to me seem reasonable enough for everyday citizens who are not gun fanatics. If you are, you can move to a different part of the country like Ohio.

do you even read what I wrote? I never said I needed lots of guns for self protection

the laws are not reasonable in a free society

 

[NeverTrump]

1. do you even read what I wrote? I never said I needed lots of guns for self protection

2. the laws are not reasonable in a free society

1. Um, you asked me if protection was the only reason to have lots of guns. By saying it is probably not necessary even to have one gun for self protection. I believe I have already answered your question satisfactorily.

2. You and your shooting buddies already are able to do almost all you want with guns in Ohio. So why the heck are you complaining about legal guns laws in NJ? NJ legally voted these gun laws through. That is the entire point of the thread and it is within our rights to do it! Are you trying to take our rights away? By saying, no screw what the people want? Guns, Guns, Guns and more Guns!!! Why should Ohio right wingers have more say in our state?

 

[TurtleDude]

1. Um, you asked me if protection was the only reason to have lots of guns. By saying it is probably not necessary even to have one gun for self protection. I believe I have already answered your question satisfactorily.

2. You and your shooting buddies already are able to do almost all you want with guns in Ohio. So why the heck are you complaining about legal guns laws in NJ? NJ legally voted these gun laws through. That is the entire point of the thread and it is within our rights to do it! Are you trying to take our rights away? By saying, no screw what the people want? Guns, Guns, Guns and more Guns!!! Why should Ohio right wingers have more say in our state?

an asshole from NJ is the one who pulled the Hughes Amendment crap

what GOP values do you support?