I submitted my application. Hope I manage to get in before this all goes down.

lets regulate cars!
 

Myo...

If someone steals your car, you should be responsible for any damage or injury resulting from this theft. After all, you wouldn't want to blame the person that actually committed the crime or hold them responsible?

There is no constitutional right to own a car; that is why the government can license drivers and restrict the use of automobiles. When you say the government can restrict gun ownership, your next step is telling people what they are permitted to say regarding free speech, or telling them what religion they are permitted to practice. THAT is why we have a Bill of Rights that guarantee these freedoms....notice that speech is the first followed by the second...the right to keep and bear arms.

JTF

Pilot7576

I am trying to refrain from my comments as I don't want to get banned. The point is Obama everytime he has "voted" it has been for more restriction of lawful citizens wanting to protect themselves. Now I don't know if he wants to end the ffdo program, but I can't believe the "change" in the last 2 months. Good thread, people need to watch closely to what he and Eric Holder really want to do with our country. She is too good to be going down this road. Remember you are responsible for yourself not the governenment. When seconds count the police are minutes away. Be safe.

Please do tell when a legally purchased MACHINE GUN mowed down a bunch of people. Jacka@@

Anyone care to comment on the fact that all the article is pointing out to someone with a trained eye is that the guy is only trying to create a few jobs and any assumption that he intends to shut down the FFDO program is unfounded?

If you want to say Obama wants to end the program, provide some proof.

Hey MyoFace,

I am not sure that you realize that the AK-47 that Obama wants to ban is NOT an automatic "machine gun" type firearm. It is simply a "repeater". Pull the trigger once and it fires one round and no more. The assault weapons ban that will most assuredly become law very soon under Obama will ban weapons because of their "look".

So there is no possible way to make them shoot more than bullet at a time? You know, the funny thing here is I have no issue with gun ownership, just done responsibly. Some of the people on here seem to take issue with the responsibility part of it. That scares me.

how many guns do you REALLY need and does it need to be an uzi?. well lets see.
How many drinks do you REALLY need to take the edge off?
How many clubs do you REALLY need in your bag and do they need to be callawys?
How many TV sets do you REALLY need and do they need to be 50 in.?
How many cars do you REALLY need and do they need to be SUV's
How many motorcycles do you REALLY need and do they need to be harleys?
I'm not making an attack on you personally , just trying to make a point.

And your point is that you or the government can decide what the individual really "needs". Is that your point? Just curious, how do you see that working. I would like to hear your plan for everyone or is it just "trust us"

where did you get that from what I said?

Fish,

The government/congress makes those decisions all the time.

The Second Amendment that many base their argument on in here was passed by the, ahh, government.

My point was , ewrbasedpilot seems to feel that having a collection of more than one firearm is excessive. That can be said about anything in life and I don't agree with him. Personally don't agree with gun controll and have a gun collection myself. Some are for protection, some are for hunting and some are for just because I wanted them.

I guess I don't see where I brought the government in to the discussion.

Everyone here agrees with responsible firearm ownership. Among gun owners it is my guess that the majority would agree on the current restriction on automatic weapons for example. This is reasonable. It is not reasonable to ban a weapon because of its "look".

A "repeater" AK-47 type weapon can indeed be modified with an appropriate kit. This is highly illegal. It is also highly illegal to buy a fully auto AK-47 as it should be. But if someone wants an automatic weapon they will get one and they will break the law doing so. Banning a "repeating" AK-47 ( functionally just the same as a "repeating" deer rifle ) will not prevent this from happening. It only infringes upon law-abiding citizens and the founders did not intend this right to be infringed upon.

If you are interested, do some research on why Thomas Jefferson valued the second amendment and why it ranks number 2 only behind the right to free speech.

By the way, I do not own a firearm, but I understand the reason behind the amendment and how vital it is that we retain that right and when frivolous gun laws are posited we all need to take note and be concerned.

Now I see get your point, the government part came from gun control is always about government control. At least thats the way I see it, especially after a few Stella's:D

Roger that!

