Gun Control

Are you for it or against it?

The rest of the world wants to see the US disarmed.

What do you think?

I am all for getting rid of high powered automatic weapons. I believe it's everyones right to bare arms but not to have high capacity weapons that can take out a lot of people before reloading.

Too late there have been bunches sold since '04 and the fools are paying up to $6000. for then now.Same for mags and drums..

What in the world will this accomplish? Criminals don't obey the law. The law abiding citizen gun owners are not the problem. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. Handguns are banned (even though the Supreme Court over-ruled that 30 year old law). So by liberal logic, Chicago would be a happy place without guns and everything would be rose buds and lollipops. But alas, they had 513 homicides in 2012....the overwhelming majority were commited with handguns.

Stupid bans accomplish nothing. Don't waste my time.

well lets see...prostitution is illegal and here we are. do you really think outlaws are going to pay any attention to a gun ban?

I am all for getting rid of high powered automatic weapons. I believe it's everyones right to bare arms but not to have high capacity weapons that can take out a lot of people before reloading. Originally Posted by The DarkSide

Let me educate you "automatic weapons" are regulated by the ATF and have been since 1934 no one can just walk in off the street it takes lengthy paperwork and multiple checks by law enforcement agencies. Regarding normal capacity magazines there is no such thing as a "high capacity" any person off the street can reload a gun in less than 5 seconds and people with training can do it under a second. Are you going to take the chance that the next shooter has any training and rush him while he is reloading?

i really think that a lot of people even our politicians dont know the difference between fully auto and semi auto. or the difference between a clip and a magazine. all a assault rifle is, is a rifle with cosmetics added.....look at the mini 14 in this link all are the same gun just different cosmetics....http://www.tnkguns.com/Ruger-Rifles.html

Then add in some of the uneducated who say to get rid of jacketed hollow point rounds also.

I am open to some gun control, but most things being recommended are either going to be ineffective, counter productive, or unconstitutional.

When our politicans decide to put effort into issues, they almost always go for the do something route rather than the do something effective route.

The founding fathers made it very clear that the right to bear arms was not for hunting, noit for defense against criminals and murderers. It was to defend the country against a tyranical government. The government has assault rifles.

The founding fathers made it very clear that the right to bear arms was not for hunting, noit for defense against criminals and murderers. It was to defend the country against a tyranical government. The government has assault rifles. Originally Posted by Omahan

"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."

Actually, I wish they would have been much less vague when they wrote it. That one sentence is open up to so much interpretation.

Do you even think they envisioned our country having a standing army when they wrote it? (that's a question, not a statement)

But anyways, here's my feelings on weapons. While I own hunting rifles, I will not own a weapon who's sole or main design is to kill another human being. That a choice I make. Now, people on this board can tell me how stupid that is, other uses for weapons, etc, etc. But, it is a choice I made and I live with.

You have the right to own a weapon. You make your own choices based on your life experiences and values, morals, etc. ( And good God, I'm not saying your a bad person or immoral for owning a weapon. )

So I am not asking you to give up your right to own a gun.

But I do want the right to take you to civil court if you fail to properly secure your weapon and it ends up being used in a crime against me or my family. Or if it ends up in the hands of my child or another child and harm ensues.

"Assualt weapons" as they have been dubbed where banned in 1994 till 2004. During that time you had several school shootings, one of these in Kentucky the shooter used a .22 rifle, killing 3. In 1999 you had to teenagers kill 13 in Columbine Colorado using pistols and shotguns. Banning a certain type of rifle because of its looks is ineffective and stupid. In the recent shooting, far more damage would have been acheived had the shooter used a shotgun with number 4 buckshot. The shooter could have had a single shot and he would have still killed as many as he did because there was no one to stop him. He could have shot and reloaded as many times as he wanted. The FBI statistics indicate the assault weapons are used in less than 1% of violent crimes in america. The ideas being tossed around about banning weapons is a knee jerk reaction designed more to allow the politician to say he or she did something, then actually solving the problem. If you want to stop this problem change the following:

1. Allow LE to see and know a gun buyers mental history before they allow anyone to purchase a weapon. The law prohibits access to mental records.

2. Make private purchase or individual sales illegal, require all sales and purchases to be processed by a licensed gun sales person. This is a very simple process and only costs $25.00. The seller and buyer goes to a gun dealer, tells them they need to do a sale transfer, the dealer requires the buyer to fill out the proper paperwork and then gets an FBI background check just as if the buyer bought it from the dealer, Failure to transfer a weapon would then be punishable by law. (This is the so called gun show loophole).

3 If a weapon is stolen as in the sandy hook case, the person who's gun it was should be charged with a felony for not properly securing their weapons. All weapons must be secured in a gun safe or some other storage devise designed to prevent access to the weapons. They make safes that allow very quick access, its no longer necessary to "have one in the night stand".

To say weapons such as the AR15 should be banned because there is no sporting us is just BS, it is the primary weapon in 3 gun shooting competitions, its becoming the weapon of choice for varmet and hog hunting.

But anyways, here's my feelings on weapons. While I own hunting rifles, I will not own a weapon who's sole or main design is to kill another human being. That a choice I make. Now, people on this board can tell me how stupid that is, other uses for weapons, etc, etc. But, it is a choice I made and I live with.

Your not stupid its your choice, the problem with as lot of people is that because its not their choice, no one should be able to choose one if they feel like they want one.

You have the right to own a weapon. You make your own choices based on your life experiences and values, morals, etc. ( And good God, I'm not saying your a bad person or immoral for owning a weapon. )

So I am not asking you to give up your right to own a gun.

But I do want the right to take you to civil court if you fail to properly secure your weapon and it ends up being used in a crime against me or my family. Or if it ends up in the hands of my child or another child and harm ensues. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

I agree with you BM, I think the law should require owners to secure their guns properly, this includes all guns not just assult weapons. Had the lady in CT secured her weapons properly this would have never happened. The right to owns guns comes with the responsibility to secure them and keep them from falling into the wrong hands.

But anyways, here's my feelings on weapons. While I own hunting rifles, I will not own a weapon who's sole or main design is to kill another human being. That a choice I make. Now, people on this board can tell me how stupid that is, other uses for weapons, etc, etc. But, it is a choice I made and I live with.

You have the right to own a weapon. You make your own choices based on your life experiences and values, morals, etc. ( And good God, I'm not saying your a bad person or immoral for owning a weapon. )

So I am not asking you to give up your right to own a gun.

But I do want the right to take you to civil court if you fail to properly secure your weapon and it ends up being used in a crime against me or my family. Or if it ends up in the hands of my child or another child and harm ensues. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

.............................. .............................. ............are you talking about assault weapons? there is no difference other then cosmetics. just because it looks military doesnt mean you cant use it to hunt or target practice. its the SHOOTER who makes the choice to kill not the GUN.

Let me educate you "automatic weapons" are regulated by the ATF and have been since 1934 no one can just walk in off the street it takes lengthy paperwork and multiple checks by law enforcement agencies. Regarding normal capacity magazines there is no such thing as a "high capacity" any person off the street can reload a gun in less than 5 seconds and people with training can do it under a second. Are you going to take the chance that the next shooter has any training and rush him while he is reloading? Originally Posted by mhop987

Rushing the shooter while he tries to reload a 15 bullet, legal magazine purchased at Walmart is exactly what stopped the az shooter. Google and read what the judge that sentenced him said in a rare op ed article, about laws with reasonable limits on automatic weapons and large magazines. He is a Republican appointed judge who articulates why we need better gun control laws, and still respect our constitutional right to bear arms.

Judge Larry burns, usdc La times http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-73761529/