I love guns. They are fun. What's wrong with that? Why limit me, a proud gun carrying American, when I've never committed a crime in my life using one? Do you think the guys committing the crimes with them are taking the time to fill out a background check?

I don't know. Why punish me for being a responsible citizen who pays my debts on time? I didn't create this stupid banking mess, housing mess, or that dang AIG mess. But you, I, & a lot of other responsible people are paying for that everyday. Not only do I have to pay for my families health care, I have to pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants & bums who can't be turned away from an emergency room, or a jobless person who doesn't know how to use birth control.

TD, it seems like the more responsible we are, the more we get punished.

Actually, an AK-47 will allow one to defend himself from a large amount of people in a very short period of time. Or a few people at close range if he is a bad shot. Or a horde of zombies if he is a good shot and can reload on the run.

One of the good things about an AK or tricked-out Bushmaster is the impression it gives an intruder. Brandish one at the top of the stairs and watch the badguys scatter without firing a shot. But for this purpose the sound of a shotgun being racked in the dark is the best recipe for putting a wet spot on a burgler's crotch.

A gun is just a tool, like a hammer, or a chainsaw, or an alligator.
- Homer Simpson

What I own is REALLY none of your business. Welcome to America. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to with hunting. The 2nd amendment is the one amendment that guaranties the rest of them.

But what in the heck does this have to do with the FFDO program?

By the way you folks who are spouting off about "automatic" weapons being used in crimes need a serious lesson in terminology. "Automatic" weapons require a Class three licensed dealer to be transferred and to be legally obtained require a tax stamp and some other serious background and criminal history checks. If a legally purchased "automatic" weapon has ever been used in a crime it was a very rare incident indeed. I know "automatic" sounds more dramatic and is the favored word of holophobes in the anti gun crowd but using it to describe semi automatic weapons simply makes you sound ignorant and indoctrinated.

[quote=Airhoss;584514]
The 2nd amendment is the one amendment that guaranties the rest of them.

How so? And, what is a holophobe? One who is afraid of holes?

or a stream of laser in the bad guys forehead!

I have NO problem with people owning guns..............responsibly. The 2nd amendment says:

“ 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. ”

The 2nd amendment has caused more controversy due to it's "interpretations", just like the right to "free speech" includes (through interpretation of the Supreme Court) being able to burn the American flag. How that is "speech" is beyond me, because if I call someone an idiot, they can sue me for "mentally disparaging them" and then it's not "free speech" any more......it's an insulting, harming, damaging, remark. Watch TV and any time a public figure uses their right to "free speech" and say something controversial, they are tarred and feathered. Go figure. I guess most of these "gun nuts" NEED 60 guns in their arsenal for protection. I'm surprised most of them leave their homes during the day for fear someone is going to take them out. Yep, those guns packed away in a safe sure will protect them on the street, won't they? Maybe they need a tank to live in too, that way they'll be even more protected than a lousy AK-47...............:p BTW, we've already had a few "whacko's" have their guns taken away from them. Scary, isn't it?

Well, I will confirm first hand that there might be a movement, but it hasn't halted anything. Yesterday I received the confirmation that I have been invited out to attend training.

I can think of one crime (particular incident) that was used to mow people down with an AK-47 type weapon in the past 15 years.... that incident happened in the People's Republic of California... the weapons used already illegal in so many ways (to include a class III weapon - which you can't just buy with a simple ncis check)

"Assault weapons" - account for < 1% of all gun crimes

so your argument doesn't hold much salt.

[quote=TheDashRocks;584610]"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - DOI

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they set this whole shin-dig up. History is replete with governments that have overreached. It is, in fact, the norm, not the exception.

Best to have the 2nd amendment to give tyrannical governments (even "soft" tyranny), pause.

[quote=deltabound;584642]
I for one am thankful that guys like you exercise your "2nd amendment rights." Not only do you protect us from foreign vermin who seek to infest this country, but you also keep the federal government in line! Also, a nice side benefit to all of this is that a huge stockpile of guns really does make you and your family safer. Every skilled and motivated criminal knows that owning guns makes you bullet-proof, and they would never bother to figure out your schedule and try to rip you off when you're not around. (SARCASM!)

Reading all this "protect me and my family" stuff reminded me of one of the SSGT's that used to work with me in the USAF. He had a license plate that said, "this vehicle is protected by a Colt 45". I asked him if I could see it one day and his reply? "Sucker got stolen!" ;)

[quote=deltabound;584642]Dude,

The Constitution is way too complicated for you to tie any of it so simplisticly to a clause from the Declaration of Independence, then prertend to know what the Founders wanted. For your argument to make any sense, you would have to totally ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment. You know, the part that says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,...." Who is it that you think regulated the militia? The State Governments.

My point is that it is too complicated. Even the fact that the capatilized "State" means something. Ill be back in a bit for more discussion, because this is fun. :)

New K Now

[quote=TheDashRocks;584610]It is an irrational phobia of weapons. What Deltabound quoted explains it all. If some members here feel the need to wipe their collective bums with the writings of our founding fathers it's is their business. That's the great thing about America isn't it?

Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama continues,
 

it WAS the great thing about America. So, if you hate guns and my right to own them in any form, that is fine. But do not infringe on my right to do so as I will not infringe or attempt to jam my moral/ethic code on you. Ask an Aussie how it was when the government went door to door to take guns away. Ask about the increase in crime as criminals could be pretty sure that they had free access to homes with no fear of 9mm retribution from a startled owner. Ask that Aussie how he felt clutching a knife or axe, as some of the posters here claim are suitable replacements, when an armed intruder, or even unarmed intruder, made his way in. Ask him how it felt to have to fight hand to hand to stop the assault on his home and family. Criminals will always have access to guns. Period. Why take away a deterrent? Why make it easier for the government to continue the erosion of rights? You may laugh and cry out about conspiracy theories and how it will never happen in the good old USA.... But the Aussies thought the same thing. As did the Brits. And look at how they are fighting an uphill battle to regain their swiftly lost rights.

I want to know how all this "firepower" is supposed to protect you when you aren't carrying it with you? If you're that afraid that someone is going to "snuff you out", then I suppose you carry all your "protective" weapons with you at all times? If not, then the argument that you need them for protection is pretty shallow.............. While the freedom to do certain things is nice, it's gotten our country into a bit of a mess. Having weapons is one thing, but preventing the criminals from getting them is another.

I personally don't care if people want to own guns or anything else. In fact, I don't care if you move to Ruby Ridge, build a log cabin, and surround it with a moat and nuclear missles! What I do care about is honesty. I happen to believe that using the 2nd amendment (and even personal security) to justify your stockpile is a bunch of bs. An earlier poster (Toiletduck) said that guns were "fun," and I respect that honesty! Even though I don't own guns, I could imagine that shooting things would be fun! Maybe you just want to impress your friends, or maybe it's some pseudo-phallic thing. Who knows. As far as personal security is concerned, I would like to present the following rule of thumb: until you can DEMONSTRATE that you can pull that trigger WITHOUT HESITATION while looking someone in the eye DURING A HIGH-PRESSURE SITUATION (and splatter their brains all over your wife's new window treatments), DO NOT ASSUME that the gun will be of any use to you in a real confrontation. This is the same concept as giving someone emergencies in the sim. It's one thing to talk about what you would do in a given situation, and another to actually do it when your heart is beating 900 times a minute, you have tunnel-vision, and no fine-motor skills.

There's one other point that I would like to make. I have figured out who some of you are, just as some of you know me and/or have figured out who I am. I find it ironic that some of you will not discuss the details of the FFDO program (which is a good thing), but some of you will advertise in so many words, on a PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM, that you have a stockpile of guns at home (thereby putting you and/or your family at risk)! It is not beyond the realm of possibility for someone to not only figure out who you are, but also your address and your basic schedule. Just something to think about on your next 4 day trip.

Well..
 

There is concealed carry. For out of the home. There are home weapons for, well, the home. As per stockpile... How bottles of booze do you have? One kind of vodka? Stick with just one kind of beer? Like only one white wine? So, if you own more, is that considered a stockpile? Do you HONESTLY need more than one variety? Do you believe that drunk driving. which has killed more people than guns, should be used as a reason to limit your freedom to purchase more than one type of alcohol, as people get killed by drunk drivers? When a drunk drivers plows into a car and kills 4 people, isn't that as bad as someone with an AK shooting people? So, ban cars. Ban the liquor that relieved that person of their personal responsibility. Stabbings with knives? Been in ER's a good bit and can tell you knifings blow out gun wounds many times over as violent crimes. Go ask your ER doctors what they see more. Inner city as well.
It is fun to shoot things at the range with different firearms. And, much as I am no John Wayne, I have been in situations where a gun has been been pulled and can without hesitation say that if it was either me or the fine upstanding criminals trying to kick in my door who were going to walk out of the situation, pulling that trigger to save me, my wife or my kids would have been instinctual. I agree. Some training can make you cocky and therefore useless in the event of a real life situation. But if it came down to protecting your family, and all you had was a gun while someone came in, and God forbid, went for your wife or tried to hurt your kids, would you simply yell "Help" and "Run" or would you fire? But, being a non gun owner, which is fine, what would you do? Think about that on your next 4 day as you wave goodbye to your family. My wife is well trained and respectful of guns. But is willing, I hope, to protect our kids in an event like the above. I sure as heck hope she never has to, as the ramifications, mentally, last for years after. But at least your pulse is still going and you will have the time to work the issues out.
I have no intention of moving to Ruby Ridge. But it may be a possibility if the government wants to take away my freedoms. These freedoms were paid for in blood. There is no reason they shouldn't be defended with such. If you like being herded like sheep, given all your basic needs on a government platter and feel the need to be over-governed by people who will make decisions for you, have at it. But do it in Russia, or Cuba. Leave America, land of the FREE, to those who like it like that.

The government takes away your freedoms all the time.

Are you free to buy crack?
Are you free to drive 125mph on the highways?
You willingly allow yourself to be hearded like sheep all the time.

What Constitution...
 

are you living under? Speed limits are limits, not freedoms. Crack is a drug and illegal. Neither are mentioned in the US Constitution. Maybe in the Martian one.

The stockpile argument is lacking - it can be compared to many things.

Your other point...which I agree somewhat about being able to pull the trigger, when you take the concealed weapons class, one of the things pounded over and over is the rules of the road for pulling the trigger. You can't use your weapon as a show of force... if you unholster your weapon, you had better be willing to pull the trigger without any second thoughts - and it is paramount you should be able to hit your target.

There are three parties involved in a crime: The victim, the criminal, and the police .... who of those is the last to show up?

So based on what I'm reading, many on this forum would have NO PROBLEM with EVERYONE carrying concealed weapons as long as they were "properly trained". That'd sure make me feel safe...........:rolleyes: The first time someone feels "threatened", they'd pop the other guy off. Then it's going to be "who's got better and bigger firepower", who's faster on the draw, who's aim is better, etc. We'll be setting ourselves up for quite a show. Hopefully I'm not there to enjoy it. I guess we should all be going out and buying Tasers next.

There are quite a bit of people in certain states that do carry quite often... I'd venture to say in States that prohibit such a thing, the crime rates are higher - particularly in California -

I guess all of those people with their "stockpiles" are constantly mowing down other people they don't like :rolleyes:

Last I knew, people didn't brag about the number or kinds of Vodka they had in their liquor cabinets, nor were their kids sneaking into their liquor stash to blow someone away. They didn't brag about having 15 cases of beer in the fridge, nor was drinking and driving "legal". Anyone over 21, including criminals can buy liquor. Hollow arguments...........